{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_41019/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_41019","id":"gutenberg_41019","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41019","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - American","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Slavery -- United States"],"text":"LECTURES ON THE Philosophy and Practice OF SLAVERY,\n    AS EXHIBITED IN THE INSTITUTION OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY\n    IN THE UNITED STATES:\n\n    WITH THE\n    Duties of Masters to Slaves.\n\n    BY\n    WILLIAM A. SMITH, D.D.,\n    PRESIDENT OF RANDOLPH-MACON COLLEGE,\n    AND PROFESSOR OF MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL PHILOSOPHY.\n\n    EDITED BY THOMAS O. SUMMERS, D.D.\n\n\n    Nashville, Tenn.:\n    STEVENSON AND EVANS.\n    1856.\n\n\n         Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by\n         WILLIAM A. SMITH, In the Office of the Clerk of the District\n         Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.\n\n\n    STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY A. A. STITT,\n    SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE, NASHVILLE, TENN.\n\n\n\n\n     Contents.\n\n\n     PREFACE\n\n\n     LECTURE I.\n\n     INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON THE SUBJECT OF AFRICAN SLAVERY IN THE\n     UNITED STATES.\n\n     General subject enunciated--Why this discussion may be regarded\n     as humiliating by Southern people--Other stand-points, however,\n     disclose an urgent necessity, at this time, for a thorough\n     investigation of the whole subject--The results to which it is\n     the object of these lectures to conduct the mind\n\n\n     LECTURE II.\n\n     THE ABSTRACT PRINCIPLE OF THE INSTITUTION OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY.\n\n     If the system be sinful, _per se_, the sin of it must be found\n     in the principle--Is the principle sinful?--The principle\n     defined--Objections to the term \u201csubmission\u201d answered--The\n     effects of Mr. Jefferson\u2019s doctrine upon many conscientious\n     persons in the Southern States\n\n\n     LECTURE III.\n\n     OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.\n\n     Objections classified--Popular views discussed--\u201cAll men are\n     born free and equal\u201d--\u201cAll men are created equal\u201d--\u201cAll men in\n     a state of nature are free and equal\u201d--And the particular form\n     in which Dr. Wayland expresses the popular idea, viz., \u201cThe\n     relation in which men stand to each other is the relation of\n     equality; not equality of condition, but equality of\n     right\u201d--Remarks on Dr. Wayland\u2019s course--His treatise on Moral\n     Science as a text-book.\n\n\n     LECTURE IV.\n\n     THE QUESTION OF RIGHTS DISCUSSED.\n\n     Why it is necessary to define the term RIGHTS--The RIGHT in\n     itself defined to be the GOOD--The doctrine that the will of\n     God is the origin of the right considered--The will of God not\n     the origin of the right, but an expression of the right which\n     is the GOOD--Natural rights and acquired rights, each defined\n\n\n     LECTURE V.\n\n     THE DOCTRINES OF RIGHTS APPLIED TO GOVERNMENT.\n\n     Government, human as well as Divine, is a necessity of man\u2019s\n     fallen condition--All men concur in this--Man did not originate\n     government: he has only modified the form--The legitimate\n     objects of government, and the means which it employs to effect\n     these objects--The logical inferences: 1. Although he has the\n     power, he has no _right_ to do _wrong_; 2. As a fallen being,\n     he is, without a government over him, liable to lose the power\n     of self-control--What are the rights of man, 1. In a state of\n     infancy, 2. In a state of maturity, and, 3. In a savage or\n     uncivilized state--Civil government is not founded on a\n     concession of rights\n\n\n     LECTURE VI.\n\n     THE ABSTRACT PRINCIPLE OF SLAVERY DISCUSSED ON SCRIPTURE\n     GROUNDS, AND MISREPRESENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLE EXAMINED.\n\n     The true subjective right of self-control defined according to\n     the Scriptures--The abstract principle of slavery sanctioned by\n     the Scriptures--The Roman government--Dr. Wayland\u2019s Scripture\n     argument examined and refuted--The positions of Dr. Channing\n     and Professor Whewell examined and refuted\n\n\n     LECTURE VII.\n\n     THE INSTITUTION OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY.\n\n     The question stated--The conduct of masters a separate\n     question--The institution defined--The position of the\n     abolitionists, and that of the Southern people--The\n     _presumption_ is in favor of the latter--Those who claim\n     freedom for the blacks of this country failed to secure it to\n     those on whom they professed to confer it--The _doctrine_ by\n     which they seek to vindicate the claim set up for them,\n     together with the _fact_ of history assumed to be true, is\n     false\n\n\n     LECTURE VIII.\n\n     DOMESTIC SLAVERY, AS A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE AFRICANS IN\n     AMERICA, EXAMINED AND DEFENDED ON THE GROUND OF ITS ADAPTATION\n     TO THE PRESENT CONDITIONS OF THE RACE.\n\n     There should be a separate and subordinate government for our\n     African population--Objection answered--Africans are not\n     competent to that measure of self-government which entitles a\n     man to political sovereignty--They were not prepared for\n     freedom when first brought into the country; hence they were\n     placed under the domestic form of government--The humanity of\n     this policy--In the opinion of Southern people, they are still\n     unprepared--The fanaticism and rashness of some, and the\n     inexcusable wickedness of others, who oppose the South\n\n\n     LECTURE IX.\n\n     THE NECESSITY FOR THE INSTITUTION OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY\n     EXEMPLIFIED BY FACTS.\n\n     The attempts made at domestic colonization--The result of the\n     experiment in the case of our free colored population--The\n     colonization experiment on the coast of Africa--The example of\n     the Canaanitish nations--Summary of the argument on the general\n     point, and inferences\n\n\n     LECTURE X.\n\n     EMANCIPATION DOCTRINES DISCUSSED.\n\n     Gradual emancipation the popular plan--It would operate to\n     collect the slaves into a few States, cut them off from contact\n     with civilization, and reduce them to barbarism--It would make\n     an opening for Northern farmers and their menials to come into\n     those States from which they retired--The modifications which\n     the system of slavery has undergone within late years--A\n     comparison of the menials of the free and of the slave States,\n     and the only plan of emancipation admissible--The gospel the\n     only remedy for the evils of slavery--Paul\u2019s philosophy and\n     practice, 1 Tim. vi. 1-5\n\n\n     LECTURE XI.\n\n     TEACHING THE SLAVES TO READ AND WRITE.\n\n     Superiors frequently neglect inferiors--The policy of the South\n     vindicated by necessity--The results that would follow an\n     _attempt_ to establish a system for instructing the blacks in\n     letters, and those which would follow the establishment of such\n     a system--The domestic element of the system of slavery in the\n     Southern States affords the means for their improvement adapted\n     to their condition and the circumstances of the country--It\n     affords the _natural_, _safe_, and the effectual means of the\n     intellectual and moral elevation of the race--The prospects of\n     the Africans in this country, and their final removal to\n     Africa--The country never will be entirely rid of them--The\n     Southern policy wise and humane\n\n\n     LECTURE XII.\n\n     THE CONSERVATIVE INFLUENCE OF THE AFRICAN POPULATION OF THE\n     SOUTH.\n\n     Preliminary remarks--American party--The present and\n     prospective condition of our country--The large number of\n     voters in the free-soil States who will be under a foreign\n     influence, political and religious, inducing them to discard\n     the Bible and the right of private judgment--The freedom of the\n     Southern States from this anti-Christian and anti-republican\n     influence--The presence of the African race in the Southern\n     States secures them this advantage--The unpatriotic policy of\n     freesoilism\n\n\n     LECTURE XIII.\n\n     THE DUTIES OF MASTERS TO SLAVES.\n\n     \u201cMasters, give unto your servants (\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, slaves) that which\n     is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a Master in\n     heaven.\u201d--COL. iv. 1.\n\n     The duty of masters and the rights of slaves reciprocal--1. The\n     duty of masters to their slaves considered as \u201ctheir money:\u201d in\n     regard to working, resting, feeding, clothing, housing, and the\n     employment of persons over them: also to the sick and the aged.\n     2. Their duty to their slaves considered as social\n     beings--Punishments and the social principle discussed. 3.\n     Their duty to their slaves considered as religious\n     beings--Public instruction on the Sabbath and at other times,\n     and the opportunity of attending--The employment of preachers,\n     and the religious instruction of children\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe following pages contain the substance of Lectures on the subject\nof Domestic Slavery in the United States, which for several years have\nbeen delivered to the classes in Moral Science in Randolph Macon\nCollege.\n\nSince the year 1844, I have been frequently called on to discuss this\nsubject on various popular occasions in Virginia and North Carolina.\nMy classes in college were compelled to deal with the subject of\ndomestic slavery. Not only the popular ideas in regard to African\nslavery in this country, but the specific treatment of this topic by\nnumerous text authors in Moral Science, rendered this unavoidable. A\ndeep conviction that the minds of young men were receiving a wrong,\nand, in the present state of the country, a fatal direction, both as\nregards the principles of the institution, and the institution itself,\ninduced me to substitute the text authorities on the subject by a\ncourse of lectures. These lectures, therefore, were originally drawn\nup with a view to oral delivery. They were modified by the\ncircumstances of their origin. In preparing them for the press,\nhowever, I was led to consider the class of persons for whose use they\nwere chiefly designed, and at the same time to adapt them as far as\npossible to the general reader. I was aware of the difficulty of\nfixing definitely on the mind of the student the nature and limits of\nabstract truths, and that this difficulty is, if any thing, greatly\nincreased when we pass to those whose reading is not characterized by\nhabits of thought,--as would be the case with many of those whose\ninterest in the general subject of slavery might induce them to read\nthese lectures. The task of meeting these difficulties was encountered\nwith a measure of painful distrust.\n\nMy views on the subject of slavery, as a practical question, will be\nfound very generally to accord with the popular ideas of those\ncommunities in which the African population chiefly resides. But, as\na question of Moral Science, I will be found to differ, and in some\naspects very materially, from those who have spoken and written on the\nsubject.\n\nThe closing lecture is on the duties of masters to slaves. On this\npoint it may also appear that my views do not accord with those of\nsome others. There are men whose views I judge to be entirely too\nloose on the whole subject. But I should consider any treatise on the\nsubject of slavery as inexcusably defective that did not embrace the\nduties of masters to slaves; and I persuade myself that the number, if\nany, who take a different view of the subject will be found to be\nexceedingly small.\n\nWhether I have acted wisely in endeavoring to combine in one\nperformance a treatise adapted to the habits of the student, and at\nthe same time to the habits of the general reader; and whether I have\nsucceeded to any desirable extent in so difficult an undertaking, it\nis not for me to determine. I can only say, that in giving these\nlectures to the public, I have yielded to the earnest desire, often\nexpressed, of a large number of friends whose judgment is entitled to\nmy highest respect and confidence. In meeting their wishes, I have\nendeavored to do justice to the subject. I have written honestly, and\nwith a sincere desire to do good.\n\nFor the many imperfections of this volume, the author persuades\nhimself that the assurance that it has been written and prepared for\nthe press under the pressure of other important and frequently\ndistracting avocations, will be received as some apology. In the\nhumble hope that it may, nevertheless, shed some light on the\ndifficulties of the general subject, and thereby contribute to diffuse\nsounder views on the principles involved, quiet the irritation of the\npublic mind, and give more stability to our political union, and, at\nthe same time, impress masters more deeply with the importance and\nobligations of their providential position, it is with diffidence\nsubmitted to the judgment of the public.\n\n    RANDOLPH MACON COLLEGE, VA.,\n        _August 18th, 1856_.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURES ON THE Philosophy and Practice of Slavery.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE I.\n\nINTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON THE SUBJECT OF AFRICAN SLAVERY IN THE UNITED\nSTATES.\n\n     General subject enunciated--Why this discussion may be regarded\n     as humiliating by Southern people--Other stand-points, however,\n     disclose an urgent necessity, at this time, for a thorough\n     investigation of the whole subject--The results to which it is\n     the object of these lectures to conduct the mind.\n\n\nThe great question which arises in discussing the slavery of the\nAfrican population of this country--correctly known as \u201cDomestic\nSlavery\u201d--is this: _Is the institution of domestic slavery sinful?_\n\nThe position I propose to maintain in these lectures is, that slavery,\n_per se_, is right; or that the great abstract principle of slavery\nis right, because it is a fundamental principle of the social state;\nand that domestic slavery, as an _institution_, is fully justified by\nthe condition and circumstances (essential and relative) of the\nAfrican race in this country, and therefore equally right.\n\nI confess that it is somewhat humiliating to discuss the question\nenunciated--Is the institution of domestic slavery sinful? The\naffirmative assumes that an immense community of Southern people, of\nundoubted piety, are, nevertheless, involved in great moral\ndelinquency on the subject of slavery. This is a palpable absurdity in\nregard to a great many. For nothing is more certain than this, that if\nit be sinful, they either know it, or are competent to know it, and\nhence are responsible. And as no plea of necessity can justify an\nenlightened man in committing known sin, it follows that all such\nSouthern people are highly culpable, which is utterly inconsistent\nwith the admission that they are pious. To say, as some are accustomed\nto do, that \u201cslavery is certainly wrong in the _abstract_,\u201d that is,\nin plain terms, in itself sinful, but that they cannot help\nthemselves, appears to me to be wholly unfounded. It assumes that a\nman may be absolutely compelled to commit sin. This certainly cannot\nbe true. All candid minds will readily allow, that so far as Deity\nhas yet explained himself, he has in no instance enjoined upon man the\nobservance of any principle as his duty, which he may be compelled, in\nthe order of his providence, to violate. It is equally false in fact,\nfor it is not true that we are absolutely compelled to be\nslaveholders. If government be, as it undoubtedly is, the agent of the\npeople, and the people choose, they are certainly competent by this\nagent to free themselves from this institution. True, the immense cost\nof such an enterprise would be the least in the catalogue of evils\nresulting from it; for the total ruin of the African race in this\ncountry may be put down among the rest. But what of all this? Nothing\ncan justify an enlightened and civilized people in committing sin. No;\nnot even the sacrifice of life itself. Withal, if the civil society\nrefuse to make so costly a sacrifice to avoid sin, there is nothing\nthat can compel any individual citizen to remain a slaveholder. He can\nlive in the community, as some do, without even hiring or owning a\nslave; or he can remove to one of the so-called free States. We should\ngive no countenance, therefore, to any such mere attempts to\n_apologize_ for domestic slavery. The conduct of bad men may sometimes\nfind apologists. The conduct of good men always admits _of defence_.\nHence, with many others, I have often been grieved by the repeated\nattempts of certain pseudo-friends to pass off this flimsy and\nridiculous apology as an able defence of the South.\n\nIn maintaining the institution of domestic slavery, we are either\nright or wrong, in a moral point of view. We ask no mere apology on\nthe score of necessity, and we can certainly claim none on the ground\nof ignorance. Those who affirm that we are wrong, directly attack our\nmorals. In doing this, they arraign the character of many thousands,\nwho are among the most civilized and pious people now living. This\nfact alone is a sufficient refutation of so foul an aspersion; and in\nthis view, it may be readily admitted that any attempt at a more\nformal refutation is a humiliating condescension, to which few\nSouthern men can willingly submit.\n\nBut there is another stand-point from which this subject is to be\nviewed, and which reflects it in a very different light, and clearly\nindicates the duty of submitting it to the test of the soundest\nprinciples of philosophy and religion. It is this: _the ascendency\nwhich certain popular errors on the subject of African slavery have\nacquired, and the extent to which they peril the peace of the country,\nif not the very liberties of the whole republic_. I allude to the fact\nthat there are many in the country--and not a few of this number\nspread through our Southern States--who would not intentionally\narraign the piety of their fellow-citizens, but whose minds (it is\npainfully humiliating to know) are in a state of great embarrassment\non this subject; so much so, that they are constantly liable to be\nmade the victims of any fanatical influences abroad in the land, no\nless than the dupes of that large class of political aspirants who,\nreckless of both truth and morals, would secure their elevation at any\nprice.\n\nNor need we wonder at the ascendency of erroneous opinions on the\nsubject of slavery, any more than at the results which they threaten.\n\nAt an early period in our history, Thomas Jefferson denounced domestic\nslavery as sinful, _per se_, and declared that \u201cthere was no attribute\nin the Divine mind which could take sides with the whites in a\ncontroversy between the races:\u201d thus assuming in this remark, that the\nprovidences as well as the attributes of the Deity are against the\nslaveholder. Owing to the prominence given by our Puritan fathers to\nthe higher institutions of learning, together with the fact that the\nsoil and the climate of New England were unfavorable to agricultural\npursuits, citizens of these States have, from an early period in the\nhistory of the republic, supplied the most of the text-books for the\nschools and colleges of the whole country. This grossly offensive\nerror of Mr. Jefferson has been more or less diffused through the\nwhole of these text-books. It has been among the first of speculations\nupon abstract truth presented to the minds of the American people. It\nhas been studiously inculcated from professors\u2019 chairs in colleges and\nuniversities in the Northern States, while Southern literary\ninstitutions have been for the most part silent. The pulpits of the\nSouth have also lent their aid, and in some instances have been\nzealous and active in propagating this error.\n\nAs early as 1780, the Methodists declared, in a general convention of\npreachers, that \u201cslavery is contrary to the laws of God, man, and\nnature, and hurtful to society; contrary to the dictates of conscience\nand pure religion; doing that which we would not that others should do\nto us and ours; and that we pass our disapprobation upon all our\nfriends who keep slaves, and advise their freedom.\u201d This doctrine was\nre\u00e4sserted after the organization of the Church in 1784, and, with\nshort intervals of time, and unimportant variations of phraseology,\nthe essential features of this doctrine have been adhered to until the\npresent time, by this most numerous body of professing Christians in\nthis country. At an early day, Bishop Coke, of the M. E. Church,\nopenly advocated this doctrine in the pulpits of the country, until\nsilenced by the force of public opinion; yet he did not cease, while\nhe remained in the country, to exert the full amount of his personal\ninfluence in private and social circles against the institution of\ndomestic slavery. His example was followed by a large number of his\npreachers, and many ministers of other Christian denominations, who\nimbibed the same doctrine and were animated by the same spirit of\nhostility to the institution; and who, like himself, were only held in\nabeyance by the same force of public opinion. Many politicians, also,\nthere were, from time to time, who did not scruple to avow Mr.\nJefferson\u2019s doctrine, and like him affect to foresee dreadful\ncalamities overhanging the country as a consequence of domestic\nslavery. In view of these facts, it cannot be a matter of surprise\nthat abolition opinions and sentiments should pervade the\nnon-slaveholding sections of the country; and that at least a private\nbut painful impression or suspicion that there must be something wrong\nin the principle of domestic slavery, should be found to pervade a\nportion even of the Southern mind. Reluctant as we may be to admit the\ntruth, necessity compels us to do so. Let the following facts bear\nwitness.\n\nNo communities on earth are so free from domestic insurrections, and\nthe disturbing influences which come up from the lower orders of\nsociety as those of the Southern States of this Union. The social\ncondition of England and Ireland, and the states of the continent of\nEurope, are perpetually subject to the disturbing and ruinous\ninfluence of local, and often widely spread, insurrectionary movements\nagainst the social order, and even the safety of the governments. Nor\nare the Northern States of this Union any more free from these\nagrarian movements, than may be accounted for by the relative\nsparseness of their population. Yet a general feeling of security\npervades all these people, whilst it is notorious that there are a\ngreat many in Southern communities who are in a constant state of\nfeverish excitement on the subject of domestic insurrections. Any\nannouncement of that kind is sufficient to convulse a whole community.\nThe trifling affair of Nat. Turner (trifling compared with the\nfrequent disturbances and loss of life common in the communities just\nreferred to) painfully agitated the whole State of Virginia; and\noccupied her Legislature through a whole winter in grave discussions\nas to the \u201cbest means of freeing the State from the incubus of\nslavery.\u201d These results have all followed from the causes at which we\nhave glanced.\n\nIn this state of things, it is in vain to appeal to the fact that Mr.\nJefferson, though a profound statesman, and to some extent a\nlogician, was neither a divine nor a metaphysician; and that no people\non the globe have shared more largely in the blessings of a bountiful\nProvidence than those of the Southern States of this Union. In the\nprogress of civilization and religion, they have advanced more rapidly\nthan any communities in the country. Still, Mr. Jefferson\u2019s name does\nnot lose its enchantment; and having already learned to despise the\nunexampled blessings of Providence, many of the Southern people\nactually believed--until railroad communications began to dispel the\nillusion--that their own happy States were really falling back in\ncivilization to the darkness of the middle ages. Add to all this, the\nhalls of legislation continue to echo the opinion that \u201cdomestic\nslavery is a great moral, political, and social evil.\u201d In this\nconnection, the phrase, moral evil, is restricted to its appropriate\nmeaning, _sin_. No doubt, Messrs. Doddridge, Rives, Clay, Webster, and\nmany others--illustrious names!--who have substantially used this\nlanguage in various connections, only meant to deprecate the evils of\nslavery in strong terms, that they might propitiate a more favorable\nconsideration of what they had to say in its defence. But if we be\ncorrect in the position already postulated, it is quite time our\npoliticians, no less than our ecclesiastics, had learned to chasten\ntheir language on this subject. The fountains of public thought and\nfeeling have, to a great extent, been poisoned: that is, the abstract\nopinions and religious sentiments of the people have been corrupted\nand perverted.\n\nThe three great Protestant denominations[1] of the country have been\ntorn asunder. The flags of their time-honored unions are trailing in\nthe dust; and they have ceased to operate as bonds to our political\nunion. A secret suspicion of the morality of African slavery in the\nSouth, occupies the minds of many of our best citizens--citizens who\nare at a vast remove from the fanaticism which stigmatizes those who\nare known as the ultra abolitionists of the country. The great family\nof Methodists in the District of Columbia, the slave States of\nDelaware and Maryland, in Western Virginia, and a part of Missouri,\nretain their connection with the abolition division of the M. E.\nChurch. All along the line of division between the M. E. Church,\nNorth, and the M. E. Church, South,--running through Virginia,\nKentucky, and Missouri,--the evils resulting from the conflict and\nstrife of opinions on this subject are daily multiplying. The\nexperiment of abolition fanaticism is progressing; and the souls as\nwell as the bodies of men are in the crucible. It is clear that\n\u201cwhilst we have slept, an enemy hath sown these tares,\u201d in our\nliterature, our politics, and our theology.\n\n     [1] The Methodists and Baptists, it is well known, divided\n     directly upon the subject of slavery; and the Presbyterians\n     mediately upon a question of constitutional law; but there is\n     reason to believe that the slavery agitation in the\n     Presbyterian Church precipitated a division, which otherwise\n     would probably have been averted.\n\nTwo striking phenomena remain to be noticed and accounted for. Amid\nall the conflict of opinion and feeling upon this subject,--which was\ninseparable from doctrines so utterly at war with the practices of the\ncountry--a conflict which at an early period found its way into the\nhalls of legislation, civil and ecclesiastical, and has not ceased to\nthe present time to modify the federal politics of the country,--the\nAfrican population has yielded only to certain physical and moral laws\nas to the place of its location; whilst the institution of slavery,\nwhich embodies the great mass of that population in the country, has\nheld on the even tenor of its way, unchecked in the slightest degree\nby the antagonistic doctrines and sentiments which have warred so\nfiercely against it, and which at so many periods have threatened the\ncountry with a legion of disastrous consequences. In the first place,\nthe African population has gradually receded to those sections of the\nUnion which, from their climate and soil, were better adapted to\nslave labor. Why did not the abstract opinions and sentiments set\nforth by Mr. Jefferson and the M. E. Church, and which are supposed to\nhave given birth to the emancipation laws of the Northern States,\noperate to retain within those States the large portion of slave\npopulation then held, and secure their practical freedom? Why did they\nescape the supposed charity of these doctrines, and find their way,\nnot as freemen, but as slaves, to a climate and soil more congenial to\ntheir nature and destiny? Are these doctrines real abstract truths, as\ntheir advocates profess to believe them to be? Then they are\nfundamental--they are vital--they are life-giving, and can never fail\nto impress their own essential character upon every system to which\nthey are applied. The citizens of the Northern States adopted these\ndoctrines. Then it was an affair of conscience. Emancipation laws were\nsaid to be the result. But that these laws, supposed to be founded in\nthe belief of certain great abstract truths, which secured to the\nAfrican his civil freedom, should operate only to transfer him to a\nclimate and soil better suited to his condition as a slave, is a\nphenomenon for which the hypothesis does not account. And again, the\ninstitution itself, of domestic slavery, by reason of causes which are\nevidently, though mysteriously, at work, is this day more firmly\ngrounded in the confidence of the great mass of the Southern people,\nand more extensively ramified and interlocked with other civil\ninstitutions of the whole country, than at any former period of its\nhistory! How is this? The abstract opinions and sentiments in\nquestion, pervading our literature, our politics, and our theology,\nhave been adopted by so many of our citizens as to entitle the\ndoctrine to be regarded as a kind of national belief--the sentiment a\nkind of national feeling. We are told that all men _believe_ slavery\nto be wrong in principle; that is, wrong in itself! and that all men\nfeel that it is wrong! And certain it is, there is more truth than\nfiction in all this! It is strictly true, as to the citizens of the\nso-called free States. The same doctrine is not without advocates at\nthe South; whilst many more, as we have before stated, who may not be\nsaid to believe it, are nevertheless often the subjects of painful\nmisgivings. They _fear_ it may be true. The causes to which we have\ntraced this, fully account for it; and we need not fear to state the\ntruth. But then again, the question recurs--How is this, that the\ninstitution itself, a great practical truth, should daily, for a long\nseries of years, become more and more practical--a fixed fact in the\ncountry? Truly, this is a phenomenon for which the philosophy of the\nday will not account. If those who believed this doctrine were\nruthless fanatics--ultra abolitionists in the strictest sense--if\nthose who oppose it were really \u201cpro-slavery\u201d men, in the bad sense in\nwhich certain persons understand this phrase, that is, men who, on the\nsubject of slavery, wickedly do what they know and feel to be wrong:\non either hypothesis we could account for the phenomenon in question.\nBut these are not the men with whom I deal in these lectures. I lay\nall such out of the account. They are men not to be reasoned with. No:\nthe men of whom I speak, both North and South, are candid, honest men.\nI personally know many of them at the North. I have met them on great\nbattle-fields, where more than blood was shed! I know them to be good\nmen and true, and I believe the same of the large class they\nrepresent. With many of those at the South who affiliate with them in\nopinion as firm believers in Jefferson\u2019s doctrine, or whose embryo\nopinions excite painful misgivings of mind, I have often communed\nfreely, and have equal confidence in their integrity and honesty. The\nwhole taken together form a very numerous class, and may be safely\nregarded as embodying the national belief and feeling on the subject\nof slavery. And yet we find that slavery is a great practical truth, a\nfixed fact in the country. Now, can it be true that this opinion and\nfeeling embodies a great abstract truth--a fundamental, vital,\nimmutable principle, which never did and never can fail to hold\npractical error in check, because it takes hold of the conscience of\nan honest people--and whose tendency, therefore, is always to an\nultimate practical triumph, with all those who honestly receive it? We\ndare not affirm this.\n\nIt is not mere belief, nor is it mere honesty, that produces results\nin practice; but it is the _reception of the truth in an honest\nheart_, which can never fail to result in practice. Now in this case\nthe people are honest, and the people believe; and if it be essential\ntruth which they thus believe, then, we say, the fact that in all\nthose States of this republic in which climate and soil are adapted to\nAfrican labor--that precisely there the institution of domestic\nslavery should be rooted in the practice of a large portion of this\nbelieving and honest people, and that it should strike its roots into\nthe federal constitution, and penetrate deeper and deeper every year\ninto the legislation of the whole country, and thus implicate more and\nmore the whole mass of this believing people in the sin of it, is a\nphenomenon, for which the postulate, that it is the truth they\nbelieve, does not account--nor can it be made to account.\n\nA false principle may be believed to be the truth. And a false\nprinciple believed, has its results, because it is believed; and they\nvery much resemble the results of truth believed. But we dare not\nadmit that error can take hold of the conscience as pure principle,\nessential truth will do it. But, again, there is another great\npsychological fact, which is often overlooked. A false principle may\nbe honestly believed by minds which, at the same time, adopt\nantagonistic principles that are essential truths; but, owing to\nvarious causes calculated to confuse the ideas, the inconsistency is\nnot perceived. Now, in such a case as this, the principle of essential\ntruth is really brought into practical antagonism with essential\nerror, and that in the same minds and upon the same subject. And as\ntruth is more powerful than error in the minds of all honest people,\nthe truth holds its way in practical results, in defiance of false\nprinciple, which is relatively powerless in the presence of truth. The\nantagonism between the false principle and the practical results of\nthings may be perceived and acknowledged; whilst the antagonism of the\nfalse principle with the true principle, which underlies and produces\nthese practical results by a law of its own operation, is not only not\nperceived, but actually denied to exist. Now so long as this false\nprinciple is honestly believed to be true, and clearly perceived to be\nin conflict with the _practice_, but not perceived to be in conflict\nwith other and more latent principles, which are in themselves\n_truths_, and admitted to be _truths_, and which produce this\n_practice_, just so long will this false principle wage war, by the\nsimple law of belief, against this _practice_. But as this war is not\nsufficiently potent to overturn this practice, because it is founded\non the belief of principles _true_ in themselves, the practice will\nremain; and so long as this false belief remains, the strife with the\npractice must remain. Hence, if this be the state of the public mind\nin this country on the subject of African slavery, and it find no\nefficient remedy, we can see nothing awaiting us but interminable\nstrife--men against themselves--the country against the country! We\nforbear to sketch the future.\n\nBut, young gentlemen, I submit if this psychology may not furnish a\nsolution of the phenomena I have brought to your notice, and also a\nremedy against that otherwise interminable strife which has already\ndone so much to impair the moral power and blight the fairest hopes of\nthe country. May it not be that in admitting the great abstract\ndoctrine of Mr. Jefferson, that the principle of African slavery is,\n_per se_, sinful, and that, as such, the attributes and providence of\nDeity are opposed to all who practice it, we have most unwisely\nadmitted a false doctrine? And as this false doctrine, though honestly\nbelieved by a number sufficiently large to designate it as the\nnational belief and the national feeling, has utterly failed to\nabolish or even to modify the institution of African slavery, does it\nnot afford a strong and clear presumption, to say the least, that this\nsystem which has held unbroken dominion over the African race in this\ncountry for over two centuries, and which continues to strike its\nroots deeper and deeper into all the relations of society, North and\nSouth--that this system, so potent in practical results, and so\nheedless of the fierce war that is waged against it, is, after all,\n_underlaid_ somewhere by a _vast mine of principles_--_pure essential\ntruths_--which are firmly rooted in the belief of all civilized and\nhonest men, and which, all along, have imparted a spontaneous being\nand activity to the system, and will continue to do so perhaps as long\nas any considerable portion of the race shall remain in the country?\n\nIf this hypothesis shall prove true, the sovereign remedy for the\notherwise interminable strife, so potent for mischief, is at hand. Let\nus then free ourselves, let us free the country, of the dominion of\nMr. Jefferson\u2019s philosophy, because it is false. In doing this, we\nshall terminate the conflict which now rages with so much violence. We\nshall be free to address ourselves to any modifications in the system\nof African slavery which may be demanded to adapt it to the progress\nof civilization.\n\nRegarding the whole subject in this light, the duty of thoroughly\ninvestigating it seems to me to be laid upon the country as a moral\nnecessity. It is useless to talk of \u201cdelicacy and humiliation,\u201d in the\npresence of such fruits as a false philosophy has already borne\nplentifully throughout the land.\n\nAs your chosen instructor, I owe you a service. I dare not give up\nyour minds to the dominion of Wayland\u2019s Philosophy, (your text,) nor\nto any other text on this subject, now known to the country. I propose\nto lead your way in _exploring the mine of truth_ which we may assume\nto underlie the system of African slavery. We may look with confidence\nto reach these results:\n\n1. That the philosophy of Jefferson is false, and that the opposite is\ntrue, namely, that the great abstract principle of domestic slavery\nis, _per se_, RIGHT; and therefore it is not in the use but in the\nabuse of this principle that we are liable to sin, and thereby incur\nthe Divine displeasure.\n\n2. That we should have a Southern literature. Our schools must be\nsupplied with correct text-books on this subject. The poison which our\ntexts now contain must be distilled from them by the learned of the\nland. The Church should not only right herself as she has done in the\nSouth, but her voice should be heard in the pulpit enforcing _right\nprinciples_, as well as right duties, upon this subject. Truth is at\nall times intolerant of any abuse. Her voice should certainly be heard\nunder circumstances so urgent as the present. It is due to many in\nSouthern communities whose minds are, more or less, disturbed by the\nlong-continued abuse of the pulpit, and the social influence of\nmistaken ministers of religion in private life. It is due to the\ninterests of our common country. We have lost much already in\nsuppressing the truth. We have much to gain by boldly asserting her\nclaims--for \u201ctruth is great, and will prevail.\u201d\n\n    \u201cTruth crushed to earth will rise again:\n      The eternal years of God are hers;\n    But Error, wounded, writhes in pain,\n      And dies amid her worshippers.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE II.\n\nTHE ABSTRACT PRINCIPLE OF THE INSTITUTION OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY.\n\n     If the system be sinful, _per se_, the sin of it must be found\n     in the principle--Is the principle sinful?--The principle\n     defined--Objections to the term submission answered--The effect\n     of Mr. Jefferson\u2019s doctrine upon many conscientious persons in\n     the Southern States.\n\n\nI now propose to enter directly upon the inquiry, _Is the institution\nof domestic slavery sinful?_ My plan will make it necessary, in this\nlecture, to limit the inquiry to the _principle_ of the institution.\nIf the institution be sinful, it must be so either in the abstract\nprinciple it involves, or in the specific form under which it embodies\nthat principle, or in both. In either case, Mr. Jefferson\u2019s doctrine\nis verified; for if the _abstract principle_ be wrong, then the\ninstitution which envelops the principle, and from which it derives\nits character, is of course wrong. It certainly is never right to act\nupon a wrong principle. Injustice, as a principle, is confessedly\nwrong in itself, according to the ideas of all mankind. No form which\nan action can take will make it right, if it proceed upon an unjust\nprinciple. Hence, no circumstances can justify any man in knowingly\ndoing an act of injustice. If the institution of domestic slavery\nenvelops the idea of injustice, or any similar element, as its generic\nor abstract principle, in such case it would certainly be wrong both\nin principle and in practice; that is, wrong in itself; and we should,\nwithout scruple, abandon the controversy. But a similar conclusion\nwill not follow from a contrary proposition; that is, it will not\nfollow, that if the abstract principle of the institution be right,\nthe institution itself is right; because the truth of a conditional\nproposition does not turn on the hypothesis, but on the _consequent_,\nas both true in itself and dependent upon the antecedent condition.\nThat this is not the case in this instance is developed by the fact\nthat the _affirmative_ proposition involved in this conditional is, in\nitself, an absurdity, viz., \u201cAn _abstract principle_ of action being\nright, the _action itself_ is right.\u201d This is absurd. For instance,\njustice, in itself, is a _right principle_ of action, according to the\nideas of all mankind; but it does not follow that all actions which\nproceed upon the principle of _justice_ are _right_ actions. A.\njustly owes B. one hundred dollars: now, to enforce the payment of\nthis money would be in itself a just act, because the money is\nhonestly owed by A.; but if, in doing this, B. should take the last\nbed from under the wife and children of A., and deprive them of the\nlast morsel of bread, the _act itself_ would be a very wicked one, and\nhe would be judged by mankind as but little less guilty than a highway\nrobber, because this is a case in which the claims of _benevolence_\nmarch before the claims of mere _justice_. Not to respect the claims\nof benevolence in such a case is to act upon the _principle_ of pure\n_selfishness_. This act, then, would envelop also a wrong\nprinciple--selfishness; and it is the nature of a wrong principle to\nspread the hue and poison of guilt over every act into which it\nenters. Truth, and its opposite, as principles, are striking examples.\nIf we speak at all, we should speak the truth. Every utterance into\nwhich, in its proper, generic sense, the _lie_ enters, even in the\nleast degree, is a poisoned act; and he who does this, is to that\nextent a basely wicked man, however smooth his tongue or winning his\nmanners. Guilt has poisoned his utterance; and if this vice be not\nspeedily arrested in its progress, it will spread itself through the\nwhole mass, and break down his entire moral constitution. But it does\nnot certainly follow that all utterances which are in themselves\n_truths_, are right utterances. There are many facts, to which, if we\nwere to give utterance, we should only speak the truth, but at the\nsame time we all know that they should lie buried (perhaps for ever)\nin the depths of our own hearts. To injure our neighbor by speaking\nthe truth when no claim of paramount justice demanded it, and the\nclaims of charity or kindness forbade it, would be a wicked act. For a\nchild in a similar way to injure a parent would be the conduct of a\ndemon. All such acts, though they envelop a right principle--truth--do\nat the same time envelop a wrong principle--_malevolence_; and it is\nthe nature of wrong principle to stamp every act into which it enters\nwith the character of guilt--_it is wrong_.\n\nThe conclusion we reach is this: If the abstract or generic principle\nof an action be _wrong_, the action itself is therefore _wrong_; but\nthat, if the abstract principle be _right_, it does not follow that\nthe action is therefore _right_, but that the action itself is _either\nright or wrong_, as may be determined by the presence or absence of\ncertain other coincident principles; or, as we usually say, as may be\ndetermined by the circumstances.\n\nIf, then, the abstract principle of the institution of domestic\nslavery be wrong, the institution itself is wrong, and ought to be\nabolished; but if the principle be correct, the institution itself is\nor is not _right_, just as the circumstances of the case may or may\nnot require that it be maintained; as in the case of any other act\ninvolving correct principle. The points to be settled, then, are--\n\nI. Is the abstract or generic principle of domestic slavery _right or\nwrong_? And if it be right, then,\n\nII. Is the system (so far as it is a system, simply) of domestic\nslavery, enveloping this abstract principle, justified by the\ncircumstances of the case? If so, the system itself is also _right_.\nWhether many slaveholders or few, or any at all, are themselves doing\nright in the exercise of the legal functions of that relation, are\nquestions foreign from the present inquiries, even on the hypothesis\nthat the system itself is right. Their conduct, be it right or wrong,\n(and in many cases it is right, and in many others it is no doubt\nwrong,) does not at all affect the truth or error of the questions now\nbefore us. It is not with the conduct of individual men that we now\ndeal; but with the act of that great being, the State--the system of\nAfrican slavery established by law in the country--and with that\nprofound principle of truth or error which not only makes it a\n_system_, but makes it a right system or a wrong system, as the case\nmay be.\n\nThe philosophy which prevails on the question before us has originated\ntwo schools--the _abolitionist_ and the _anti-slavery_. The\nabolitionist maintain that the _abstract principle of the system is\nwrong_, and that therefore the system itself is wrong under all\ncircumstances. The anti-slavery school agree with the abolitionist\nthat the _principle is wrong_, but divide among themselves as to the\nconclusion they draw. Some hold that the institution itself is not\nwrong under all circumstances, and that therefore slaves may be held\nunder it in given cases without guilt; and others, that the\ninstitution _is wrong in itself_, and should be abolished by the\nState, but that the holding of slaves under this _wrong_ system is not\nan act in itself _wrong_ in all cases.\n\nA strict analysis of the subject will show that here is a strange\nmedley of principles and conclusions. I shall be found to agree with\neach, and to disagree with each. I _disagree_ with both on the\nabstract principle. Hence, I disagree with the abolitionists on the\nwhole proposition. But I agree with the abolitionists that IF the\nabstract principle be _wrong_, the institution is wrong in all cases.\nI say with them that all who grant the antecedent of this conditional\nare bound to admit the consequent. Hence I disagree with the\nanti-slavery school in admitting that the principle is wrong; but in\nso far as they admit that the system may be right under given\ncircumstances, or that slaves may be held under it without guilt, we\nagree. I stand, therefore, committed to the affirmative of the\nquestion, both in regard to the principle and to the institution, and\nhence proceed to discuss the question:\n\nI. Is the abstract principle of domestic slavery right or wrong?\n\nI have already noticed that the public mind has been so long abused on\nthis subject, that it is usual for highly intelligent persons, who\nhave no idea of affirming that the slaveholder is necessarily a\nsinner, to allow that slaveholding is _wrong in principle_. But this,\nto say the least, is a strange abuse of terms. The right or wrong of\nan action, in itself considered, is determined by the _principle_\nwhich it envelops, and the moral character of the _actor_ is\ndetermined by his intention in the performance, or by his voluntary or\ninvoluntary ignorance of the principle. It is reasonable, therefore,\nto infer that the public attach no well-defined meaning to the phrase,\nthe _abstract principle of slavery_. Its definite meaning, however, is\nindispensable in this investigation; and, indeed, on all occasions, if\nwe would speak correctly, and avoid a misapplication of this term.\n\nWhat, then, is the _principle_ of the system of domestic slavery?\n\nObserve that it is the principle for which we inquire. What, then, is\nthe system itself? For (to speak with strict philosophical propriety)\nour idea of the system is the chronological condition of our idea of\nthe principle, as our idea of the principle is the logical condition\nof our idea of the system. We must perceive an action before we can\ndetermine what is the principle of it, although we must have an\nantecedent knowledge of the principle before we can determine what\ncharacter that principle gives to the action.\n\nThe system is made up of two correlative relations--master and slave.\nHere there are but two ideas--the idea of master and the idea of\nslave, as correlatives. These are all the ideas that enter into the\nsystem, as a system merely. Whatever abstract principle, therefore,\nthis system envelops, is to be found in these two terms. It need not\nand should not be sought for anywhere else; for these two relations\nmake the whole system. Without these it could not be a system of\nslavery; and with these, it is therein, and in virtue of that fact\nalone, a system of slavery. The answer to the question depends upon\nthe meaning of these terms alone. What, then, is the correlative\nmeaning of these terms?\n\n\u201cMASTER. The Latin is _magister_, compounded of the root of _magis_,\n_major_, greater; and the Teutonic, _ster_, Saxon, _steoran_, _to\nsteer_.\u201d The word, then, signifies _a chief director_--_one who\ngoverns or directs either men or business_. The leading idea is that\nof governor by his own will.\n\nSLAVE. The _derivation_ of this word is not a settled question. There\nis no difficulty, however, in fixing the meaning--_one who is subject\nto the will or direction of another_.\n\nAs a concrete, _master_ means one who is governing _in some particular\ninstance or form_ by his own will; and _slave_, one who is so governed\n_in some particular instance_. But these are _abstract_ terms. The\nideas they convey may be conceived and held in the mind, apart from\nany particular application of the one or the other. And whether\nthey are considered as abstract or concrete terms, they are\ncorrelatives--the one implies the other.\n\nA _system_ of slavery is a state or order of things established by law\nor custom, in which one set of men are the masters to a given extent,\nand another are the slaves to that extent.\n\n_Domestic_ slavery is an instance in which the order or state of\nthings constituting the system itself, is made a part of the family\nrelation. The head of the family is the _master_, and the slave is\nsubject, as to the use of his time and labor, to the control of the\nmaster, as the other members of the family. Domestic slavery,\ntherefore, is one of the forms of the _general_ system of slavery. The\nsystem has existed under various forms. The ancient system of\nvillanage in England, of serfdom in Russia, the peon system of Mexico,\nas well as domestic slavery in the United States, are all examples of\nslavery proper. This leads us to remark that the terms _master_ and\n_slave_ are not only abstract but _general abstract_ terms: _general_,\nbecause the abstract ideas they convey are common to each of these\nconditions. Each of these systems is pervaded by generic principles or\nideas, which classify the whole as belonging to the same genus--system\nof slavery. The abstract principle of slavery is therefore the general\nidea, which is enveloped alike in each and every form or system of\nslavery. Hence, as the abstract idea of master is governing by one\u2019s\nown will, and that of slave is submission or subjection to such\ncontrol; and as a system of slavery is a condition into which these\nideas enter in correlation--it follows that _the abstract principle of\nslavery is the general principle of submission or subjection to\ncontrol by the will of another_. This is the fundamental idea which is\ncommon to every form of slavery. No condition into which this does not\nenter as a fundamental idea is a state of slavery. Every condition\ninto which it enters is a state of slavery to the extent in which it\ndoes so enter.\n\n_Submission or subjection to control by the will of another_ being our\ndefinition of the abstract principle of the system of slavery, two\nquestions arise: First--Is this a correct definition? and second--If\nit be correct, is it a sound, legitimate principle, which may and\nought to be adopted in practice, whenever it may be wise to do so?\n\n_First_--Is the definition correct?\n\n_Subjection_ is the being put under the control of another.\n_Submission_ is the delivery of one\u2019s self to the control of another.\nThe one implies the consent of the will, and the other does not. That\nsubjection is an idea which fulfils the condition of slavery will not\nbe disputed by any. Hence our definition is sufficiently wide to\nembrace that which is conceded by all. But our definition gives much\ngreater breadth to the principle. It takes in _submission_ as well as\n_subjection_. It assumes that the willing or the nilling of the\nsubject of this form of control does not necessarily enter into the\nprinciple which logically defines it. He who is subjected to such\ncontrol is a slave; and he who submits to such control is not\nthe less so. This principle might therefore be still further\ngeneralized--_control by the will of another_, with its correlative\nidea submission or subjection only implied. But we prefer to define\nit in the terms employed, as being more likely to be appreciated in\nthe sense intended. Are we correct in giving this wide compass of\nmeaning to the principle in question? Do we assume too much when we\nsay that a man is not the less a captive, and subject to the control\nof the captor, because he voluntarily gives himself up as such? Is a\nman then the less a slave who voluntarily consents to be controlled by\nthe will of another? The popular use of terms in all languages shows\nthat mankind have conceded this point. They all apply the idea of\nslave to such a case. Nay, more, they furnish a constructive meaning\nof the term based upon this meaning. They call a man a \u201cslave to his\npassions,\u201d who has _voluntarily_ given himself up to be controlled in\nhis future volitions by his passions as the subjective motive of his\nactions. \u201cNo bondage is more grievous than that which is voluntary,\u201d\nsays Seneca. \u201cTo be a slave to the passions is more grievous than to\nbe a slave to a tyrant,\u201d says Pythagoras. \u201cNo one can be free who is\nintent on the indulgence of evil passions,\u201d says Plato. And Cicero\nsays, \u201cAll wicked men are slaves.\u201d St. Paul, Rom. vi. 16, uses the\nterm in the same sense, and with the greatest propriety: \u201cKnow ye not\nthat to whom ye yield yourselves servants [\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, _slaves_] to\nobey, his servants [slaves] ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin\nunto death, or obedience unto righteousness?\u201d (See Dr. A. Clarke, _in\nloc._) And again, Ephesians vi. 5-7: \u201cServants, [\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9.] be obedient\nto them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and\ntrembling, in singleness of your hearts as unto Christ: not with\neye-service, as men-pleasers, but as the servants of Christ, doing the\nwill of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the\nLord, and not to men.\u201d _Doing the will of God--with good will._ We\nmust certainly understand that it was the duty of those slaves to give\nboth assent and consent to their condition, as a thing coming to them\nin the order of God\u2019s providence, _and pleasing to him_; and therefore\nserve their masters with the same willing obedience, because therein\nthey were serving the Lord. For these persons, we may suppose, were\noriginally made slaves by subjection. They are exhorted to submit\nthemselves not only to the particular commands of their masters, but\nalso to their providential condition. The commands of their masters\nmight be obeyed from mere prudential considerations. In this case,\ntheir obedience would be without the religious element. Paul exhorts\nthem to religious obedience. Many, no doubt, obeyed: gave the\n_consent_ of their wills, as they gave the assent of their\nunderstandings; and hence, cheerfully submitting to their providential\ncondition as from the Lord, they obeyed their masters \u201cin singleness\nof heart, as unto Christ.\u201d They submitted, as any other good man\nsubmits, with consent as well as assent to his providential condition,\nand goes forth to the duties of that condition with a cheerful heart.\nTheir condition was therefore changed from that of _subjection_ to one\nof _submission_, and for as long a time as God might be pleased to\ncontinue it. Did they, by reason of such submission, cease to be\nslaves? Certainly not. They were slaves when in a state of\n_subjection_. They were not the less so when, from the high Christian\nmotives commanded by the apostle, their condition was changed to one\nof _submission_. Be this, however, as it may, the following case is\ndecisive of the whole question. The ancient Jew, who _gave_ himself\ninto slavery, was not the less a slave because he did it voluntarily;\nand the Mosaic law provided that such should be held and treated as\nslaves in perpetuity. See Exodus xxi. 5, 6: \u201cAnd if the servant shall\nplainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children: _I will not\ngo out free_; then his master shall bring him unto the judges: he\nshall also bring him unto the door, or to the door-post; and his\nmaster shall bore his ear through with an awl; _and he shall serve him\nfor ever_.\u201d Thus the law of God made a man a slave who became so by\nhis own voluntary act. A state of _submission_, therefore, to _control\nby the will of another_, is no less a state of slavery than a state of\n_subjection_. If the state itself be one of slavery, the idea,\n_submission_, which makes it so, is in this case an element of the\nsystem. Hence, the true philosophical definition of the principle, as\nbefore stated, is _control by the will of another_, with its\ncorrelative (subjection, or submission, as the case might be) implied.\nIt may be the one; it may be the other; and whichever it is in a given\ncase, is the mere logical accident of _that_ case, and does not at all\naffect the _principle_ itself.\n\nAs the whole of the abstract idea of the system of slavery is to be\nfound in the terms _master_ and _slave_ in correlation; and\n_submission and subjection to control by the will of another_ is the\nwhole idea contained in the correlative sense of these terms,\n(certainly nothing more and nothing less,) the definition given is the\nwhole, and nothing more, of the abstract principle of the institution.\nWhoever is in this condition is to that extent a slave. Whatever\nsystem envelops this principle--it matters not what form it may take,\nwhat coincident principles it may include, or what name may be given\nto it, or how far the practical working of this principle may be\nmodified--it is nevertheless to the extent that this principle enters\ninto it _a system of slavery_. It may be a wise system, because it is\na necessary means for the accomplishment of some desirable end; or it\nmay be an unwise system, because it is a means unsuited to the end\nproposed. But neither hypothesis will at all affect the principle.\nThat is the same in the one case as in the other; that is, whether it\nbe abused or properly used, the principle itself is the same. But can\nit be properly used at all? This leads to the _second_ inquiry--Is\nthis a sound, legitimate principle, which may and should be adopted in\npractice whenever it may be wise to do so?\n\nWe need not scruple to admit that if injustice or any similar idea\nshould be found to enter as an element into the abstract principle, it\nis a poisoned principle, upon which no honest man will allow himself\nto act. But is this the case? Doubtless, there may be injustice in\nslavery, as in every system which has persons for its subjects: that\nis, any _master_ acting under the authority of this system may\nperpetrate great injustice; but we maintain that when he does so he\nintroduces a principle foreign to the system, and for which he is\nindividually responsible: he does that which mars the character of the\nwhole performance, and stamps his own personal conduct with the guilt\nof injustice.\n\nHowever carelessly many persons are accustomed to speak on this\nsubject, yet we may assure ourselves that a little reflection will\nsatisfy any candid mind that the principle is a legitimate one, and\ncannot with any degree of propriety be regarded as sinful. It will\nreadily occur to all intelligent minds, that this principle enters\nmore or less as an essential element into every form of human\ngovernment. No government can be appropriate to human beings, in their\npresent fallen condition, that does not embody this generic element in\na greater or less degree.\n\nA form of control, clearly embodying the idea of government, and at\nthe same time conferring absolute freedom, is a solecism. If men would\nuniformly govern themselves aright by their own wills, there could be\nno necessity for government, or room for its exercise, at least in the\nsense in which we now understand the term. A government adapted to\nsuch a people, I allow, might be without the element of physical\ncontrol, so indispensable in human governments. It would be (compared\nto human) a modification of government--if government it might be\ncalled--for which our language supplies no term. We cannot conceive it\nto be appropriate to any intelligences this side of the \u201cspirits of\njust men made perfect in heaven.\u201d These, we conceive, are\nsufficiently intelligent to understand clearly and correctly all the\nduties appertaining to the various relations they sustain, and so\nperfected in moral feeling as to fulfil these duties from the impulses\nof their own _spontaneous volitions_. Government, as it may be\nunderstood and applied to such intelligences, must be essentially\ndifferent from that which is appropriate to beings of arbitrary\nvolition; and who, therefore, should be held to accountability in the\nexercise of their freedom by the most rigid restrictions from penal\nsanctions. To these latter a government that did not embody the\n_principle of_ slavery would be no government at all.\n\nAuthoritative control, with its correlative, (according to the more\ngeneral classification given,) is the abstract principle of slavery.\nBut a state of freedom is the opposite of a state of slavery. The\nabstract principle of a state of freedom or liberty is, therefore, the\nopposite to that of slavery. Hence _self-control_ is the abstract\nprinciple of freedom, as its opposite--_control by another_--is the\nprinciple of slavery.\n\nNow every government adapted to fallen beings whose personal or mental\nliberty consists in _arbitrary_ volition, is necessarily a combination\nof these two opposite elements--the principle of freedom and the\nprinciple of slavery. Either of these entering alone into the system\nof government, would in the end defeat the legitimate object of\ngovernment--the happiness of the people. If the government were based\nupon the principle of freedom alone, allowing every man the\nunrestricted liberty of self-control, the wildest anarchy would\nresult: if to avoid this the opposite principle should be adopted,\nallowing no liberty of self-control, but subjecting all to control by\nthe will of another, it would be found as impracticable as the other\nwas disastrous, and, as far as successful, only appropriate to idiots\nand infants. A good government is such a harmonious union of these\nopposing elements, as adapts it to the wants of the people. For as, in\nchemistry, elements in opposite states of electricity unite and form\nvaluable compounds, so in political science, antagonistic principles\nenter necessarily into the composition of government. The character or\nkind of the government is defined by the ratios in which these\nelements enter into its formation. If the principle of slavery enter\nvery largely into the government, in a highly consolidated form, it is\nthen an absolute monarchy or military despotism. If the exercise of\nthis supreme power is distributed among the heads of families, it\nassumes the patriarchal or domestic form. If this principle enter in a\nless degree, but still in a much greater degree than the principle of\nself-control, some one of the forms of constitutional monarchy or\nhereditary aristocracy will result. If these opposite principles enter\ninto the government in somewhat equal ratios, it is then a democratic\nrepublic--a well-balanced government--such as ours is designed to be.\nHence we see that God has rendered the blessing of civil freedom\ninseparable from the presence and operation of the principle of\nslavery. Such is the present arrangement, that government can no\notherwise secure freedom to its subjects than by abridging them to a\ncertain extent of self-control; or, in other words, government must\nplace its subjects under the operation of the principle of slavery in\nsome things, the more effectually to secure their practical freedom in\nother things. And the citizen who may be determined not to submit to\nthis order of things, and shall persist to do, from the action of a\ndepraved will, what the State--_his master_--says he shall not do,\nwill, sooner or later, find himself reduced to a condition of most\nabject slavery, within the walls of a public prison.\n\nIt is entirely obvious that a government, to secure the highest amount\nof happiness to its subjects, must be adapted to their social and\nmoral condition. This adaptation, as before intimated, can only be\neffected by the ratios in which the antagonistic elements of _liberty\nand of slavery_ shall enter into the composition of the government.\nNow this is virtually the position, after all, of a no less\ndistinguished abolitionist and literary man than Dr. Wayland, the\nauthor of your text. On the subject \u201c_of the mode in which the objects\nof society are accomplished_,\u201d after bringing to view the different\nforms of government--\u201cwholly hereditary\u201d--\u201cpartly hereditary\u201d--\u201cpartly\nelective\u201d--and \u201cwholly elective\u201d--he asks, \u201cWhich of these is the\npreferable form of government?\u201d and adds, \u201cThe answer must be\nconditional. The best form of government for any people, _is the best\nthat its present moral and social condition render practicable_. A\npeople may be _so entirely surrendered to the influence of passion_,\nand so feebly _influenced by moral restraint_, that a government which\nrelied on moral restraint could not exist for a day. In this case a\nsubordinate and inferior principle yet remains--_the principle of\nfear_; and the only resort is to a government of force, or a military\ndespotism.\u201d Now what is all this but a statement of the great truth\nwhich we have already discussed, only in different terms, that a\ngovernment over a people, in the moral and social condition described\nby Dr. Wayland, which relied upon \u201c_moral restraint_,\u201d that is, upon\nthe principle of self-control, \u201c_could not exist for a day_;\u201d and that\nfor such a people, \u201cthe only resort is to a government of force, or a\nmilitary despotism\u201d--that is, the _highest conceivable form or system\nof slavery_. Now this is said, by Dr. Wayland, after waging a\nrelentless war against both the principle and practice of slavery! Is\nnot this an instance in which a great and honest mind, having adopted\ncertain false notions in antagonism with the system of slavery, wars\nagainst this system; whilst, at the same time, this system is\nunderlaid, even in his own method of reasoning, by a vast mine of\nfundamental principles which, in spite of him, give it both being and\nactivity? Why need one so learned as Dr. Wayland allow the truth to\nescape his notice, because in one connection it wears the livery of\none form of words, and in another connection very properly assumes the\nlivery of a different form of language?\n\nTo proceed: History informs us of many such communities as those\ndefined by Dr. Wayland, to which any other form of government would be\nentirely inappropriate but the one he calls a \u201c_government of force or\na military despotism_,\u201d which is none other than the very highest form\nof slavery. And your own good sense, young gentlemen, must assure you\nthat it would be grossly absurd to confer on reckless boys of fifteen,\nor a mass of stupid pagans, all the rights of free citizens of this\ngreat republic. No: the one class should be retained under the slavery\n(for let us not scruple to call things by their right names) of\n_authoritative control_ by their parents; and the other should be\nsubjected to the operation of the same general principle by the State.\nAnd to adopt Dr. Wayland\u2019s own language on this point--suicidal as it\nis to him--we add, in regard to such citizens as are \u201c_entirely\nsurrendered to the influence of passion_,\u201d that \u201cafter a government of\nforce has been established, and habits of subordination have been\nformed, while the moral restraints are yet too feeble for\nself-government, an hereditary government, which addresses itself to\nthe imagination, and strengthens itself by the influence of domestic\nconnections and established usage, may be as good a form of government\nas they can sustain. As they advance in intellectual and moral\ncultivation, it may advantageously become more and more elective; and\nin a suitable moral condition, it may be wholly so.\u201d Now, to vary the\nlanguage in which these important facts are expressed, so as to bring\nout the great philosophical principles which so evidently underlie\nthem, we would say, that when the government adapted to an ignorant\nand depraved people has operated under wise appliances to form habits\nof subordination among the masses, a modification of the elements of\ngovernment is indicated as best suited to their condition. Some one of\nthe forms of hereditary government may be adopted. In this\ngovernment, the _principle of slavery_ is made to operate less\nactively, and there is more room for the play of the opposite\nprinciple of self-control. But as the moral principle is yet too\nfeeble for self-government proper, it is still held in strong check by\nits antagonistic principle--the principle of slavery. As they advance\nin intellectual and moral cultivation, a further modification of the\nrelative operation of these principles is indicated as proper. It may\nbecome more and more elective: that is, more and more of a democratic\nrepublic; and in a suitable moral condition it may be wholly so: that\nis, a government in which the _principle of slavery_ and the\n_principle of liberty_ operate in about equal ratios. We call this a\nwell-balanced government. If it fulfil this condition, it is because\nthese opposing principles so check and counterpoise each other that\nthe government is not likely to be unbalanced. One holds the other _in\nequilibrio_. The principle of self-control is in such vigorous\noperation among the masses, and so craned up to a vigilant activity by\ncoincident forces derived from intelligence and interest, that the\n_principle of slavery--control by the will of another, which in this\ninstance is the will of the majority_--is not competent, according to\nthe theory of this government, to override and crush the liberties of\nthe country. On the other hand, the _principle of slavery_, which is\nthe great _practical force_ of the government, enfeebled as it is by a\nprevailing popular enthusiasm for the widest freedom, and deriving no\n_present_ aid from interest, finds this deficiency so fully supplied\nby the fact that its impersonation is _the will of the majority_, that\nit is competent to resist the most violent shocks which may come up\nfrom the misguided self-control of the masses. How often have we seen,\nin the history of our glorious republic, the excited passions of the\nmasses, misdirecting their power of self-control, sweep like a\nhurricane over the bosom of our political sea, and lash the waters\ninto a storm that threatened to engulf the hopes of the nation! But so\n_vital_ and so _active_ was that principle which constitutes the true\nforce of the government, that that great ideal, the State--the \u201cShip\nof State!\u201d--outrode the tempest in perfect safety; and last, as first,\nthe flag of liberty still streamed from the mast-head.\n\nNow, this is as far as the science of free government, so called, has\nbeen carried into practical operation; and in this we cannot fail to\nsee that the restraining and controlling _principle of slavery_ is\nstill in vigorous operation. We call it, by way of eminence, a _free_\ngovernment; and so it is, _relatively to other forms, a very free\ngovernment_. But then it is only relatively, not absolutely, so; for\nif it were rendered entirely free, by excluding the operation of the\nprinciple of slavery altogether, it would be reduced at once to a form\nof government which authorizes every man to do in all things and in\nall respects just as he might please to do--a guaranty which in the\npresent state of fallen human nature it could never make good, and,\ntherefore, virtually it would be no government at all.\n\nSeeing that the abstract principle of slavery enters necessarily and\nessentially as an element into every form of civil government, it is\nworse than idle to affirm that it is wrong, _per se_. But more than\nthis, it has the sanction of Jehovah: for government, of which we have\nseen it is a necessary element, is expressly declared in Holy\nScripture to be his ordinance. It entered largely into the theocracy\nby which he governed the Jewish nation; and indeed is equally\nprominent in the government which he exercises over all mankind, if we\ntake it in its wide sense as comprehending the ultimate rewards and\npunishments that await us in a future state. How imbecile then is it\nto say of the system of slavery that it is wrong in the\nabstract--wrong in principle! How little do men consider what they\naffirm in this declaration! Certainly no man in his senses will\ngravely affirm of an essential principle of government that it is\nwrong! We repeat, then, it is really time that certain politicians, as\nwell as ecclesiastics, had learned to chasten their language on this\nsubject. They have already accomplished incalculable mischief. They\nhave conceded that to the folly of fanaticism which, if it were true,\nwould render domestic slavery, with every other form of civil\ngovernment, wholly indefensible, and their supporters the objects of\nthe pity and scorn of the civilized world.\n\nThere are many among ourselves who, though they are not sufficient\nmetaphysicians to detect and expose the error of a conclusion, are\nsufficiently candid to admit that if the conceded dogma of Jefferson\nbe true, domestic slavery can never be justified in practice by any\ncircumstances whatever; and they have pious feeling enough to prompt\nthem to great hesitation in supporting the institution in view of this\nadmission, although they are pressed to do so by circumstances of\nurgent duty to the slaves themselves. In this state of things there\narises in many sensitive minds a most painful state of feeling.\nPressed on the one hand by what is assumed to be correct principle,\nand on the other by the claims of a high moral necessity,--the\nnecessity of governing and providing for their slaves, which they\nerroneously suppose to be in conflict with right principle,--they\nreally find themselves in a most embarrassing situation, from which\nthey sigh to be released. Many such have quietly retired from the\nState of their nativity and choice as their only alternative. (This\nmay account for more of those removals, usually attributed to worn-out\nlands, than many of our politicians wot of.) Others remain, it is\ntrue, but it is rather an act of subjection than submission. Citizens\nof this class (and it is not a small class) are of course always\nliable to become the victims of any fanatical movement on the subject\nof slavery that may be afoot in the land. To all this mischief, the\nspeakers and writers in question have contributed their full share.\nYea, for myself, I doubt not they have contributed much more to\ndissatisfy the religious community of the South--the large majority of\nthe whole population--than all the abolitionists of the North put\ntogether. It is doubtless the magic of their names which at present\nenables the M. E. Church (the most regular and well-defined\nanti-slavery, if not indeed abolitionist, association this day\nexisting in the country) to maintain its footing in the District of\nColumbia, the States of Delaware and Maryland, and along the northern\nborder of Eastern and through a large part of Western Virginia,\ntogether with a portion of Kentucky and Missouri. It is the authority\nof their names, also, which so disquiets the feelings of many good\npeople in the whole country as to make them the victims of the\npolitical legerdemain of certain politicians, who, under cover of\n\u201cfree-soilism,\u201d \u201cfugitive slave law,\u201d and \u201cNebraska\u201d excitements, are\noverriding their rights and insulting the whole country before the\ncivilized world; and who, last though not least, are daily oppressing\nthe African population by the incubus of a morbid sensibility in\nregard to them, which utterly prevents the system under which they\nlive from any thing like a reasonable participation in the progress of\ncivilization. In view of these facts, we again assume that it is\nreally time they had learned to chasten their language on the subject\nof African slavery. Public opinion in the whole country must soon\nbecome intolerant of so great an abuse of the truth.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE III.\n\nOBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.\n\n     Objections classified--Popular views discussed--\u201cAll men are\n     born free and equal\u201d--\u201cAll men are created equal\u201d--\u201cAll men in\n     a state of nature are free and equal\u201d--And the particular form\n     in which Dr. Wayland expresses the popular idea, viz., \u201cThe\n     relation in which men stand to each other is the relation of\n     _equality_; not equality of condition, but equality of\n     _right_\u201d--Remarks on Dr. Wayland\u2019s course--His treatise on\n     Moral Science as a text-book.\n\n\nIt is now appropriate to consider some of the speculations in Moral\nScience which may be supposed to invalidate the position discussed in\nthe preceding lecture. As far as they have come under my notice, they\nall belong to one class. The general objection may be thus stated:\n_Slavery is an abridgment of rights to which the enslaved are entitled\nby nature; or, more logically, slavery is an abridgment of inalienable\nrights_. This doctrine is expressed in different forms of language,\nbut is essentially the same in meaning. It is with the popular view\nof this subject that I propose to deal in this lecture. Hence I shall\nrestrict my remarks, in the first place, to the objection as it\nusually _exists in thought_, and notice several popular forms of\nexpression:\n\n1. \u201cAll men are born free and equal.\u201d\n\nUntil within a few years past, this dogma was stereotyped in all the\ntext-books of the country--from the horn-book to the most eminent\ntreatise on Moral Science for colleges and universities. From the days\nof Jefferson until now, it has been the text for the noisy twaddle of\nthe \u201cstump-politician,\u201d and the profound discussions of the grave\nsenator in the Congress of the United States. If this dogma, as it\ngenerally exists in thought, be true, it will follow, that any and\nevery abridgment of liberty is a violation of original and natural\nright--that is, inalienable right. Hence every system of slavery must\nbe based upon a false principle. The popular sense in which this\nlanguage is generally understood, from father to son, is evidently the\nliteral sense. But taken in this sense, the doctrine is utterly false.\nFor men are born in a state of infancy, and grow up to the state of\nmanhood; and infants are entirely incapable of freedom, and do not\nenjoy a particle of it. They _are_ not, therefore, born equally free,\nbut in a state of entire subjection. They grow up, it is true--if\nthey be not imbeciles--to a degree of mental liberty, that is, the\nliberty of arbitrary volition in the plain matters of _right_ and\n_wrong_, and hence are accountable; but the degree of this liberty, or\nhow far they are thus mentally free, depends upon the accident of\nbirth, education, and numerous coincident circumstances, which\ndestroys all equality of mental freedom; and as to _equality_ in other\nrespects, it is scarcely a decent regard to the feelings of mankind to\naffirm their equality. They are not _physically_ equal. No two men\nwill compare exactly in this respect. They are not _politically_\nequal. The history of all human governments, throughout all time,\nshows this. To be \u201chewers of wood and drawers of water,\u201d in unequal\nand subordinate positions, _to the few_, has been the lot of the great\nmass of mankind from the days of Adam. But, says the \u201csocialist,\u201d (to\nwhom the doctrine is far more creditable,) \u201cthis latter is precisely\nthe state of things we deprecate, and affirm that such was never the\nintention of Deity, but that it is his will that there should be no\nsuch inequality among men; that his will is in itself _the right_; and\nwhat it is his will we should be, it is _right_ for us to be, and it\nis our right _to be_; and that system which makes our condition other\nthan this, deprives us of our rights.\u201d This is the philosophy of\nsocialism.\n\nNow it is true that much of the inequality of condition among men is\nowing to an abuse of the superior power which intelligence confers\nupon the few; but this admission does not advance the cause of\nsocialism. For if it were allowed that the will of God is the only\nrule of right--that is, in itself _the right_, instead of this, that\nthat which in itself is _the right_ is the will of God--it will not\nhelp the argument. For, on this hypothesis, the will of God is the\nonly rule of right, as on the other it conforms to the only rule of\nright; so that on either, the will of God may be taken as a certain\nrule of right. What then does he will? In regard to the present\nsubject of inquiry, we can only judge what he wills from that which he\nhas done. Now we have seen that he has not endowed the souls of men\nwith equal capacity, nor has he even placed them in circumstances of\nprovidential equality, favorable to an equal development of the\nunequal capacities he has given them. Superior intelligence is the\ncondition of inequality. Where this exists, there is essential\ninequality, and practical inequality cannot usually be avoided. Hence\n_superior_ and _inferior_, and cognate terms, are found in all\nlanguages, and the conditions they represent are found amongst all\npeople. Hence inequality among men is the will of God; and if his will\nis the rule of _our rights_, we have no abstract right to equality.\nIt is rather our duty to submit to that inequality of condition which\nresults from the superior intelligence or moral power of others.\nSuperior physical power may, for a time, give us the ascendency; but\nthings will find their level. Superior intelligence will ultimately\nbear its possessor to his destined eminence. A state of oppression is\nnot one of _inequality_ merely. It is one in which superior\nintelligence has degraded and afflicted those who rank below it, in an\ninferior condition; or it is an instance in which, by the aid of brute\nforce, those of inferior condition have, for a time, risen at the\nexpense of those of superior intelligence. If we are oppressed, in\neither of these ways, we have a right to complain, because our\noppressors violate the will of God concerning us--violate our rights;\nbut we have no right to complain of _inequality_ merely. Inequality is\nthe law of Heaven. He who complains of this is not less _unwise_ than\nthe prisoner who frets at his condition, and chafes himself against\nthe bars and bolts of the prison which securely confines him!\n\nBut if the dogma in question cannot be made to serve the cause of\ntruth, it has often been made to serve the cause of policy. Many there\nare who have not scrupled to use it as a tocsin to call together a\nclan, not their inferiors merely, but so degraded in their\ninferiority, that, for the price of being honored with the\ndistinction of \u201c_free and equal fellow-citizens_,\u201d they have been\nready as menials to bow their necks to their masters, debase\nthemselves, dishonor the state, and insult Jehovah!\n\n2. \u201cAll men are created equal.\u201d\n\nThis is only another form in which the social philosophy is pleased to\nexpress its one idea. We need only notice the additional error\nacquired by the change of language. \u201cAll men,\u201d it is said, \u201care\ncreated.\u201d It is written in the first of Genesis, that \u201cGod created man\nin his own image: in the image of God created he him: male and female\ncreated he them.\u201d The term \u201cman\u201d is, of course, to be understood in\nits generic sense, and all that is affirmed is, that God directly\n_created_ Adam and Eve, and all their posterity seminally in them; and\nfrom whom, therefore, they have proceeded, as to both soul and body,\nby _generation_, and not by a separate act of creation by Jehovah. Now\nof these two created beings, one was placed in direct and immediate\nsubordination to the other; and although it be true, as it often\npractically is, that the _fall_ has reversed this order of things, and\nplaced the wife at the head of affairs, still the doctrine of\nheadship, the doctrine of _inequality_, prevails in the one case as in\nthe other. It is not amiss, however, to remark in passing, that even\nso great and humble a man as the Apostle Paul preferred the\nold-fashioned doctrine: he insists that we observe the original order\nof things: \u201cI suffer not a woman to usurp authority over the man;\u201d 1\nTim. ii. 12; \u201cbut they are commanded to be under obedience, as also\nsaith the law.\u201d 1 Cor. xiv. 34.\n\nAs to other points in this dogma, they have been already treated. We\nonly add that philosophy, no less than religion and true patriotism,\ncannot fail to regret that a dogma setting each of their claims aside,\nand teaching the purest agrarianism, and that under the most deadly\nform--the form of _pure abstract truth_--should have found its way\ninto that immortal instrument, the Declaration of American\nIndependence. We cannot otherwise account for it than by the fact that\none of the presiding minds of that great paper had become strongly\ntinctured with the infidel philosophy of France.\n\n3. \u201cAll men in a state of nature are free and equal.\u201d\n\nThis is the form of words by which that great man, Locke, involved\nhimself in the doctrine of socialism. The school of philosophy has\nfreed itself of the errors of Locke, and of much of the infidelity of\nHume which those errors precipitated upon the world. The error now\nunder notice, in the unsettled political state of France, was seized\nupon by the Communists: infidelity and anarchy followed. From them, it\nwas consecrated in an abridged form of words in the greatest state\npaper that was ever written,--the \u201cDeclaration of Independence,\u201d--and\nincorporated into the popular language of the American people, and,\nindeed, into that of every people where the English language is\nspoken. Great and good men, who abhor the folly of socialism, do not\nscruple to assert that the true theory of all governments is, that\nthey are an abridgment of original and natural rights; forgetful of\nthe fact that it is from the fountain of socialism that they draw\ntheir original supply of ideas. Those of the republican type maintain\nthat the government should be founded upon the _concessions_ of the\nmajority, and that any thing else is tyranny. I propose to deal with\nthis idea in a future lecture. I now only consider the dogma in the\nliteral sense--the form in which it exists in popular thought.\n\nLiterally, what is the state of man by nature? and, Is he free and\nequal in that state? We can conceive of man as existing only in one or\nthe other of two states; one of which is his natural state, and the\nother merely hypothetical: that is, the _simple_, or individual state,\nand the _complex_, or social state. To conceive of men in their simple\nstate, or as _not in a state of society_, is to conceive of them as\nexisting as mere individuals: that is, _without connection or relation\none with the other_. Is this the _natural_ state of man--the state\nintended for him by nature? Certainly not. It is not known to history,\nany more than to us, that any set of men ever existed in this way.\nThis, then, is a merely hypothetical state. In reality, there never\nwas such a state of things, and never will be. Indeed, on the\nhypothesis that such was the original state of men by nature, or as\nintended by the Lord, it would follow as a mere truism that each one\nof those separate individuals was _free_ from control by any one or\nall of the others: that is, they were all _free_ and equal. That this\ntruism expresses the truth of the case, no doubt exists in the thought\nof a great many; but they overlook the hypothesis which makes it a\nhypothetical truism, merely because it never had any existence in\nfact, and never can have.\n\nTo conceive of men in the _social state_ is to conceive of them in\ntheir relations to each other. Hence it is a _complex_ state. Several\nideas enter into this state--not only individuality, as in the former\ncase, but also contiguity of time and place, variety, and often\ncontrariety of relations, together with all the ideas which, as\nsequences, grow out of these. Now, a leading idea involved in this\nstate, and inseparable from it, is the idea of _government_: that is,\nthe _political_ is inseparable from the social state. These various\nand conflicting relations must be defined by certain rules, carrying\nthe full idea of _control_. Without this, these relations could not\noperate in harmonious agreement for a single day. Now, as the\n_natural_ state of man is the state for which he was made,--the state\nto which alone his entire nature is adapted,--there can be no dispute,\nthe _social_ state is the _natural_ state of man. \u201cAnd the Lord God\nsaid, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him an\nhelpmeet for him.\u201d He was made, then, for society, and society was\nimmediately furnished him. But the _law_ of relation, we find, was\ncoincident with the relation itself: \u201cTherefore shall a man leave his\nfather and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.\u201d Gen. ii. 24.\nAnd so also, every one born into the world was born in a state of\nsociety--the social state--and has always existed in this state: that\nis, _under government_. But we have before proved that a state of\nslavery is fundamental in the _complex_ idea of government. There is,\nthere can be, _no government without it_. Therefore, the natural state\nof man, or the state to which he is adapted by both his mental and\nphysical constitution, is a state of slavery in combination with\nliberty, _which is the complex idea of government_.\n\n4. \u201cThe relation which men sustain to each other is the relation of\n_equality_: not _equality of condition_, but _equality of right_.\u201d\n\nThis is the form in which Dr. Wayland prefers to express the doctrine\nof equality.[2] He explains himself thus: \u201cEach separate individual is\ncreated with precisely the same right to use the advantages with which\nGod has endowed him as any other individual.\u201d From this position, as\nthus explained, he deduces an argument the force of which, without\nexpressing it in so many words, is constructively made to pervade the\nwhole performance. For his whole argument may be embodied thus: the\ngovernment which places an individual in any other condition than that\nof political equality is an odious tyranny: the government which\nestablishes domestic slavery does this, and is therefore an odious\ntyranny.\n\n     [2] Moral Science. Part II., Division I--Reciprocity.\n\nNow, the proposition, as he explains it, may be admitted as a truism;\nbut then the doctrine of essential equality of right will not follow\nfrom such an admission: that is, social and political equality. For\nwhat if it be true that \u201ceach separate individual has precisely the\nsame right to use the advantages with which God has endowed him?\u201d It\nonly follows that each one has a common right in this respect merely,\nbut not that there is an essential equality of right in any available\nsense in which we are accustomed to understand the phrase. For if so,\nit will follow that brutes have an essential equality of rights with\nmen, and that both men and brutes have an essential equality of rights\nwith angels. This is not pushing the argument too far in either\ndirection. For brutes, in a sense well defined by Dr. Wayland himself,\nhave rights. No one but a _moral_ brute would deny the right of his\nfellow-creature--the brute--to appropriate an accessible bucket of\nrefreshing water to slake his burning thirst. Nothing is more certain\nthan that brutes, men, and angels have a common right to appropriate\nthe advantages with which God has endowed them. Brutes could not have\nlower, and angels could not have higher, rights in this respect. But\nsurely it cannot be said that this common right confers on brutes,\nmen, and angels, essential equality of rights in any practical sense\nwhatever; for then it will follow that brutes, men, and angels have an\nequal right to social and political equality--a bold and reckless\nabsurdity.\n\nWe admit that one man has a common right with each and all other men\nin the respect stated; but not that they have common rights in other\nrespects. The common right to use our \u201c_advantages to promote our\nhappiness_\u201d will not constitute us equals in any proper sense, unless\nour _advantages_ be equal. Now, Dr. Wayland himself allows, in the\nvery terms of his proposition, that men are _not equal in\ncondition_--that is, _not equal in advantages_. And nothing is more\nobvious than that men are not equal in that intellectual and moral\ncondition which would enable them to use certain social and political\nadvantages for the benefit of themselves and others: consequently,\nupon his own admission, they would have no right to them. Unless,\nthen, it can be shown that God has endowed all human beings with\nintellectual and moral capacities sufficiently developed to enable\nthem to be used for the common welfare, they have no right to what we\ncall political freedom. But it is unquestionable that men are not\nuniversally nor even generally so endowed. It is not the case with\nminors. Political freedom is withheld from them by the laws of all\nStates, for the obvious reason that it is not among the privileges\nwhich God, as yet, endowed them with the ability to use for the common\nwelfare. Still, no one, so far as we are aware, ever dreamed that\nminors were herein abridged of their natural rights, and that\ngovernment and parents were \u201c_odious tyrants_\u201d because they subjected\nthem to one of the known forms of domestic slavery! We are not\nsurprised, therefore, that Dr. Wayland found himself compelled to\nadmit that minors were exceptions to his rule; which, however, he had\nargued as universal--universals admit of no exceptions.\n\nAgain, it is not true of barbarians, through any of the stages of\nbarbarism. At no period are they in that state of intellectual and\nmoral development in which they could use for the common welfare the\nblessings of civil freedom, as understood and enjoyed by a highly\ncivilized people. If they were, they would not be barbarians, but a\ncivilized people, to whom the right of civilization--political\nfreedom--would inure.\n\nNow I assume here, what I shall prove in a future lecture, that the\nAfrican came into this country in a state of extreme barbarism; and\nthat, in the judgment of Southern people--whom prejudice itself can\nhardly deny are honest and the only competent judges in this\nmatter--they are still, as a race, in a state of semi-barbarism, to\nsay the least. If we are right in this position, they also are an\nexample of persons who are clearly not entitled to the rights which\ninure only to a state of civilization. With what propriety, therefore,\ncould any decent man, whose object is not to insult, affirm that we\nare \u201codious tyrants,\u201d for withholding from the African the rights\nwhich are appropriate only to a state of civilization: unless he were\nprepared first to show that we are wrong in our position as to the\nquestion of fact, that they are still in a state of semi-barbarism,\nand, therefore, not entitled to civil freedom?\n\nHow shall we characterize the course of Dr. Wayland! After drawing an\ningenious argument through many pages of his performance: appealing to\nthe facts and principles of Holy Scripture: not failing, in the\nprogress and application of his false position, to stigmatize the\nsystem of African slavery as an odious tyranny, and this for the\nobvious purpose of degrading the Southern States of this Union in the\neyes of the whole civilized world: then, when he is confronted, as he\nnecessarily was, in the progress of his own argument, by the only\nmaterial fact in the whole discussion, he adroitly evades all\nconsideration of it whatever! On page 216, fourth edition, he states\nthe position of the South, that the \u201cslaves are not competent to\nself-government,\u201d and shortly replies, \u201cThis is a question of fact\nwhich it is not the province of Moral Philosophy to decide.\u201d Why then\ndid he decide it by an application of his false position to the South?\nEcho answers, Why?\n\nHad he confined the application of his principles to the rights which\nbelong to a civilized people, we should have no cause to complain; or\nhad he adduced facts to invalidate the position of the South in\nregard to its African population, we should be bound to regard him as\nmaintaining an honorable discussion; or, yielding this point, had he\nattempted to define that form of government most appropriate to a mass\nof semi-barbarians, dwelling in the midst of a highly civilized\npeople, with whom they could not amalgamate; or, declining this, had\nhe frankly confessed his incompetency (as indeed will really appear\nupon a discussion of his basis principle) to do justice to the subject\nof Moral Philosophy at this point at least--in either case we should\nbe bound to respect his effort. But departing, as he evidently does,\nfrom all these obvious lines of duty in the pathway of his desolating\nerrors, and inflicting so deep a wound upon the feelings of the whole\nSouthern community, it must be allowed that our charity is heavily\ntaxed in accounting for his course. He can have no cause to complain\nthat we adopt the opinion that he has permitted an early prejudice to\ngrow into a feeling of fanaticism, so fixed as to warp his judgment on\npoints of very simple application in Moral Science.\n\nDr. Wayland\u2019s treatise is a text-book in many of our literary\ninstitutions, and he himself is eminently distinguished both in the\nreligious and literary world. Such a text-book, thus endorsed by both\npiety and learning, put into the hands of our young men, could rarely\nfail of its object--especially if the professor concur in enforcing\nits doctrines. This is frequently the case in Northern institutions,\nand has often occurred in Southern; and where it has not, the\nprofessor, as a general thing, is either silent, or he concedes the\n_doctrines_ of the text, and rests the defence of the South upon the\nfalse position, that \u201cshe cannot help herself!\u201d The assumption that\nGod has placed men in circumstances in which they cannot avoid a\nviolation of his own immutable principles of right, may be so entirely\noverlooked, as to leave the doctrines and arguments of the text to\nwork an increasing conviction that there is moral wrong in African\nslavery. If this state of things continue, we must not be surprised if\nabolition fanaticism should have a still more rapid growth in our\nland.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE IV.\n\nTHE QUESTION OF RIGHTS DISCUSSED.\n\n     Why it is necessary to define the term RIGHTS--The right in\n     itself defined to be _the good_--The doctrine that the will of\n     God is the origin of the right considered--The will of God not\n     the origin of the right, but an expression of _the right_ which\n     is the good--Natural rights and acquired rights, each defined.\n\n\nThere are questions which lie back of this discussion--errors, as I\nthink, which underlie the popular ideas of both government and rights.\nWe should not consider that we had fully met the difficulties of the\nsubject if we passed them by.\n\nDomestic slavery, it is said, is an abridgment of inalienable rights;\nand legitimate government is a voluntary concession of certain\nalienable rights.\n\nNatural rights are, of course, such as are inherent in the\nconstitution of man: inalienable, because in point of fact he cannot\nbe substantively deprived of them. The law which in any case provides\nto do this, treats him as though he were not a rational, but a mere\nsentient being--and therein alienates his rights. Domestic slavery is\nsaid to treat the slave as a mere chattel, a thing, not an entity, and\nhence deprives him by provision of law of the right of being treated\nas a rational being as he is, and not a mere thing. This is said,\nbecause it places his time and labor at the disposal of another man.\nHow far this reproach is just, turns upon a definite answer to the\nquestion--_What are rights?_\n\n\u201c_Government is a voluntary concession of certain alienable rights._\u201d\nIf this concession be made by the majority of the citizens, the\ngovernment is called republican; if otherwise, it is called despotic.\nIn this theory of government, certain rights are assumed to be given\nup, in order to secure other and more important rights. I have shown\ngovernment to embody, of necessity, two great abstract principles in\nharmonious operation--though, in their essential nature, the one\nantagonizes the other. Now the principle of slavery--_control by the\nwill of another_--certainly operates an abridgment of the exercise of\n_self-control_, which is the principle of liberty. And so far as the\nprinciple of slavery operates, in any given instance of government, is\nthat, in such instance, a giving up, to that extent, of the right of\n_self-control_, in order to secure a _right_ to the _self-control_\nwhich remains ungiven up? Is this so? This question also turn upon\nthe solution of that other question--What are rights?\n\nAnd again, _self-control_, we say, is the principle of liberty.\nPractical freedom is the exercise of the _right_ of self-control. How\nfar does the right of self-control extend? I say that an instance in\nwhich a body of men emerged from a state of nature, (so called,) and\nformed a government by an original act, is unknown to history. It\nnever occurred. Man was placed originally by Jehovah himself under\npolitical law. The very moment that he placed the first being in a\nrelation to another by giving him a \u201c_helpmeet_,\u201d he gave him a law to\ngovern that relation, as we have seen; and all the subsequent acts of\nmen in the matter of government-making, have been such modifications\nof the existing form of government as they supposed would better suit\ntheir circumstances. But it is said that when society meets in\nconvention to agree upon certain principles called a constitution,\nunder which the laws shall be made, men do virtually, for the time\nbeing, resolve themselves into their original position or state\nwithout government; and that the constitution so formed is virtually\nan original formation. Well, for the sake of the argument, let it be\nso. When, therefore, society thus falls back upon its original\nposition, men stand upon the basis of what are supposed their\n_original rights_! What is that? Why, the right that each man has to\ndo as he may please. They form a government: that is, give up a part,\nmore or less, of their _original right_. Of course a part remains\nungiven up, and the giving up cannot be to secure the possession of\nthat which is already in possession! What is it that invests these\nquestions with difficulty? Is it not the ambiguity of the term rights?\nLet us then define _rights_, if we would not be for ever entoiled by\nthese absurdities.\n\nAnd still again: Is liberty the right of self-control? Is not\nman--accountable man--free in virtue of his very humanity? Does this\nfreedom imply absolute liberty? If so, absolute liberty is inherent in\nhis very constitution--it is inalienable. What right, then, can he\nhave to give it up, or any part of it? If so, he has the right to do\nthat which subjectively he cannot do. If, then, government be a\nconcession of the _right_ of self-control in this sense, it is the\nconcession of an inalienable right, and should be abandoned as a piece\nof folly.\n\nIt is entirely obvious, therefore, that we cannot advance in these\ninquiries at all without first settling the question, _What are\nrights?_\n\nThe English language is allowed to be one of great power, compass, and\naccuracy, and therefore eminently adapted to reasoning. It derives\nthis quality in a good degree from its flexibility, the different\nvarieties of idea, and often the different shades of meaning in these\nvarieties that may be expressed by one word. No language is supposed\nto compare with it in this respect. But whilst this adapts it to the\npurpose of correct reasoning, it opens also a wide field for errors in\nargument. Men usually differ widely in _opinion_, but they do not\noften differ in sentiment. All intelligent and good men _feel right_,\nand _mean right_. They often differ in opinion because they differ in\nthe meaning they attach to the language, the same language, which is\nthe medium through which each views the same subject. Different men\nuse the same word in different senses. The same man often uses the\nsame word by habit in different senses in the same connection. They\ncome to different conclusions, of course, and the same man often\nentoils himself by his own argument. Now, there are few words with\nwhich men have more to do in discussions and opinions about liberty\nand government--the next most important matters to personal\nreligion--than with the word _rights_; and there are few words which\nare capable of more varied application, and which are in truth oftener\napplied to express different shades of meaning, than this word\n_rights_. Webster gives correctly some forty different meanings of\nthis term, together with several subordinate senses in which it\noccurs, all of which are in common use. _Our_ language--and of what\nlanguage is not the same true?--our literature, our theology, our\npolitics--society on all sides--is bristling with _rights_! Now, is it\nnot obvious that there must be some generic idea which classifies all\nthe different meanings and applications of this term, and which has\nits foundation in the common sense, the common reason of all mankind?\n\nIf, then, we inquire what are our rights in any given case, this\nquestion directly involves that other and ultimate question, What is\n_the right_ in itself? the solution of which solves at once the\ngeneral question in regard to all cases. And although the case in\nwhich our _rights_ may appear must be first in point of time before\nour minds, to call up our idea of _the right_, still our definite\nantecedent idea of the right is the logical condition on which we\ndetermine whether the right appears in that case.\n\nCall then, to your mind, an instance of justice, and one of injustice:\na case of virtue and a case of crime: an example of heroism and an\nexample of weakness: does not each of these cases embody, the one\nclass your idea of the _right in itself_, and the other your idea of\nthe _wrong in itself_? But your conception of the cases in which your\nantecedent idea of the _right_ and the _wrong_ appears, and your\nantecedent idea of _that right_ and of _that wrong_, are very\ndifferent ideas: that is, the case itself and your idea of the\nprinciple are distinct: the one a thing, the other an idea of\nsomething real. What, then, is your idea of the _right_, which is so\ndistinct in your mind from the case in which it appears? Interrogate\nyour reason and consciousness. Interrogate the reason and\nconsciousness of all mankind.\n\nTake this example: \u201cThe father of _Caius Toranius_ had been proscribed\nby the triumvirate. _Caius Toranius_, coming over to the interest of\nthat party, discovered to the officers who were in pursuit of his\nfather the place where he concealed himself, and gave withal a\ndescription by which they might distinguish his person when they found\nhim. The old man, more anxious for the safety and fortunes of his son\nthan about the little that might remain of his own life, began\nimmediately to inquire of the officers who seized him, whether his son\nwere well, whether he had done his duty to the satisfaction of the\ngenerals. \u2018That son,\u2019 replied one of the officers, \u2018so dear to thy\naffections, betrayed thee to us: by his information thou art\napprehended, and diest.\u2019 The officer, with this, struck a poniard to\nhis heart, and the unhappy parent fell, not so much affected by his\nfate as by the means to which he owed it.\u201d[3] Here is an example of\nthe greatest filial impiety, and of the highest parental affection.\nThe one fulfils our idea of _the right_, the other our idea of _the\nwrong_. Now, what is this idea of the right and the wrong in which all\nare supposed to agree? We would not ask, with the disciple of Paley,\nof Condillac, or of Helvetius, what the \u201cwild boy, caught years ago in\nthe woods of Hanover,\u201d would have thought of this case; nor what the\nsavage, without experience and without instruction, cut off in his\ninfancy from all intercourse with his species, would think of it. No:\n\u201cthe savage state offers us humanity in swaddling-clothes, so to\nspeak--the germ of humanity, but not humanity entire. The true man is\nthe perfect man of his kind: true human nature is human nature arrived\nat its development.\u201d[4] We utterly deny that, in order to arrive at\nthe judgment of human nature, we need consult a savage in such\ncircumstances, or indeed to consult a savage at all. And yet we say\nthat even a savage of good mind, who has lived long enough in society\nto get the idea of the relation of parent and child--such as even\nsavages have--would pronounce the conduct of the one to be right, and\nof the other to be wrong, and have a definite idea of that _right_ and\nthat _wrong_, each in itself. And we furthermore say, that human\nnature cultivated to the highest degree bears the same testimony to\nthe difference in the conduct of this father and this son, and\nattaches essentially the same ideas to that difference. In calling the\none _right_ and the other _wrong_, men say, and they mean to say, that\n_the one is good and the other is evil_. This is the uniform judgment\nof human reason--the permanent belief of mankind. To this _common\nsense_ bears ample testimony. Grammarians have not invented languages.\nGovernment itself dates back of legislators--they have only modified\nit. Philosophers have not invented beliefs: without concert, without\nconventions, the world has fallen upon certain beliefs, and certain\nsigns to express these beliefs. In the secret chambers of the soul,\nnot of any one individual man, but of all men individually,\nconsciousness bears testimony that such and such is the belief of all\nmen, and this we call the judgment of common sense; and such is also\nher testimony in all languages as to the thing that is _right_, and\nthat the _right_ in any given case is the idea we have of the _good_\nin that case. _The right, then, is the good._\n\n     [3] Paley\u2019s Philosophy.--Moral Science.\n\n     [4] M. Cousin.\n\n\u201cRight, _rectus_,\u201d says Webster, \u201cstraightness, rectitude;\u201d which he\nexplains to be conformity to rule or law, and that the _will of God_\nis the ultimate rule or law which determines the _right_ or the\n_wrong_ in all cases. Hence conformity to this rule is the generic\nidea of the _right_ in itself, according to Webster. In this view,\nHorne Tooke, in his Diversions of Purley, concurs. As his criticism is\ningenious, instructive, and generally truthful, I quote the more\nmaterial portion of his article on rights. After telling us in his\ndialogue that Johnson only informs us that _right_ is not _wrong_, and\n_wrong_ is not _right_, he adds:\n\n\u201cH. RIGHT is no other than RECT_um_, (_regetum_,) the past participle\nof the Latin verb _regere_, etc.\n\n\u201cIn the same manner, our English word JUST is the past participle of\nthe verb _jubere_.\n\n\u201cDECREE, EDICT, STATUTE, INSTITUTE, MANDATE, PRECEPT, are all past\nparticiples.\n\n\u201cF. What then is law?\n\n\u201cH. It is merely the past tense and past participle of the Gothic and\nAnglo-Saxon verb which means something or any thing laid down as a\nrule of conduct. Thus when a man demands his RIGHT, he asks only that\nwhich it is ordered he shall have. A RIGHT conduct is that which is\n_ordered_: a RIGHT reckoning is that which is ordered: a RIGHT line is\nthat which is _ordered_ or _directed_, (not a random extension, but)\nthe shortest between two points: the RIGHT road is that ordered to be\npassed (for the object you have in view:) to do RIGHT is to do that\nwhich is ordered to be done: to be in the RIGHT is to be in such\nsituation or circumstances as are _ordered_: to have RIGHT or law on\none\u2019s side is to have in one\u2019s favor that which is ordered or laid\ndown: a RIGHT and JUST action is such an one as is _ordered_ and\n_commanded_: a JUST man is such as he is commanded to be--_qui leges\njuraque servat_--who observes and obeys the things laid down or\ncommanded; and the RIGHT hand is that which custom and those who have\nbrought us up have ordered or directed us to use in preference, when\none hand only is employed; and the LEFT hand is that which is\n_leaved_, left, or which we are taught to leave out of use on such\noccasions. So that left, you see, is also a past participle.\n\n\u201cF. Every thing, then, that is _ordered_ and _commanded_ is RIGHT and\nJUST?\n\n\u201cH. Surely; for that is only affirming that what is _ordered_ and\n_commanded_, is _ordered_ and _commanded_.\n\n\u201cF. Now what becomes of your vaunted RIGHTS of man? According to you,\nthe chief merit of man is obedience; and whatever is ordered and\ncommanded is RIGHT and JUST. This is pretty well for a _democrat_. And\nthose have always been your sentiments?\n\n\u201cH. Always; and those sentiments confirm my democracy.\n\n\u201cF. Those sentiments do not appear to have made you very conspicuous\nfor obedience. There are not a few passages, I believe, in your life,\nwhere you have opposed what was _ordered_ and _commanded_. Upon your\nprinciples, was that RIGHT?\n\n\u201cH. Perfectly.\n\n\u201cF. How now! Was it _ordered_ and _commanded_ that you should oppose\nwhat was _ordered_ and _commanded_! Can the same thing be at the same\ntime both RIGHT and WRONG?\n\n\u201cH. Travel back to Melinda, and you will find the difficulty easily\nsolved.\u201d (The people of Melinda are all _left-handed_, i. e., _their\nright_ is _our left_. But they are as _right_-handed as we are; for\nthey use that hand in preference which is _ordered_ by their custom,\nand is therefore _their right hand_, and leave out of employ the\nother, which is, therefore, their _left_ hand.) \u201cA thing may be at the\nsame time both RIGHT and WRONG, as well as RIGHT and LEFT. It may be\n_commanded_ to be done and _commanded_ not to be done. The law--that\nwhich is _laid down_--may be different by different authorities.\n\n\u201cI have always been most obedient when most taxed with disobedience.\nBut my RIGHT hand is not the RIGHT hand of Melinda. The RIGHT I\nrevere is not the right ordered by sycophants: the _jus vagum_, the\ncapricious command of princes or ministers. I follow the LAW _of God_,\n(what is _laid down_ by him for the rule of my conduct,) when I follow\nthe laws of human nature: which without any human testimony we know\nmust proceed from God; and upon these are founded the RIGHTS of man,\nor what is _ordered_ for man. I revere the constitution and\nconstitutional laws of England, because they are in conformity with\nthe LAWS of _God_ and _nature_; and upon these are founded the\nrational rights of Englishmen. If princes, or ministers, or the\ncorrupt sham-representatives of the people, _order_, _command_, or\n_lay down_ any thing contrary to that which is _ordered_, _commanded_,\nor _laid down_ by God, human nature, or the constitution of this\ngovernment, I will still hold fast by the higher authorities. If the\nmeaner authorities are offended, they can only destroy the body of the\nindividual, but never can affect the RIGHT, or that which is ordered\nby their superiors.\u201d[5]\n\n     [5] See his whole article on Rights.\n\nThus he is found to agree with Webster, that the _will of God_ is the\nultimate _genus_ of the RIGHT. That is RIGHT, which conforms to the\nwill of God as _laid down in law_--whether that law be a _written\nrevelation_, nature, or the customs of society, (as in the case of\nthe _right_ and _left_ hand,) as the exponent of that will--they are\nwhat is ordered in the case, and make the RIGHT. Hence he condemns as\n\u201cwretched mummery\u201d the distinction admitted by M. Portalis, between\nobedience to a command, and obedience to what is RIGHT and JUST in\nitself, and, on the same ground, pronounces it \u201chighly improper\u201d to\nsay, with Mr. Locke, \u201cGod has a RIGHT to do it: we are his creatures.\u201d\nFor truly if his will be the ultimate _genus_ of RIGHT, then he can\nhave no _rights_, for there is certainly no superior to whose\n_commands_ he conforms in the acts of his will. But precisely at this\npoint let us take our stand. I affirm on the authority of Scripture,\nno less than sound philosophy, (always in harmony,) that _God has_\nRIGHTS, and that the distinction of M. Portalis is in many instances\ncorrect; and that hence Tooke, Dr. Paley, (who also concurs in this\nview--see his article Rights, in his Moral Philosophy,) Dr. Webster,\nwith many others of great distinction, strangely err, not in their\netymology of this word, but in that hypothesis by which they make it a\nsignificate of the _will of God_. We cannot agree with them that\nRIGHTS and DUTIES which are reciprocal, are resolvable only into the\nwill of God--have his will alone for their ultimate foundation. I take\nground back of this. True, I say with them--and I claim full credit\nin the declaration--that the volitions, the acts of God, are always\nRIGHT; but I do not say that his will makes the essential or true\ndistinction between _right_ and _wrong_. We dare not assume that God,\ncould, by an act of volition, make the _right_ to be the _wrong_, and\nthe _wrong_ to be the _right_--good evil, and evil good! It is absurd\nto assume that God can do things that are in themselves contradictory.\nOmnipotent, we know, he is; but such things are not the objects of\npower, any more than things which _are_ the objects of power, are, in\nthe same sense, the objects of Omniscience. To affirm that he could\nmake the _right_ to be the wrong, is as _false_ as it would be impious\nto affirm that he _would_ do it, if he could--false, because, if he\ncan, he has not deposited the truth in that great master-work of his\nhand, the mind of man; for, by the power of the intuition he has given\nus, we are assured that the idea is in itself a gross absurdity. And\nif this be not decisive of the question, then neither intuition nor\nthe deductions of intuition are of any authority. Man is the victim of\na false guide within! He may \u201ceat and drink, for to-morrow he dies!\u201d\nThere will be no more of him; or, what is worse, he is but a link in a\nchain of sentient beings who are governed by a cruel fate, which\nregards not the distinctions of _right_ and _wrong_; and he may be\nthe sport of wickedness in the world to come, as he has been the\nvictim of deception in this! I think it more than error to reason\nthus! I think it profane!\n\nWe may take ground back of this--ground as honorable to God as it is\nexalting to man and encouraging to his hopes. It is true, that both\nrectitude and duty, together with liberty, are resolvable into the\nessential good. Or, in other words, _freedom_, _rectitude_, and _duty_\nare the modes of thought in which we conceive of the good as existing\nin the soul of man, and that they are, each of them, in their distinct\nnature and harmonious union, the true ideal of the good--the modes of\nthought, also, in which the intuition of man perceives the good in the\ncase of every moral action which is good. And concerning the good in\nitself, which is thus in an humble degree perceived by us, it is\ncertainly a reality which is immutable and eternal. God did not make\nit--nor was it made. It is of the essential nature of God, and\neternal. He is the great impersonation of the good. His will, his\nvolitions, in all cases, are but the expressions of this high\nattribute. His will, therefore, always conforming to the essential\ngood, is a perfect rule of what is right in itself, and proper to be\nobserved by us, as a rule of duty or conduct. Such a rule, it will be\nseen, is eminently adapted to the wants of humanity; but, at the same\ntime, his will and the good are different realities. The one is an\nessential quality of his holy nature, and the other is, to a certain\nextent, an expression of this attribute in the form of volitions. That\nthe will of God did not make the right in itself, will readily appear.\nIs it to be conceived that there ever was a period in eternity past,\nwhen truth was not truth, or when truth did not exist? when _the good_\nwas not the _good_, or when the good did not exist? But does it not\naccord with the clearest teachings of reason, that the truth always\nwas the truth, and ever will be the truth? that the good always will\nbe the good? That two and two are equal to four; that to affirm a\nthing to be and not to be at the same time is an absurdity and a\ncontradiction; and that things equal to one and the same thing are\nequal to one another, we say are all intuitive truths--we cannot be\nmistaken about them. So also in morals: that the truth is good; that\nvirtue is good; that a good action is not an evil action; and that to\naffirm that a good action is not a good action is an absurdity, a\ncontradiction, we say, _are all intuitions_--_we cannot be mistaken\nabout them_. But is it not equally intuitive that these things were\nalways so--that these truths were always truths--the good was always\nthe good, just as certainly as that they are so now? Then the\n_eternity_ of these things is just as certainly an intuition, as that\nthey exist now is an intuition. Hence the eternity of God, who is the\ngreat impersonation of this high quality, or whose attribute it is, is\nan intuitive truth. Hence his will did not make it, for it is absurd\nto say that he made himself. His will, therefore, which, in given\ncases, is his volition, is but the expression of this essential\nquality of his holy nature. Hence his will is a rule of right, because\nin all cases it conforms to the good, but it did not make the good.\n\nTherefore the RIGHT, as it conforms to the essential GOOD, is of the\nnature of the GOOD. It is properly a significate of the good, and not\na significate of the _will of God_. Things agreeing with one and the\nsame thing agree with each other. Hence it coincides with the will of\nGod. But such coincidence does not constitute any thing _right_ in\nitself; but it is because, like the will of God, it conforms to, or is\nof the nature of, the ESSENTIAL GOOD, _that it is right_. The RIGHT\nthen, in itself, is the GOOD. The GOOD is the true generic idea which\nclassifies all the different applications of this term. So far as any\nthing is of the nature of the GOOD, it is in itself RIGHT. So far as\nany thing, to which the idea of the RIGHT applies, is negative of the\n_good_, i. e., is evil, it is WRONG.\n\nThe GOOD, therefore, as an ultimate _genus_, is much more extensive in\nmeaning than the RIGHT. It extends to all _physical_ as well as\n_moral_ good. Our subject requires us to consider it only so far as it\napplies to humanity. And how far is this? When Jehovah created man, he\npronounced him to be \u201cvery good,\u201d i. e., essentially good in the\nattributes of his nature. He was created in \u201chis own image: in the\nimage of God created he him.\u201d \u201cAnd the Lord God formed man of the dust\nof the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and\n_man became a living soul_.\u201d That is, he was created a pure spiritual\nintelligence. He had a clear and correct perception and judgment of\npure abstract truth, and of the relations of truth; with the\ncorresponding feelings of obligation to duty, and a power of will\nsufficient to control the mental states within the sphere of its\noperations. Now, as a pure intelligence, thus endowed, he is within\nthe limits of his capacity a cause within himself--strictly a\nself-acting agent, and hence accountable. And as he was created with a\nfeeling of obligation to observe the good as a rule in all his\nconduct, he was created a subject of duty--he was under obligation to\ndo, to act; and as in each of these respects, and in all others, he\nwas created in conformity with the essential good, he was _rectus_,\n_right_. All this is implied in that declaration of his essential\nnature, as a pure spiritual intelligence, (who was therein made in the\nimage of God,) which defined him to be \u201c_very good_.\u201d Nor can we think\nof this good as a quality or attribute of humanity, without being\nconscious, if we reflect closely, of associating in our minds the idea\nthat the being who personates it is for that reason _free_; that for\nthat reason he is _rectus_, _straight_, conformed to the good as the\nrule, that is, _right_; and that for the same reason he is under\nobligation--it is his _duty_ to act according to that rule. Every\ninstance of moral action that is good implies these ideas: it is\n_free_, it is _rectus_, _straight_, and it is done in accordance with\n_duty_. In the same sense in which _life_, _sense_, and _motion_ enter\ninto and so form the comprehension of the creature, animal; so\n_liberty_, _rectitude_, and _duty_ form the comprehension of moral\ngood, so far as it applies to humanity. These are distinct ideas.\nStill they coincide, and either implies the others as correlatives.\nHence we say of a _free_ action that it is _good_, implying that it is\nat the same time _rectus_, and done in accordance with duty; and of an\naction in conformity to a proper rule, that it is _good_, implying at\nthe same time that it is _free_, and done in accordance with _duty_;\nand also of an action in compliance with _duty_, that it is _good_,\nimplying that it is also _free_, and straight, i. e., conformed to\nrule: thus in each case we imply the correlative ideas.\n\nNow, whatever is in my possession by natural endowment is _mine_, in\nthe strictest sense. Hence, _freedom_ is mine, _duty_ is mine, and\n_rectitude_ is mine, because the _good_ is mine, and those are the\nelements of the good, each one implying the others.\n\nHence arises the idea of _natural right_: that is, the _right_ with\nwhich I am endowed by the constitution of my nature as a rational\nbeing. But what is that RIGHT? Evidently, the _good_. The good as an\nattribute is in my possession. I am constituted with it and by it.\nHence it is inalienable. Divest me of the good as an attribute of my\nnature, i. e., liberty, rectitude, and duty, and I sink at once in the\nscale of being: I cease altogether to be a rational or accountable\nbeing.\n\nLet no one imagine that this position conflicts with the well-known\nfact that man is a fallen being. For although fallen, he is still\naccountable. True, his moral nature is in ruins, but still it is a\nmoral nature. Though disordered, it is not eradicated. Hence the\nrestoration by grace is called a conversion; but if the essential\nmoral nature of man had been destroyed by the fall, and an attribute\nof essential evil had taken the place of it, his restoration could not\nbe called, as it is, a _change_, but should be called in the\nstrictest sense an _original_ creation. Hence, although man is fallen,\ndepraved--and we need not object to the strong terms in which this\ndepravity is usually expressed--still we find that the sentiment of\nall mankind is on the side of virtue, on the side of the good; and\nthat men, though unchanged by sovereign grace, are still required to\nbe honest, gentlemanly, and in all things regardful of each other\u2019s\nrights. We admit of exceptions or modifications of this only in the\ncase of those in whom humanity has not been fully developed, as before\nnoticed, and those in civilized life who have so far abused their\nmoral nature as, in the language of Paul, to fit themselves for\ndestruction. Therefore, it still remains that the _good_ in the form\nof rectitude, _right_, is in some modification an endowment of my\nnature: the _right_, in itself, is mine by nature.\n\nBut the good, as an attribute, is an _active_ principle. We were\nendowed with it for the purpose of movement--for results. It is my\nduty to act _right_--straight, or in accordance with the _good_ as a\nrule. Hence, whatever is a necessary _condition_ of the operation of\nthis active principle, the essential good, is in itself a good which\nis either in my possession, and hence is mine by possession; or it\n_ought_ to be in my possession, and hence is mine by just title.\nHence, to breathe, under all circumstances, together with all physical\nmotion and the sustenance of the body, which involves the right of\nproperty to a certain extent, each in given circumstances, is the\nnatural right of every one. So also the right of the embryo-man, the\nidiot, the imbecile, the uncivilized, or the savage, to protection and\ndefence, is a natural right; and for the same reason, to be protected\nand defended from certain helpless conditions by others, is the\nnatural right of every one in all states of humanity. Because each of\nthese, and of all similar things, is in itself good, being a necessary\ncondition of the operation of the essential good, and is either in our\npossession or ought to be in our possession; each one is also a\n_natural right_, the good that is or ought to be in our possession.\n\nBut there are _acquired rights_.\n\nIt is the _duty_ of man to act, from the very fact that he is endowed\nwith the attribute of the _good_, which envelops the idea of duty. He\nalso has _power_ to act from the very same natural constitution. Now,\nif he use this _power_ as duty and rectitude indicate that he should\ndo, all nature teaches, what the Bible confirms, that he will glorify\nGod, i. e., exemplify his goodness, and therein promote his own\nhappiness and the happiness of those with whom he is associated; or,\nin other words, he will secure for himself and confer upon his\nfellows eminent benefits resulting from the performance of his duty.\nNow, whatever results to him in this way is certainly his by\npossession, or by Divine grant, as much so as any natural _right_; but\nthese _benefits_, being of the nature of the essential good, (for the\nreason that they are _benefits_, are in themselves _right_,) result to\nhim in the performance of his duty, and therefore are _his rights_.\nBut the acquisition is made to depend upon the exercise of his\n_arbitrary_ volition. If he use this in pursuance of duty, they\nfollow. If he use it in violation of duty, they do not follow. Hence,\nif he realize them at all, either by possession or by title, they are\n_acquired_, and therefore are acquired _rights_ or benefits.\n\nTherefore, _acquired rights_ may be defined, such good, in the form of\nbenefits or privileges, as results from the performance of duty.\nLogically, they belong to the class of the essential good called\nbenefits or privileges, with the \u201c_essential difference_\u201d that they\nare such as result from the performance of duty. Any other result,\nthough in itself of the nature of the essential good, yet, as it\nconferred no benefit, could not be said to be _our right_. Capital\npunishment, for example, when in accordance with the Divine will, is\nin itself of the nature of the essential good; still, it would be an\nabuse of language to say, in any ordinary case, that it was the right\nof the criminal to be hung! because for no reason that we can imagine\ndoes it confer any benefit or privilege upon the criminal. To be\n_acquired rights_, therefore, they must not only be of the nature of\nthe good--that is, actual benefits--but this good must result from the\nperformance of duty, and not from the non-performance of duty, as in\nthe example given.\n\nThe definition corresponds with the language of common sense. All men,\nin speaking of cases which are supposed to involve the question of\n_rights_, employ the term in this sense. You say, of a farmer in a\ngiven case, that he had no _right_ to an abundant harvest: why?\nbecause he neglected his farm: his lands were not properly prepared,\nand the growing crop was left open to depredations from stock: that\nis, he neglected his duty; he had no _right_ to the benefit of an\nabundant harvest. And again, you say to a neighbor, You should have\npaid a certain sum of money to A., in a given case. He had a _right_\nto the money, because he complied with the conditions on which the\nmoney was to be paid. _He did his duty_, and therefore had a _right_\nto the money. Thus, the neglect of duty negatives _right_ in the one\ncase, and the performance affirms it in the other, according to the\ncommon usage of language.\n\nAnother idea which clearly enters into the common and correct use of\nthis term is that it is reciprocal with _obligation_: that is,\nwherever there is a right in one person, there is a corresponding\nobligation, _duty_, upon others. If one man has a _right_ to an\nestate, others are under obligation, that is, it is their _duty_, to\nabstain from it. If the letting of it alone be the result of duty on\nthe part of others, the enjoyment of it by him must also result from\nduty on his part, or the ideas do not coincide: that which was duty in\none set of men would not be duty in another, in regard to the same\nthing, and in correlative circumstances. This would be absurd:\ntherefore, the duty of one set of men to let another alone in the\nenjoyment of a certain benefit, implies the correlative idea that they\nenjoy the benefit in virtue of doing their duty. Hence, those benefits\nwhich are our rights result to us from the performance of our duty.\n\nThe points established in this discussion are:\n\n1. That conformity to what is _ordered_ or commanded is not the true\ngeneric idea of _the right_ in itself. What is ordered or commanded\ncan only interpret _the right_, when the command itself conforms to\nthe essential good, as in the case of the Divine will. This is always\n_right_, because it so conforms, or is always an expression of the\nessential good.\n\nHence, the _good_ is the true generic idea of _the right_. This alone\ncan interpret _the right_ in any case. Therefore, although man, in\nvirtue of his constitution as a pure intelligence, has the _power_ to\ndo _wrong_, he has not, and never can have, _the right_ to do wrong.\nFor wrong is the negative of right; and any thing, whether attribute,\nquality, opinion, doctrine, or act--every thing, whether moral or\nphysical--to be _right_, must be of the nature of the _good_: all else\nis _wrong, not right_. And it further follows, that the only true\nsubjective _right_ which any man has to exercise his power of\nself-control, is in doing that which is good, and not in doing that\nwhich is evil.\n\n2. The _natural rights_ of man are,\n\nFirst--The essential good in his possession by natural endowment, and\nwhich is therefore inalienable. And, Second--The necessary conditions,\nwhatever they may be, of the operation of the inherent good as an\nactive principle. Some of these are inalienable, and others are\nalienable. To this view of natural rights the common usage of language\nconforms.\n\n3. The _acquired rights_ of man are, such good, in the form of\nbenefits or privileges, as results to him from the performance of\nduty.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE V.\n\nTHE DOCTRINES OF RIGHTS APPLIED TO GOVERNMENT.\n\n     Government, human as well as Divine, is a necessity of man\u2019s\n     fallen condition--All men concur in this--Man did not originate\n     government: he has only modified the form--The legitimate\n     objects of government, and the means which it employs to effect\n     these objects--The logical inferences: 1. Although he has the\n     power, he has no right to do wrong; 2. As a fallen being, he\n     is, without a government over him, liable to lose the power of\n     self-control--What are the rights of man: 1. In a state of\n     infancy; 2. In a state of maturity; and, 3. In a savage or\n     uncivilized state--Civil government is not founded on a\n     concession of rights.\n\n\nPhilosophers, it seems to me, strangely overlook the tendency of man\u2019s\nfall to modify the operation of the laws of mind; and those who admit\nthe fall still overlook this fact, that the depravity of man\u2019s nature\nwas the result of _deprivation_, and not the infusion of an evil\nprinciple as an attribute of his nature. But it is not with the\ntheology of this subject that we are now dealing. The fact that, as a\nfallen being, he was deprived of the immediate presiding influence of\nthe Divine Spirit, is the matter that more immediately engages our\nattention. His lower physical nature, the great medium of the soul\u2019s\ncommunication with the outward world, and of consciousness in the\nembodied state, _originally_ operated in perfect and harmonious\nsubordination to his higher spiritual nature. In this condition, his\nappetites, propensities, and passions presented no bar to his\nhappiness, or to that of his fellows. The government or control which\nhis situation demanded, we may suppose, was simple, and concerned\nchiefly his relation to the Deity. But when, on the great occasion of\nhis trial, he exercised his power of self-action, and exalted this\nnature as a rule of moral action, instead of the essential good of his\nhigher nature, of which the will of God in the given case was the full\nand just exponent, there resulted a deprivation of the Divine Spirit,\nsuch as entirely changed the relation of those departments of his\nnature. Under the clouded condition of intellect consequent upon this\ndeprivation, his lower nature, with its appetites, propensities, and\npassions, is brought into constant and fierce conflict with his\nspiritual nature. This change in the condition of his humanity\npresents his case in an aspect altogether new. The history of each\nindividual man becomes the history of a warfare--a warfare with\nhimself, and a warfare with his fellows. With a highly vigorous moral\nnature, he is also the subject of a carnal or depraved nature. In this\nstate of things, _government_ becomes an _actual necessity of his\ncondition_. The Divine government, with all the aids and appliances\nafforded by the grand scheme of atonement, must appeal to his\npassions, both of hope and of fear. For it is only by reducing his\nlower nature to its originally subordinate and harmonious position\nthat an equilibrium will be established, and his primordial happiness\nregained. But the Divine government, though operating in harmony with\nthe claims of his moral nature, and founded upon the relation which he\nsustains to Jehovah, and indispensable to his happiness here and\nhereafter, of itself alone does not meet a great many of the immediate\ndemands of his condition. Hence the statement of Solomon: \u201cBecause\nsentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the\nheart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.\u201d The\nconsequences of obedience, high and holy as they are, and the\nconsequences of disobedience, great and terrible as they are, are too\nremote from man, in many states of intellect and feeling in which he\noften places himself, to meet the immediate demands of his nature.\nHence, that modification of government called civil government, is no\nless demanded by the necessities of his condition than the Divine.\n\nCivil government deals chiefly with the relations of man to his\nfellow-man. It coincides with the Divine government. They each aim at\nthe control of the lower nature of man, and the development of his\nhigher nature. The means they employ are the same in principle. They\naddress the same passions. The rewards and punishments of the one are\nin this life, and of the other chiefly in the life to come. Withal,\nthe civil has the sanction of the Divine, and the Divine should always\nhave the sanction of the civil, government. But still they are\nentirely distinct, and should not be confounded either in theory or in\npractice. The one is secular, and the other is Divine.\n\nNow, we say that civil government--for of that we are called more\nparticularly to speak--_is a necessity of man\u2019s condition_. It dates\nback as early as the creation of man. God himself established it in\nthe law he gave to govern the first relation that existed on\nearth--the relation between Adam and his \u201chelpmeet.\u201d After the fall, a\nnecessity arose which gave it a new and more important bearing. We\nsoon see it ramifying itself through all society, and dealing with all\nthe relations of life.\n\nIts necessity and authority, as a great means of controlling the\nlower nature of man, is among the permanent beliefs of mankind.\nNeither legislators nor philosophers originated these beliefs. They\nare among the intuitions of man. The common judgment of mankind is not\nmore assured that man exists, than that fallen man must be controlled\nin his appetites, propensities, and passions--the sum of what is often\nconsidered his interest and his happiness--by the _physical powers of\ngovernment_. Each individual man feels that he needs its powerful\nsanctions to arm him against himself, when violently tempted to do\nwrong; and that he needs its sanctions to protect him from outrage and\nwrong from his fellow-men, when moved by similar forces. The instincts\nof animal nature are not more certain in their movements than are the\n_intuitive_ perceptions and spontaneous feelings of mankind, causing\nthem to lean upon the strong arm of civil government, to _control_ the\npropensities and passions, and to promote the free exercise of the\nhigher moral nature of man.\n\nGovernment is the whole society in action. No people was ever known to\nexist for any definite period without government. Sometimes, it is\ntrue, _the form_ has been the result of implied understandings among\nthe people--as when \u201cthere was no judge in Israel:\u201d at others, a\nmaster-spirit has assumed the reins, and been deferred to by common\nconsent; and at others, it has been modified by formal processes--such\nas conventions and constitutions. Be this, however, as it may,\ngovernment has always existed. Legislators did not make it. They have\nhad much to do in modifying, directing, and often in corrupting the\nform; but nothing to do in originating government, in any proper sense\nof the term. It sprang spontaneously from the common sense of mankind.\nAn agent indispensable to self-preservation was certainly coeval with\nthe race.\n\nIn its true generic sense, that is, in a sense equally applicable to\nall forms, government is _control_ by the authority of God and the\npeople. God, in his word, declares the authority of the magistrate to\nbe his ordinance; and this accords with the intuitive belief and\nfeeling of necessity of all mankind: not that either approves in all\ncases of the _form_ which government assumes, but that the generic\nprinciple, in all cases, has the sanction of each.\n\nThe legitimate object of government is to secure to the people the\nhighest amount of freedom which their moral condition and relative\ncircumstances will admit. The means which it employs to effect this\nobject, are, 1. Suitable penalties, addressed to their hopes and\nfears, to lay them under such restraints as to the indulgence of their\nappetites, propensities, and passions, as thereby to prevent them\nfrom operating as a bar to the free exercise of their intellectual and\nmoral powers in pursuit of the _essential_ good; and, 2. The security\nwhich it offers to every man, in the exercise of the higher powers of\nhis nature, that he may do it without restraint from the passions of\nmen; or, in other words, to guarantee to every man the free exercise\nof his essential power to do good.\n\nThat both the object of government, and the means which it employs,\nare correctly stated, will not be disputed. All men concur in these\nviews. They underlie all our opinions and reasonings on the subject of\ncivil government. But in assenting to this much, (and how can it be\navoided?) may we not stand committed to much more than many\ntheoretical politicians are aware?\n\nLet us trace the logical inferences which arise from the principles\ndiscussed.\n\nI. Man, we find, is endowed with a self-acting power of will, which is\ncalled mental liberty, and hence he is accountable. For although it is\nadmitted that there cannot be a volition without a motive, yet it is\nan idea inseparable from our notions of mental liberty, that there\ncannot be any thing in these motives necessitating the volition; for\nin that case it would not be free. But he is free to adopt either the\nright or the wrong motive of volition, and therefore he is\naccountable for his actions. Nor does it follow that this liberty\nconfers the _right_ to do _wrong_. His liberty, as we have shown, is\nto be understood in a sense agreeing with the coincident ideas of\n_right_ and _duty_. We are all conscious, that so soon as we perceive\n_the good_, in any case, we have a feeling of _obligation_ to observe\nit as the rule of conduct, and to avoid the contrary as _wrong_; that\nis, _each man has a conscience_. Hence, although man has the _power_\nto do wrong, he has no _right_ to do wrong; but only a _right_ to do\nthat which is good. Such, and such only, is the true subjective _right\nof self-control_. It is not a right to do as we may please, unless we\nshall please to do that which, in itself, is _right_; that is, _the\ngood_.\n\nII. His fall, we have seen, has had the effect to place him in such\ncircumstances, that the attributes of his lower nature, his appetites,\npropensities, and passions, often have such ascendency as motives of\naction, that he is always liable to do wrong. Many reasons, _\u00e0\npriori_, could be given for this. The mind is first brought into\ncontact with the outward world through the bodily senses. They come\nfirst into play; and hence the natural sensibilities are first\ndeveloped. The will, in the form of spontaneous volition, is\naccustomed, from earliest life, to act from these as a motive, for the\nreason that there is no other from which it can act. The pure\nintelligence, the percipient of the good, and the corresponding\nfeelings of obligation, unfold themselves slowly; and long before it\nmay be said that the mind is matured, the will is accustomed to make\nthe natural sensibilities the motive of spontaneous volition. Now the\nwill is, like all other faculties of the mind, subject to the great\nlaw of habit; and if not checked, restrained according to the true\nidea of government, a _habit_ of submission is formed, which, if not\nearly dissolved, becomes a confirmed habit. The will, instead of being\nthe governing power of the mind, becomes, in truth, the faculty\ngoverned. _It has lost the power of self-control._ It has become the\nslave of passion--confirmed in the habit of submission. It is\nprecisely at this point of mental degradation that Paul declares of\n\u201cvessels of wrath,\u201d those who have brought themselves into this state\nby their own act, that \u201cthey are fitted to destruction.\u201d Now, in view\nof these facts and the principles already established, what are the\nrights of man?\n\nFirst. In the state of infancy. It has been proved that the subjective\nendowments of humanity, and whatever is necessary to their existence\nand operation, are the _natural right of man_. That the undeveloped\ngood is the endowment of this form of humanity will not be disputed:\nhence whatever is necessary to its existence and operation, is the\nnatural right of infants. But it is obvious that a governing power,\nexisting somewhere, is indispensably necessary in the case of the\nchild; that is, a power must exist sufficiently potent to control the\nspontaneous volitions of the will, or, in the circumstances of its\nposition, it will probably extinguish its own liberty, by the law of\nhabit. Government, then,--absolute government,--is necessary to the\nexistence and operation of the endowment of humanity in the state of\ninfancy; and therefore absolute government is the _natural right of\nthe infant_. Hence all civil governments have exercised (so far as the\nwill and physical condition are concerned) an absolute despotism over\nthe child, and have recognized the parent, or some one appointed in\nthe place of the parent, as the agent of its functions in this\nrespect. Not to accord to the infant this extreme form of control,\nwould be a practical denial of its natural rights. Therefore this\nextreme form of despotism, so far from being a curse, is the natural\nright of infants--the good to which they are entitled by nature. And\nagain, the civil government accords to the child a progressive\nmodification of this form of government under given circumstances. It\nrequires its agent to relax the stringency of this control, and to\nextend a privilege of self-control, in the ratio in which the pure\nintelligence and feelings of obligation or duty are _practically_\ndeveloped. For a child who had become, to a certain extent, a subject\nof duty, and was disposed to fulfil this duty, but was kept, _per\nforce_, in the physical condition of infancy until he lost the use of\nhis limbs, would be considered as deprived of the right of\nself-control to that extent, and thereby cruelly treated. The agent in\nsuch a case would be severely punished, and the child committed to\nother hands.\n\nHence, in the ratio in which the pure intelligence is unfolded, and\nfeelings of obligation arise, or conscience is developed, and becomes\nthe practical rule of action, the individual _acquires_ the right of\nself-control, and only in that ratio. This right may ultimately reach\nto all things in themselves good--the civil government always holding\nthe authority to punish departures from duty, and thereby always\nabridging men of the moral power to do wrong, (because it never could\nbe their right to do wrong,) and always fortifying them in the right\nexercise of liberty of will, by furnishing motives, addressed to their\nintelligence and passions, to observe the right and to avoid the wrong\nin the exercise of the volitive power. Therefore, the _natural right\nof man_ is the right to such absolute control by others, in the\nearlier periods of his life, as that his will may retain its\nself-acting power unimpaired, as his mind is naturally unfolded by\ntime and circumstances; and to such modification of this absolute\ncontrol in after life, as may afford him due restraint under\ntemptation to do wrong, and proper encouragement, at all times, to do\nright.\n\nSecond. _The right of man in a state of maturity._\n\n1. The government should accord him all his natural rights, and\nprotect him in the exercise of the same. That is, the political\ngovernment should co\u00f6perate with the Divine to preserve his will in\nits normal condition as a self-acting power, and to guarantee to him\nthe exercise of this power of self-action in all things good. The man\nwho is protected in the enjoyment of this inherent liberty of will, is\na free man in the strictest sense of the word. The government over him\nmay be concentrated in the hands of one man, or it may be divided\namong an aristocracy, more or less numerous, or it may be what is\ncalled a democracy, but this does not of itself affect the fact of his\nfreedom. If the government secure him in the enjoyment of these\nrights, and of all which necessarily attaches to them, he is\nessentially free. The kind of government, as a hereditary monarchy, or\na democratic republic, does not, of itself, determine the actual\nfreedom of its subjects. History furnishes many examples of\ngovernment in which the power of control was concentrated in the hands\nof but one, or of a few individuals, which afforded its subjects the\nhighest amount of essential liberty. To this day, \u201c_the freedom of the\nBritish Constitution_\u201d--as much as we justly prefer our own--is by no\nmeans an idle boast. It is a great mistake to suppose that a\ngovernment which deposits the sovereignty among the great mass of the\npeople, is the only free government. We are constrained to acknowledge\nthat it is better to be oppressed by _one_, or by a few tyrants, than\nby a multitude of tyrants. It is not _this_ or _that kind_ of\ngovernment that makes the subject essentially free. But it is the fact\nthat the controlling power, whether wielded by one or by many, secures\neach man in the enjoyment of his natural rights--affords him that\nsystem of appliances which develops and matures the self-acting power\nof his will--discourages all abuse of this power, and fully protects\nhim in the proper exercise of it in the pursuit of the essential good.\n_It is this that makes him free._\n\nWe prefer, for those to whom it is applicable, a democratic republic;\nbecause it is a more secure government, and less liable to an abuse of\npower; not because it is necessarily a more free government than any\nother. Another form of government may secure equal freedom in every\nessential particular; and this form may be as oppressive as any\nother; and whenever it is so, the condition of the down-trodden\nminority is far more hopeless than is that of the oppressed majority\nunder some other form of government. Still, in certain conditions of\nthe people, it is a much more secure form of government. The\nsovereigns of a state should always be socially equal, and, at the\nsame time, honest as well as intelligent. Such rulers will not be\noppressors. If the sovereigns of a democracy are intelligent, for the\nreason that but few participate directly and personally in the\nadministration of government and the spoils of office, they have but\nfew inducements to corruption, and are more likely to be honest. The\nmass of the people, though often wrong in opinion, are always right in\nsentiment--they mean to do right, and they desire to do right. If they\ndo err in a given case, they may usually be set right, for they have\nno motive to stay wrong. Hence, we think that when the condition of\nintelligence is fulfilled in the case of those occupying a social\nfooting, we may expect a wiser and purer government; whilst the extent\nto which they may participate in the affairs of government, giving it\na firmer hold upon their affections, cannot fail to make it a more\nsecure government. It is widely different in the case of a government\nconcentrated in the hands of a few. The sovereigns are at the same\ntime the administrators of law. They share not only the honors of\nsovereignty, but also the immediate profits of sovereignty--the spoils\nof office. Temptations to abuse power are always present and active.\nHence we find that such governments are more frequently oppressive.\nWithal, even in cases in which they are not, (for they need not be,)\nfor the reason that the mass of the people do not immediately\nparticipate in the affairs of government, they are not as devoted to\nits interests, and hence the government cannot be as secure. For these\nreasons, a democratic republic is called by way of eminence a _free\ngovernment_; but, evidently, not because it is the only form which\nsecures freedom to its subjects. Any of these forms are legitimate\nwhen they are so adapted to the condition of the people as to secure\nto them the highest amount of freedom of which that condition will\nadmit.\n\n2. The government should secure to him all his acquired rights, or the\nrights which he acquires by the proper use of his essential rights. Of\nthese, we notice,\n\n1. His rights of social equality with those with whom he holds common\ninterests, pleasures, benefits, happiness, and duties. These rights\nusually vary with the condition of different individuals, or\ndifferent classes of individuals. It will not be maintained that an\ninfant or idiot, and a man of rude intellect and vulgar habits, have\ninterests and duties common to each other, and common to persons in a\ndifferent condition, in any such sense as would entitle them all to\nsocial equality. Both their mental and physical condition would be a\nbar to any such equality. So in the case of the sexes, difference in\nphysical condition is a bar, except in the marriage state. So also\ncertain races of men are by their physical condition barred from\nsocial equality, in many respects, with those of other races. Those\nduties required by one condition in order to attain the essential good\nare very different from those of another condition which are necessary\nto attain the same object. But the privilege of social equality with\nall in a similar condition, which results from the discharge of the\nduties of that condition, is the right of every one. Some will require\npositive law to secure them; as in the marriage relation, the social\nas well as other rights of the parties must be secured by law; whilst\nothers will be better secured by leaving them to be regulated by the\nconventional usages of society--only another form of government. But\nthere is an obvious difference in the social rights of men which\ngovernment is bound to respect, unless it would arrest the progress\nof civilization; because it is an inequality founded in that\ndifference of condition, against which no government can provide, nor\nwas it intended that it should provide. We notice,\n\n2. That government should secure to him all those political rights to\nwhich he is entitled by making a proper use of his essential rights.\n\nWe need not specify all the political rights which may be regarded\nacquired rights. It is sufficient to consider this topic in regard to\nthe question of sovereignty. We say, that all the members of a given\nsociety, having a common interest in that society, are entitled to\nshare the sovereignty of its government _on certain conditions, and on\nno other conditions_. We take the ground that mere humanity, in itself\nconsidered, does not entitle any one to the rights of political\nsovereignty. If this were so, we should be bound to place females,\ntogether with minors of both sexes, and the inmates of State prisons,\namong the sovereigns of society. They are all perfect specimens of\nhumanity. Of the first it may be said, they are often equal in\nintellect with the other sex, and in other respects are generally\nsuperior specimens of humanity. These all have an interest in society\ncommon to all other members of it, and yet it is admitted that they\nshould not be numbered among the sovereigns of the land. What is it,\nthen, that entitles a man to the right of political sovereignty?\nFirst--He should have reached that point in mental development in\nwhich he will have a capacity, in common with others, to understand\nand appreciate the leading principles of government and their\napplications. Second--He should have reached that period in life in\nwhich there is usually a corresponding development of the moral\nsense--the feeling of obligation to do right--which affords a\nreasonable guaranty for the faithful application of his knowledge in\ndischarging the duties of sovereignty. Third--He should be in that\nstate of social equality which gives him a common interest, a common\nhappiness, and common duties as a citizen, with other sovereigns,\nwhich will also afford a necessary guaranty for the faithful\nperformance of his duties. And, Fourth--He should be in that physical\ncondition, also, which is necessary to the duties of so responsible a\nposition, under all ordinary circumstances. If one or more of these\nconditions exclude a whole sex, together with all minors, idiots,\nfelons, and foreigners, they at the same time limit it to a definite\nclass of males, and bar all others from any title to it. No sensible\nman would admit that the power of sovereign control inherent in\ngovernment could, with safety to the only legitimate object of\ngovernment, the happiness of the subjects, be deposited with any\nother class of men. But those who fulfil these conditions have a right\nto rule. They have acquired it by the performance of those duties\nwhich have elevated them to the condition of being qualified for\nsovereignty. It should not be withheld. If those in a society\nqualified for sovereignty be numerous, the government should take the\npopular form--a democratic republic. But if those qualified to rule\nare a limited portion of the whole society, some other form of\ngovernment is more appropriate.\n\nBut our subject leads us to notice:\n\nThird. _The rights of man in the savage or uncivilized state._\n\nNo savage community was ever known to rise unaided to a state of\ncivilization; and every example of savage society furnishes evidence\nthat it is a state into which they have fallen by the tendencies of\ndepraved nature. They are instances in which the government originally\nenjoyed--both human and Divine--has failed to preserve to the\nindividual that liberty of will in the pursuit of the good which\ngovernment is designed to secure. The pure intelligence is not\nsufficiently developed to constitute an enlightened conscience.\nDwelling apart from civilized society, the absence of all the\nartificial wants of civilization is highly favorable to many of the\nnatural virtues--such as hospitality to strangers, truth, fidelity,\nand generosity to their friends; but the undeveloped state of the pure\nreason leaves the moral sense in a state of so much immaturity, as to\ncharacterize them as unfaithful, cruel, and revengeful to their\nenemies. These are characteristics which, in their condition of\nphysical maturity, make them terrible to their neighbors.\n\nNow the question is, What are the rights of such a people? It is\nuseless to discuss this question so far as it relates to mere savage\ngovernment; for in this view it is a question of no interest. But the\nquestion, What rights can they claim of a civilized people? is the one\nwith which we have to deal.\n\nThey certainly have a natural right to protection under given\ncircumstances, and freedom from oppression under all circumstances. If\na civilized people, holding a balance of power in virtue of superior\nintelligence, have an undisputed right to protect themselves from the\ncruelty and infidelity of neighboring savages, still it will be\nadmitted that oppression in any proper sense of the term would be an\ninvasion of their natural rights. They have a right to be left in the\nenjoyment of the highest amount of freedom which their mental state\nwill allow them to use legitimately. And more than this, their natural\nrights claim for them reasonable exertions to elevate their moral\ncondition. Hence the noble efforts now being made by the Christian\npeople of this country to evangelize the savages on our border, and\nthe no less commendable efforts of the United States government to\nfavor this design, by an annual appropriation from the national\ntreasury. All this is only according them their rights. But do these\nrights entitle them to claim social equality with a civilized people?\nThat which it is the right of another to claim of me, it is my duty to\ngrant. Is it then my duty to grant social equality to any or to every\nwandering savage that may chance to pass my dwelling? Should I not\nonly extend to him the rights of hospitality due to a wandering\nsavage--give him food and shelter in given circumstances, and treat\nhim kindly in all respects--but extend to him true social equality,\nsuch as it is my duty to do to other men in certain states of\ncivilization! No man--himself not a savage--would dare affirm this!\nThe savage has no right to claim it. The reason is obvious on the\nprinciples discussed. Certain social rights arise only on certain\nconditions of moral development, and the fulfilment of the duties\nwhich attach to that state. The savage has not reached this condition;\nhence has not fulfilled its duties, and is not entitled to the right\nof social equality which attaches to that state. For a sensible man\nto affirm that he has this right in virtue of his mere humanity, would\nbe simply ridiculous. And this being so, it follows, _a fortiori_,\nthat it is much less our duty to allow him an equal participation in\nthe sovereignty of the State--allow him a control in the affairs of\ngovernment--share the authority to regulate our relations, domestic\nand foreign; and even to participate in governing our families.\n\nThe man who should gravely propose in Congress to annex the savage\ntribes of our border, as sovereign States of this Union, would, by all\nright-minded men, be regarded as insane. No one of the managers of\nlooms, spindles, and other machinery, among the agrarian portion of\nour northern community, with all their boasted knowledge of the\nnatural rights of man, and their readiness to accord equal rights to\nall men, and to protect them in asserting those rights, have, as yet,\nmade up their minds to go thus far--although we may be at a loss to\naccount for it that they so far falsify their principles as not to do\nso.\n\nNow, as it is not our duty to do this in behalf of a neighboring race\nof uncivilized people, for the reason that they have no right to it,\nhow does the question stand in regard to a numerous class of such\npersons, spread through a definite section of our country? Does this\nchange of position and contact with civilization confer on them\nhigher rights than it has already been admitted belong to them in a\nseparate state in virtue of their humanity? Is it our duty to accord\nto them equality of political rights? and for the reason that they are\ndiffused through the mass of society? Can this position be maintained?\nOn the contrary, the change of position, and the service which in that\nposition they render to the cause of civilization, which is assumed to\nacquire for them a right that does not belong to their class of\npersons in a separate position, so far from affording a vindication of\nthis doctrine, furnishes a still stronger reason against it. They are\nnot only uncivilized, but are now in a position to exert an evil\ninfluence, which in a separate state they could not do, although they\nmight dwell upon our border. In a separate state, the artificial wants\nof civilized life are unknown to them. The great sources of temptation\nto do wrong by invading the rights of neighbors, is not supplied to\nthem by their position. But when in immediate contact with\ncivilization, a great many of these artificial wants are learned by\nthem, and felt to be objects of desire. These desires, by a fixed law\nof the human mind, must be a constant source of temptation--they\nclamor for gratification. If the indulgence should not be restrained,\neither by a system of laws which reached the case, or by the motives\nwhich a state of civilization supplies, they would inevitably result\nin a disregard of the rights of property, and a general depravation of\nmorals. They are without the latter, for they are uncivilized. Hence\nthe demands of their position must be met by laws appropriate to an\nuncivilized people. The laws appropriate to a state of civilization,\nco\u00f6perating as they do with the motives supplied by that state, are\nnot more than equal to the task of restraining the passions of\ncivilized men. To rely upon them in the case of uncivilized men would\nbe the grossest folly. Hence if it were not our duty to share our\npolitical rights with such a people, dwelling upon our border, in a\nseparate state, for a much stronger reason it is not our duty to do\nthis for those dwelling in our midst. If it is not our duty to do it,\nit cannot be their right to claim it; for rights and duties are always\nreciprocal. But, on the contrary, for the same general reasons by\nwhich it becomes the duty of a civilized state to place all its minors\nunder the despotism of parental control, as before defined, it is the\nduty of the state to place an uncivilized race which may chance to\ndwell within its borders, under a similar form of government. This\ndespotism need not be oppressive in the one case any more than in the\nother. It is the proud boast of all our native citizens that they\nhave always lived under a free government; and yet they were brought\nup to the age of twenty-one under a pure despotism. But this does not\ndeprive them of their right to boast. True, the government conferred\nalmost absolute control upon the parent, or guardian, or master of the\napprentice! These might have oppressed them. But the government, which\nstood ready to vindicate their rights, did not do it. The government,\nin what it did, only accorded them their natural rights, as we have\nseen--provided to confer on them the highest amount of freedom of\nwhich their condition would admit. It was to them essentially a free\ngovernment, though in one of the forms of despotism. So in that form\nof despotism appropriate to a race of uncivilized people dwelling in\nthe midst of a civilized people, if adapted to their condition, or\nsecuring to them (as in the case of minors) their natural rights, it\nis, _for_ them, and _to_ them, a _free government_. So far from being\na curse, as many of our philosophers teach, it is a blessing, which\ntheir essential rights entitle them to claim. Any other form of\ngovernment would be, in their case, as well as in that of minors, a\npractical denial of their rights; because it would result in the\nannihilation of their essential rights; that is, the enslavement of\ntheir wills to the basest passions of fallen nature.\n\nHence, we find that government, both human and Divine, is a special\nnecessity of man\u2019s fallen condition, and coeval with the history of\nthe race: that its legitimate object is to preserve him from that\nannihilation of his essential liberty of will which would inevitably\nfollow if there were no government, and to secure him in the enjoyment\nof the highest amount of this liberty which his condition will allow:\nthat to do this, various forms of civil government are admissible; and\nthat the one best adapted to the condition of the people is the one\nthat should be applied, and is the only strictly _free government_ for\nthe people to whom it is appropriate. A democracy applied to minors or\nsavages, in the midst of a civilized people, would be the most\ngrinding of all oppressions. We have seen that the _means_ appropriate\nto government are suitable penalties addressed to our passions of hope\nand fear: that the only _right_ which a man has to exercise his\ninherent liberty--that is, the only right he has of self-control--is\nthe authority to do that which, in itself, _is right_--not a right to\ndo _wrong_: that the exclusive authority of government is to restrain\nman from doing _wrong_, and to protect and encourage him in doing\n_right_--restrain his _power_ to do wrong, not his power to do\nright--this it seeks to strengthen. We have seen that the rights of\nman in a state of minority--and the same of uncivilized men dwelling\nin a community of the civilized--are to the benefits of an absolute\nform of government; any other would be only a system of ruinous\noppression to them: that at his maturity as a civilized man, he should\nbe protected in the exercise of all the rights which naturally belong\nto a state of maturity, and also the enjoyment of all those rights\nwhich he has acquired by availing himself of the privileges afforded\nby his condition. Of his acquired rights, we see that on certain\nconditions he is entitled to social equality; and that on certain\nfurther conditions, he is entitled to the right of political\nsovereignty.\n\nNow, we ask, in what sense can it be said that legitimate government\nis a concession of some rights, in order to secure others? Certainly,\nin no good sense, seeing it only limits his power to do _wrong_, by\nlaying him under suitable disabilities, and that it does this in order\nto secure both the power and the privilege of doing right. But by\nfalsely assuming that government is a concession of rights, and that\nthe government in which every citizen does not make a voluntary\nconcession of the rights exercised by government is a cruel\noppression, men fall upon conclusions which, when carried out, (and\nprinciples will tend to work out their results,) lead to agrarianism:\nthat is, the destruction of all rights, by the annihilation of all\ncivilization.\n\nAnd again we ask, How does it follow that the domestic slavery of the\nnegro in America is an abridgment of his inalienable rights? Certainly\nnot from the fact that he is placed under an absolute form of control,\nfor we have seen that, in certain conditions of humanity, that is the\nonly form of government that will secure any freedom at all: as in the\ncase of all minors, and the case of an uncivilized race that may\nchance to be diffused among the mass of a civilized people. If, then,\nhis government be an oppression at all, it is because his state of\ncivilization, and the relative circumstances of his condition, have\nacquired for him the _rights of social equality_ and the _rights of\npolitical_ sovereignty. These are questions of fact that will be\nconsidered in their proper place.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VI.\n\nTHE ABSTRACT PRINCIPLE OF SLAVERY DISCUSSED ON SCRIPTURE GROUNDS, AND\nMISREPRESENTATIONS OF THE PRINCIPLE EXAMINED.\n\n\n     The true subjective right of self-control defined according to\n     the Scriptures--The abstract principle of slavery sanctioned by\n     the Scriptures--The Roman government--Dr. Wayland\u2019s Scripture\n     argument examined and refuted--The positions of Dr. Channing\n     and Prof. Whewell examined and refuted.\n\nThe inquiry, if the institution of domestic slavery existing amongst\nus agrees in its _details_ with the teachings of the Holy Scriptures,\nis reserved for a future lecture. We now inquire how far it agrees\nwith the Holy Scriptures in its great fundamental principles?--the\nabstract principles which, thus far, have been shown to be right.\n\nWe, of course, acknowledge the full authority of the Scriptures.\nAlthough not a formal philosophical treatise, the Bible embodies no\nother than the profoundest principles both of mental and moral\nscience; and all its teachings are in accordance with them. \u201cTo the\nlaw,\u201d then, \u201cand to the testimony.\u201d Do they sanction the principles I\nhave sought to establish? Do they accord to man any other subjective\nright of self-control than simply the _right_ to do that which in\nitself is _right_--that is, _good_? True, they assume that he has the\n_power_ to do wrong, but at the same time they deny to him _all right_\nto do wrong. All those scriptures which forbid his doing _wrong_, and\nenjoin it upon him to do _right_, under severe penalties for\ndisobedience, are in proof. They are too numerous and familiar to\nrequire that I quote them. They all assume that he has power to do\neither _right_ or _wrong_, but only a _right_ to do that which is\n_right_. Whoever, then, sets up a _right_ to do a thing, and can give\nno better reason for it than that he has power to do it in virtue of\nhis humanity, and that therefore others should not interpose obstacles\nin the way of his doing it, on peril of abridging him of a natural\nright, assumes far more than the Scriptures allow him; nay, he assumes\nthat which is forbidden him in Holy Scripture, no less than in reason\nand common sense; and if allowed to exercise such lawless power, under\nthe plea of _natural right_, he could not fail to put an end to all\nlaw, and to precipitate society into a state of anarchy. Therefore,\nthe government which places minors, aliens, and citizens, who at the\nsame time allow themselves to be subjects of a foreign prince,\ntogether with uncivilized persons, in circumstances in which they\ncannot, or are not likely, to injure their neighbors, or to injure\nsociety, does not, for that reason, deprive them of a _natural_ right,\nunless it could be shown that they have a natural right to do the very\nthing which the Scriptures declare they have no right to do, that is,\nto injure their neighbors! It further follows, that the right to do an\nact which involves accountability, is the right to do that which, _in\nitself_, _is right_; or, in other words, the only natural right of\nself-control is the right to do that which is good. Hence, those who\nclaim for any class of society a right to political sovereignty,\nshould be prepared to show that the essential good requires that such\nprivilege be accorded them, or they fail to establish their right, for\nthe reason that no right can ever be justly _acquired_ which does not\ncoincide with the natural right to do good.\n\nAgain, we have shown that the abstract principle of slavery is control\nby the will of another, with its correlatives: that this is an\nessential element of all government; for a government which did not\nexercise the right to control men, even against their wills, under\ngiven circumstances, would be no government at all. Do these views\naccord with the teachings of the Holy Scriptures? That control is an\nessential idea of government, is an intuitive perception, and needs no\nproof. The question then resolves itself into this: Do the Scriptures\nsanction government? That the Bible itself is only a system of\ngovernment, will not be disputed. It _forbids_ and _commands_, and\nrequires all men to conform their volitions to its requirements, as to\nthat which is in itself good. Moreover, it sanctions civil government\nin the most express terms: \u201cLet every soul be subject unto the higher\npowers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are\nordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power,\u201d that is,\nthe authority of government, \u201cresisteth the ordinance of God; and they\nthat resist shall receive to themselves damnation,\u201d etc. (Rom. xiii.\n1-7. See A. Clarke\u2019s notes.) This was said to the Roman Christians,\nand was an injunction to obey Caesar\u2019s government. In that government,\nit is well known, the slavery element greatly predominated: but little\nroom was left for the exercise of self-control; political sovereignty\nbeing denied to the people. In declaring government, even in this\nextreme form of controlling the wills of men, to be his appointment,\nGod establishes the _principle, as in itself right_. Dr. Wayland,\nhowever, (see article, Modes in which Personal Liberty may be\nviolated,) affirms, \u201cthat the gospel is diametrically opposed to the\n_principle_ of slavery.\u201d\n\nThe moral precepts of the Bible, which he assumes to be diametrically\nopposed to the principle of slavery, are, (as quoted by himself,)\n\u201cThou shalt love _thy neighbor as thyself_; and _all things\nwhatsoever_ ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto\nthem.\u201d He says that, \u201cwere this precept obeyed, it is manifest that\nslavery could not in fact exist for a single instant. The _principle_\nof the precept is absolutely subversive of the _principle_ of\nslavery.\u201d That the gospel should, nevertheless, acknowledge\nslaveholders (for neither the Jewish nor the Roman law _required_ any\ncitizen to hold slaves) as \u201c_believers_,\u201d and \u201c_worthy of all honor_,\u201d\nand require of the Christian slaves held by them to acknowledge them\nas _brethren_, that is, good men, and accord them _all honor_, is\nevidently a troublesome question to the Doctor. There is no room for\nsurprise. The second scripture quoted, it is allowed, interprets the\nfirst. In what sense then are we to understand the duty inculcated in\nthe second? There are only two senses in which the form of the\nexpression will allow us to evolve any significance whatever. The\nfirst is, Do unto another whatsoever you would have him to do unto\nyou, if you were in his situation; and the second is, Do unto another\nwhatsoever you would have a _right_ to require another to do unto you,\nif you were in his circumstances.\n\nNow if we could suppose that the Saviour intended his language to be\nunderstood in the first sense, it will not perhaps be disputed that it\nis our duty to abolish domestic slavery, for we should, no doubt,\ndesire to be released, if we were in a state of domestic slavery. But,\nunfortunately for the argument, this interpretation would not stop at\nthe abolition of domestic slavery in the case of the African. It would\nreach to the domestic slavery of the child also. There is scarcely a\nwayward lad in Christendom who could not justly claim release from\nparental restraint on the same principle! Nay, more, the criminal at\nthe bar of civil justice, the inmates of State prisons, and the poor\nman in his hovel, would all claim release! And as that which is duty\nin others, in such cases, is a right in them, not to grant them\nrelease would certainly be a denial of their just rights! Is this the\nsense in which Dr. Wayland would have us understand the Saviour of\nmankind? Certain it is, that this is the only sense in which his words\ncan be understood so as to involve the necessary abolition of slavery!\nWe cheerfully acquit Dr. W. from the purpose to teach any such\nagrarian folly. Still, we can see no good reason why one so eminent,\nas a Christian and a scholar, should permit even an early prejudice as\nto a practical question, about which he allows that he is uninformed,\nto betray him into such views of a plain principle as logically\ninvolve him in the grossest absurdities.\n\nThat the second sense given is the proper one in which to understand\nthe Saviour\u2019s doctrine can admit of no dispute. What we should have a\n_right to claim_, if we were in the circumstances of a slave, is\nprecisely that which we are to accord to such slave, according to the\nprecept of the Saviour. If we should have a right to claim political\nsovereignty, in those circumstances, we are bound to allow them such\nsovereignty, that is, release them from slavery. This directly\ninvolves the question, Whether they are fitted for that\nself-government which is involved in such sovereignty? That they are\nnot so in virtue of their humanity merely, we have proved; and whether\nthey are so or not, by acquirement, is a practical question which Dr.\nWayland allows that he is not competent to decide. This question will\nbe met in another place. It is sufficient here to state, that the\nscripture so confidently relied on as repudiating the principle of\nslavery, is found not to reach the question of the principle at all,\nand, therefore, is wholly misapplied.\n\nThe patriarchal form of government, which existed before the\ntheocracy of the Jews, constituted the patriarch (he being the head of\nthe family) the owner of slaves. Abraham, Lot, and others, held them\nin large numbers. These men enjoyed the unqualified approbation of\nJehovah, and in their character of slaveholders, no less than in many\nother respects. According to Dr. W., they enjoyed the Divine\napprobation in the practice of iniquity; for he says, the Bible\ncondemns both the _principle_ and the _practice_ of slavery!\n\nIt is evident that the Jews brought slaves with them from Egypt; for\nthe terms of the Decalogue not only imply that they were familiar with\ndomestic slavery, but also that it was, at that time, an existing\npractice among them. But more than this, the Decalogue is strictly the\nconstitution which Jehovah himself gave to the Jewish nation. Now to\nassume that he provided in this constitution to protect in all time to\ncome (for it is allowed to embody immutable principles) a relation\nwhich was, in itself, _an iniquity_, is more than a mere\nabsurdity--_it is profanity_. And it is certain that the tenth article\nof this constitution provides to protect the right of property in\nslaves: \u201c_Thou shall not covet thy neighbor\u2019s_ MAN-SERVANT, _nor his_\nMAID-SERVANT, _nor any thing that is thy neighbor\u2019s_.\u201d\n\nThe Saviour has recognized this law, as it was originally designed to\nbe, of universal obligation and force: \u201c_Think not that I am come to\ndestroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to\nfulfil_.\u201d Matt. v. 17.\n\nIn accordance with this fundamental law of the nation, God proceeded\nto provide in their civil institutions for the operation of a regular\nsystem of domestic slavery. Under these institutions, a Hebrew might\nlose his liberty and become a domestic slave, in six different ways.\n(See A. Clarke, on Ex. xxi.)\n\n1. In extreme poverty, he might sell his liberty. Lev. xxv. 39: \u201c_If\nthy brother be waxed poor and be sold unto thee_.\u201d\n\n2. A father might sell his child. Ex. xxi. 7: \u201c_If a man sell his\ndaughter to be a maid-servant_.\u201d\n\n3. Insolvent debtors became the slaves of their creditors. 2 Kings iv.\n1: \u201c_My husband is dead, and the creditor is come to take unto him my\ntwo sons to be bondsmen_.\u201d Also, Matt. xviii. 25.\n\n4. A thief, if he had not money to pay the fine laid on him by the\nlaw, was to be sold for his profit whom he had robbed. Ex. xxii. 3:\n\u201c_If he have nothing, then he shall be sold for the theft_.\u201d\n\n5. A Hebrew was liable to be taken in war, and sold for a slave. 2\nChron. xii. 8.\n\n6. A Hebrew slave who had been ransomed from a Gentile by a Hebrew,\nmight be sold by him who ransomed him to one of his own nation.\n\nAll who became slaves under this system were emancipated in the\nseventh year, except those who should refuse to accept liberty. Ex.\nxxi. 2-6. They were emancipated in the year of jubilee.\n\nBut then, the law further provided for domestic slaves _in\nperpetuity_.\n\n\u201cBoth thy bondmen and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have, shall be of\nthe _heathen_ that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bondmen\nand bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do\nsojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that\nare with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your\npossession; and ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children\nafter you, to inherit them for a possession: they shall be your\nbondmen for ever; but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye\nshall not rule over one another with rigor.\u201d Lev. xxv. 44-46.\n\nThe attempts which are sometimes made to prove that \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, of the\nSeptuagint, and _servus_, of the Vulgate version, translated\nindifferently _servant_ or slave, means only a _hired servant_, need\nonly to be mentioned to be refuted. That these terms defined an actual\nstate of slavery among the Greeks and Romans, no one acquainted with\nthe facts will deny. But whatever might be their original meaning,\nthey are to be understood, as Bible terms, in the sense of the\noriginal Hebrew, which they are employed to express. Now, nothing is\nmore certain than this, that the Hebrew Bible (and the same is true of\nthe English translation) speaks of _servants_, _hired_ servants, and\n_bond_ servants. The term servant is the generic form, and evidently\nmeans, a person who is controlled by the will of another: _hired_\nservant is one who serves in that way by contract for a definite\nperiod; whilst _bond_ servant is one who has either contracted to do\nso through his whole life, or who, by the usages of war, or by\ninheritance, or by purchase from another, was so bound to\nservice--(such as Paul calls a \u201cservant under the yoke.\u201d 2 Tim. vi.\n1.) These different relations are distinctly marked by the use of\nthese terms in the Bible, and especially the meaning of BOND SERVANT,\nin distinction from a HIRED SERVANT: \u201c_If thy brother that dwelleth by\nthee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shall not compel him\nto serve as a_ BOND SERVANT, _but as a_ HIRED SERVANT, _and as a\nsojourner, shall he be_.\u201d Lev. XXV. 39, 40.\n\nThus we find that the Jewish constitution provided to protect the\nright of property in servants or slaves in the generic sense: that is,\nwhether in the one form or the other; and that He who gave them their\ncivil institutions, also provided under their constitution for the\norganization of a regular system of domestic slavery, in two distinct\nforms: the _one_, the enslavement, in the true generic sense, of\nHebrews in given circumstances, for a definite period; and the\n_other_, the enslavement, in the same sense, of the neighboring\nheathen, _in perpetuity_.\n\nSuch was the legal origin of domestic slavery among the Jews. During\nall the calamities that have befallen that people, this constitution\nand these laws have known neither repeal nor modification. At no\nperiod of their history were they without domestic slaves; and when\nthe Saviour dwelt among them, the whole land was filled with such\nslaves. No State in this Union can with more propriety be regarded a\nslaveholding community, than was that of the Jewish people in the days\nof the Saviour. In every congregation which he addressed, bond slaves\nmay have mingled. The hospitalities of every family of which he\npartook, were probably ministered to him, more or less, by domestic\nslaves. And in all this time, and under all these circumstances, not a\nword is known to have escaped him, either in public or in private,\ndeclaring the relation of master and slave to be sinful! But, on the\ncontrary, Paul\u2019s denunciation--1 Tim. vi. 3--of the teachers of\nabolition doctrines, that they \u201c_consent not to wholesome words, even\nthe words of our Lord Jesus Christ_,\u201d is sufficient reason to believe\nthat he was always understood to approve of the relation, and to\ncondemn in express terms all attempts to abolish it as a duty of the\nreligion which he taught. And certain it is, that this relation is\nmade the subject of some of his most eloquent allusions, and the basis\nof some of his most instructive parables: \u201cOne is your Master, even\nChrist,\u201d Matt. xxiii. 10: \u201cGood Master, what shall I do?\u201d Mark x. 17:\n\u201cNo man can serve two masters,\u201d Matt. vi. 24--are specimens of the\nformer; whilst the parable, Matt. xiii. 24-28, \u201cAnd the servants said,\nWilt thou that we go and gather them up?\u201d--of the vineyard, Matt.\nxxi.; of the talents, Matt. xxv.; and others of a similar nature, are\nstriking examples of the latter. And yet, young gentlemen, the author\nof your text says, the doctrines of the Bible, and especially the\nteachings of the Saviour, are \u201cdiametrically opposed to both the\nprinciple and the practice of domestic slavery.\u201d If this be true, it\nis really passing strange that Jehovah himself should provide, in the\norganic law of the Jewish commonwealth, for the working of a system of\ndomestic slavery, and, by a series of laws drawn up under this\nconstitution, set such a system in actual operation; and that the\nSaviour of mankind should also give, according to every legitimate\ninterpretation that can be put, either upon his language or his\nconduct, his unqualified approbation to that which was so flatly\nopposed to all his doctrines! It is saying but little of all this to\naffirm that it is grossly absurd! It can appeal to no doctrine that we\nare aware of for its defence, unless it be the kindred absurdity that\nthe _will of God_ is not the rule of right, in this sense, that it\nalways conforms to that which, _in itself, is right_, i. e., good; but\nthat it is the rule of right in this other sense, that it is\nabsolutely, in itself, the only rule of right; and that, in the case\nunder consideration, domestic slavery was right for the Jews, because\nGod so willed it, but the same thing in principle, and under similar\ncircumstances, would be wrong for any other people, because in regard\nto them God had willed differently: thus assigning to Deity the power\nto make _the wrong the right, and the right the wrong_! We regret to\nknow that this absurd view of the Divine volitions has found its way\nbeyond the pages of Dr. Paley. It is countenanced by some writers of\neminent distinction in theology. But to give it a definite application\nin any case, is all that is required for its entire refutation. We\nrely with confidence on the conclusion that what God thus provided for\nin the Jewish constitution, was right in principle in itself, and\nthat, under the circumstances of the Jewish people, it was right in\npractice.\n\nAmong the strange, if not wholly unaccountable, misconceptions, if not\ngross misrepresentations, of the fundamental ideas of domestic\nslavery, we may place those of Dr. Channing and Prof. Whewell. The\nlatter, in his \u201cElements of Morality,\u201d states that \u201cslavery converts a\nperson into a thing--a subject merely passive, without any of the\nrecognized attributes of human nature.\u201d \u201cA slave,\u201d he further says,\n\u201cin the eye of the law which stamps him with that character, is not\nacknowledged as a man. He is reduced to the level of a brute;\u201d that\nis, as he explains it, \u201che is divested of his moral nature.\u201d\n\nDr. Channing, the great apostle of Unitarianism in America, says, \u201cThe\nvery idea of a slave is that he belongs to another: that he is bound\nto live and labor for another; to be another\u2019s instrument, that is, in\nall things, just as a threshing-machine, or another beast of burden;\nand to make another\u2019s will his habitual law, however adverse to his\nown.\u201d He adds, in another place, \u201cWe have thus established the reality\nand sacredness of human rights; and that slavery is an infraction of\nthese, is too plain to need any labored proof. Slavery violates not\none, but all; violates them not incidentally, but necessarily,\nsystematically, from its very nature.\u201d\n\nThese, together with your text, young gentlemen, are leading\nauthorities on this subject. Following these, we should adopt the\nbelief that the principle of slavery in question is, as they express\nit, \u201can absorption of the humanity of one man into the will of\nanother;\u201d or, in other words, that \u201cslavery contemplates him, not as a\nresponsible, but a mere sentient being--not as a man, but a brute.\u201d\n\nIf this be so, the wonder is not, as they affirm, that the civilized\nworld is so indignant at its outrageous wrongs, but that \u201cit has been\nso slow in detecting its gross and palpable enormities: that mankind,\nfor so many ages, acquiesced in a system as monstrously unnatural as\nwould be a general effort to walk upon the head or to think with the\nfeet!\u201d We need have no hesitation in flatly denying the truth of this\ndescription, and pronouncing it a caricature. For if this be a\nfaithful description, we can safely affirm that no instance of slavery\never existed under the authority of law in any nation known to\nhistory.\n\nIn the first place, the state of things so rhetorically described is a\npalpable impossibility. The constitution of the human mind is in flat\ncontradiction to the idea of the absorption of the will, the\nconscience, and the understanding of one man into the personality of\nanother! This is a state of things which the human mind cannot even\nconceive to be possible, but does intuitively perceive to be utterly\nimpossible. In the next place, we affirm that the idea of _personal\nrights_ and _personal responsibility_ pervades the whole system. Both\nthe Divine and human laws which recognize the system assume the\npersonality and responsibility of the slave. Even under the Roman and\nGrecian codes--which recognized far more stringent forms of slavery\nthan that of the African in this country, at any period of its\nhistory--this view of the system will find no support. Paul and Peter,\nwho wrote with special allusion to slaves under these laws, so far\nfrom regarding this personality as lost and swallowed up in the\nhumanity of the master, expressly assumed their personality and\nresponsibility. For whilst they _recognize him as a servant_, they\ntreat him as a man: they declare him possessed, though a slave, of\ncertain rights, which it was injustice in the master to disregard, and\nunder obligation to certain duties, as a slave, which it would be\nsinful in him to neglect; and, moreover, that it was the office of\nthat religion whose functions they filled, to protect these rights and\nduties with its most solemn sanctions. Hence they enjoin upon masters\nthe moral obligation of rendering to their bondmen \u201c_that which is\njust and equal_,\u201d and upon servants to \u201c_be subject to their masters\nwith all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the\nfroward_. _For this is thankworthy, if a man, for conscience toward\nGod, endure grief, suffering wrongfully._\u201d Was this treating them as\nbeings whose wills were absorbed in the humanity of the master, who\ntherefore was the only accountable person for all their conduct!\nNothing could be more alien from truth, and significant of falsehood!\nNo: obedience is never applied, except as a figurative term, and\nespecially by the apostles, to any but rational and accountable\nbeings. And with such inspired requisitions before us--\u201c_obedience\nfrom the one, and justice from the other_\u201d--it is grossly absurd to\naffirm that the relation of master and slave regards the slave as a\nbrute, and not as an accountable man. \u201cThe blind passivity of a\ncorpse, or the mechanical obedience of a tool,\u201d which Channing and\nWhewell regard as constituting the essential idea of slavery, seems\nnever to have entered the minds of the apostles. They considered\nslavery as a social and political economy, in which relations\ninvolving reciprocal rights and duties subsisted, between moral,\nintelligent, and responsible beings, between whom, as between men in\nother relations, religion held the scales of justice.\n\nThe right of property in man, as man, is nowhere taught in Scripture,\nalthough it distinctly recognizes the relation of master and slave.\nThe right which the master has in the slave, according to the\nScriptures, is, _not to the man_, but to so much of his time and labor\nas is consistent with his rights of humanity. The master who\ndisregards these claims, denies his slave that which is \u201cjust and\nequal.\u201d The duty which the slave owes, is the service which, in\nconformity with these rights, the master exacts. A failure in either\nparty is a breach of Scripture.\n\nThe only difference between free and slave labor is, that the one is\nrendered in consequence of a contract, and the other in consequence of\na command. Each is service rendered according to the will of another;\nand each may, or may not, be according to the consent of the party\nrendering service. The former is often as _involuntary_, in point of\nfact, as the latter. Hirelings _assent_ to it, in most cases, as a\nnecessity of their condition. They do not _consent_ to it--they are\nfar from choosing it. A few persons reach that high attainment of a\npure Christianity, in which they learn in every state in which they\nare placed, in the providence of God, \u201ctherewith to be content\u201d--they\nchoose it. But in the general, hired service is, in point of fact, as\ninvoluntary as slave labor.\n\nA right, therefore, to the time and labor of another to a definite\nextent, by no means involves the right to his humanity. Such right is\na mere fiction, to which even the imagination can give no significance\nor consistency. \u201cIt is the miserable cant of those who would storm by\nprejudice what they cannot demolish by argument.\u201d\n\nThus, young gentlemen, that the abstract principle of the institution\nof slavery, and the principles of natural rights, coincide, and that\nboth have the unqualified approbation of Holy Scripture, cannot be\nsuccessfully controverted. Natural rights and the principle of slavery\ndo not conflict. No man has a natural right to do wrong. That wherein\nthe principle of slavery is in itself _right_, is that, when carried\nout in the form of civil government, it furnishes an instance in which\nthe subjects of government who are liable to injure society by doing\nwrong, are placed under such disabilities, or in such circumstances,\nin which they cannot or are not likely to do this wrong, but to do\nthat which they have a natural right to do, that is, do good. In all\ncases in which this principle enters into the government in such ratio\nor modification as to secure these ends, it coincides with natural\nrights, and insures to the subject the highest amount of freedom of\nwhich his moral condition will admit; it is to him essentially a free\ngovernment, although, in adapting itself to his moral condition, it\nmay assume an extreme form of despotism.\n\nWhether the Southern States of this Union have wisely adapted this\nprinciple to the moral condition of the African population residing\nwithin their borders, and thereby secured to them an essentially free\ngovernment, remains to be considered.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VII.\n\nTHE INSTITUTION OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY.\n\n     The question stated--The conduct of masters a separate\n     question--The institution defined--The position of the\n     abolitionists and that of the Southern people--The presumption\n     is in favor of the latter--Those who claim freedom for the\n     blacks of this country failed to secure it to those on whom\n     they professed to confer it--The doctrine by which they seek to\n     vindicate the claim set up for them, together with the fact of\n     history assumed to be true, is false.\n\n\nHaving proved that the abstract principle of the institution of\ndomestic slavery is a legitimate principle, both in itself, and in\nthis, that it coincides with the great fundamental principle of\n_right_, and does not necessarily conflict with the _right_, and is\ntherefore in itself _good_, and _not evil_; the next inquiry that\narises is this: \u201c_Is the institution of domestic slavery, existing\namong us, and involving this principle, justified by the circumstances\nof the case, and therefore right?_\u201d--according to the doctrine evolved\nin the second lecture, namely, that the principle of an action, being\nitself _right_, the action is right, _provided_ other and coincident\nprinciples justify the action, or, as we usually say, provided the\ncircumstances require it.\n\nLet it be observed, that the conduct of individual slaveholders, in\nthe exercise of any discretion conferred on them by the nature of\ntheir relation as masters, is still a separate question, and not here\nto be taken into the discussion. We inquire as to the propriety of the\ninstitution: Is it demanded at all by the circumstances of the case?\nThis is eminently a practical question, and is the only one which\ninvolves the morality of the _institution_ itself, now that the\nabstract principle is shown to be legitimate.\n\nDomestic slavery is one of the subordinate forms of civil government.\nIt may be defined an _imperium in imperio_--a government within a\ngovernment: one in which the subject of the inferior government is\nunder the control of a master, up to a certain limit defined by the\nsuperior government, and beyond which both the master and the slave\nare alike subject to control by the superior government. The question\nnow arises, Is this a suitable government for the negro race in\nAmerica? Without doubt, this question is to be settled on the same\ngeneral principles by which we should settle a similar question in\nregard to the suitableness of any other form of government for any\nother people. For example, the same principles which determine the\nfitness of a military despotism, a constitutional monarchy, or a\ndemocratic republic, to any particular community of white persons,\nwill determine the suitableness of this form of government to the\nAfrican race in this country. They are all different forms of control,\nbelonging to the same genus--government; and pervaded by the same\ngeneric elements--the principles of slavery and liberty combined in\ndifferent ratios, in order to secure the greatest amount of happiness\nto those communities to which they are fitly applied. The claims of\nthe African might be separately examined in regard to each of these\nforms of government; but this course is not demanded by the interests\nof this discussion. Nor need we stop to inquire, how the Africans came\ninto this country: whether lawfully or unlawfully--whether by their\nown act, or the act of another. These are in truth side issues, and do\nnot necessarily attach to this discussion. They will be treated as\nincidental to the main question; for although it were allowed that\nthey are here unlawfully, and that it is our duty to remove them, yet\nit is still true that they are here, and cannot be immediately\nremoved, and must therefore be subjected, as human beings, to some\none of the known forms of civil government. What form of government\nshall this be? According to principles well established, and admitted\non all sides, it should be such a form of government as, from its\nadaptation to their intellectual, moral, relative, and physical\ncondition, is best calculated to promote their happiness and the\nhappiness of those with whom they are necessarily associated. But what\nform of government is it which will most probably accomplish this\nobject?\n\nThe anti-slavery party, as well as the abolition faction, claim for\nthe Africans a democratic republic: that is, that they should have\nequal political privileges with the whites, and only be subject with\nthem to the same modified form of slavery! On the contrary, we of the\nSouth maintain that, from their _present state_ of mental imbecility,\nmoral degradation, and physical inferiority, they should be placed\nunder that more decided form of control called domestic slavery. _Who\nis right?_\n\nIn discussing this question, we take the ground, first, that, in\nadvance of all direct argument, we are entitled to the full benefit of\nthe _presumption_ in argument--the burden of proof lies upon those who\ndispute our position; and, secondly, that we are right in fact--that\nthe circumstances of the case demand this form of government on behalf\nof the race, as _their right, their blessing_; because this form of\ngovernment, duly and properly administered, as it _may_ be, and\n_ought_ to be, is calculated to afford them the _highest_, if not the\nonly amount of political freedom and happiness to which their humanity\nis at present adapted, and especially in view of their existing\nrelations to a higher form of civilization, in the case of those among\nwhom they dwell.\n\n1. We are _presumptively_ right. The _onus_ lies wholly upon those who\noppose our position.\n\nIn taking this ground, we readily waive the _presumption_ founded upon\nthe _mere_ fact that domestic slavery is an existing institution, and\nis entitled to stand as good, until the contrary is made to appear. We\ngo back of this. We throw ourselves upon original ground. We say, that\nif this were now an original question in the country, the\n_presumption_ would be, that this was the appropriate form of\ngovernment for the African race in this country.\n\nAs an original case, it would be an undisputed fact that the race was\nin an uncivilized state. We have demonstrated, in a former lecture,\nthat an uncivilized people is not adapted to a state of political\nfreedom. To such a people dwelling in the midst of a civilized people,\nit could not be a _right_, because it would not be a _good_, but _an\nevil_, _a curse_. There is no reason to assume that to place them in\nthis condition would elevate them at once to such fitness as would\nmake it a blessing, but there is every reason to _presume_ that the\nreverse would follow an elevation to political freedom. If any think\notherwise, the burden of proof lies upon him.\n\nThis presumption is greatly strengthened by the fact that they who\nclaim political freedom for the Africans now in the country, have\nsignally failed to secure it for those upon whom they have professed\nto confer it. Essential freedom is inseparably interlaced with _social\nequality_. Without the latter, the former cannot possibly exist. The\nNorthern States have long since conferred the forms of civil freedom\nupon the African portion of their population, but to the present hour\nthey have denied them _social equality_. Herein, they extinguish all\nthe lights and comforts of essential freedom. They settle upon them a\nsuffocative anhelation, which is truly the most oppressive form of\nslavery. The social inequality of the races, it is well known, exists\nin a much more modified form at the South than at the North. That\nthose who have made, as we allow, an honest effort to confer essential\nfreedom upon them, have signally failed, greatly strengthens the\n_presumption_ that we are right in believing that the end they\nproposed was impracticable, and that we need not be so unwise as to\nimitate their folly.\n\nBut this _presumption_ is still further strengthened by the fact that\nthe basis argument upon which the abolitionists usually rest the\nclaims of the African, is entirely sophistical. It is this: Slave\nproperty was originally acquired by robbery and violence, and\ntherefore can never become lawful property. Hence we should confer\nupon them political freedom, regardless of whatever consequences may\nfollow; seeing that an act of robbery can never extinguish the\noriginal right of the person robbed, or confer original title upon the\nrobber.\n\nThe _doctrine_ assumed in this argument is, that possessions unjustly\nacquired originally, can never become legal possessions; or that a\nstate of things originally resulting from _wrong_, can never, by lapse\nof time, or the force of any circumstances, become right. The _fact_\nassumed as the basis of this doctrine in its application to the\nAfrican is, that they were stolen while in a state of freedom, and\nreduced to a state of slavery. But we deny both the _doctrine_ and the\nhypothetical assumption on which it is based.\n\n1. If the _doctrine_ be true, it will follow that all wrong is without\nany remedy, except in the few cases in which things may be restored to\ntheir original state. This would be a deplorable state of things\nindeed. It would work special disaster to our Northern brethren. For,\nfirst, if this doctrine be true, they own scarcely one foot of honest\nland; nor is there any in the whole country, save the original\npurchase of William Penn, and a few other unappreciable portions of\nterritory. The Indians were the original and rightful owners of this\nwhole country, according to the theory of rights which forms the basis\nof this doctrine. From the most of their possessions they were\nforcibly ejected at the peril of life as well as liberty; and from the\nremainder they were driven by a policy which in civilized life would\nbe held and treated as knavery. These lands, according to this\ndoctrine, should in all honesty be restored to their rightful owners,\nor to those who inherit them under their title, or the present holders\nare robbers. Second. The Africans, it is said, were stolen! If so,\nthose who received them in this country can only be regarded as the\nreceivers of stolen property--no better, if not worse, than the\noriginal thieves. But on this hypothesis, Who stole them? and who\nreceived this stolen property, knowing it to be so stolen? These\nquestions admit of but one answer: The forefathers of the present\ngeneration of New England population! From their ports, vessels were\nfitted out, and employed in this system of \u201cman-stealing.\u201d They\nbecame the receivers of this stolen property. Those who were not\ndemanded by their own agricultural pursuits, were sold in Southern\nmarkets. As the climate and soil of the South were better suited to\nsuch labor, the larger portion of all this stolen property was\naccumulated in the South. The product of the lands of New England, and\nthe product of these sales of stolen Africans, have been, from time to\ntime, invested in commercial and manufacturing pursuits. These\nconstitute the chief sources of the great wealth of the New England\nStates, to the present day; and these, it is well known, are mainly\nsupported by the products of slave labor at the South. This being so,\nthe great wealth of the Northern States can be regarded only as so\nmuch dishonest gain! Really, it is time they were looking to the duty\nof restitution! But the disaster of this doctrine does not exhaust\nitself with our Northern brethren. The Norman Conquest of Great\nBritain is that by which all the land-titles of England are held to\nthe present day. All these titles are held under the rights acquired\nby this conquest. Now it is well known that the Norman Conquest was\nthe most lawless piece of injustice and butchery, the record of which\never disgraced the pages of human history! Upon the basis of the\ndoctrine in question, it is equally certain that there is scarcely an\nhonest shilling in all England! Nor is this all: the present titles of\nall Europe, Asia, and Northern Africa, are traceable, more or less\nremotely, to a source equally cruel and unjust! Thus there is an end\npretty much to all honesty, as to the possessions of the civilized\nworld! Surely, the absurdity of this conclusion is sufficient to\ninvalidate the soundness of the doctrine from which it arises.\n\nNow we are far from affirming that _wrong_--which is the negative of\n_right_--can ever become, by circumstances or any thing else,\notherwise than it is, that is, _wrong_, namely, not _right_. But the\n_state_ or _thing_ which, under one set of circumstances, is _wrong_,\nmay, under other circumstances, become _right_. It is not the _wrong_\nin itself which, in such a case, changes to right; but, by a change of\ncircumstances, the _wrong_ no longer inheres, but the right inheres in\nthat which formerly involved the wrong; and therefore the state or\nthing which was before wrong, now becomes _right_. Hence, although it\nbe admitted that the land-titles of the civilized world were\noriginally founded in _wrong_, and therefore were unjust titles, it\nmay not follow that those who now hold them, do so by an unjust title,\nbecause the original title was unjust. The facts may be thus stated in\nregard to the most of them. The titles were originally acquired by\n_wrong_; in many instances, _cruel wrong_! The authors of these wrongs\nwere usually the heads of government, who, in their circumstances,\nwere beyond control. _They_ did the wrong. The ultimate results of\ntheir doings, by the lapse of time with its perpetual changes, upset\nall the existing relations of society, merged the descendants of the\nactors and sufferers in these wrongs into the mass of society, beyond\nthe power of just discrimination, and introduced an altogether new\nstate of things. Under these circumstances, the original wrong was\nultimately placed beyond all remedy. The restoration of the lands to\nthe original and lawful owners became an impossibility. To attempt\nsuch a work could only be followed by the grossest injustice to all\nthe parties concerned. In this state of things, the question of\ntitle--Who shall own these lands? becomes an original question. And in\nthis state of the case, the simple fact of present _possession_--there\nbeing no one to claim antecedent possession--according to the\nfundamental belief of all mankind, confers moral title, and should\ntherefore be made legal. Hence the title is just, because the idea of\nthe _right_ in itself--that which is good--now inheres in the man who\nholds property under such circumstances. The argument authorizes this\nprescriptive principle in political science: _That when the original_\n_wrong cannot be remedied, without inflicting greater injury_, ON ALL\nTHE PARTIES CONCERNED, _than to permit the existing state of things to\nremain, in this state of the case, the existing state of things is in\nitself_ RIGHT, _and should be permitted to remain_.\n\nUpon the basis of this principle--without which, we have no scruple to\nsay, society could nowhere harmonize for a single hour--we have no\ndifficulty in vindicating the honesty of the descendants of the\nPuritans, or the land-titles of the civilized world, or the thousand\nother titles which are equally involved by the absurd doctrine under\nconsideration. Nor do we find any difficulty in allowing them a just\ntitle to all the proceeds of the African traffic, even though it\nshould be conceded that their forefathers were, as they characterize\nthem, a set of mere _men-stealers_!\n\nHaving invalidated this doctrine as a piece of gross sophistry, we\nremark:\n\n2. That we also deny the hypothesis upon the basis of which this false\ndoctrine has been made to apply to the Africans of this country; that\nis, we deny that African slavery in this country had its origin or was\nfounded in cruelty and robbery.\n\nThere is no reason to doubt the statements of history, that many\nslave-ships originally (as perhaps is still the case to some extent)\nacquired their cargoes, some by robbery and violence, and some by\npurchase. The sufferings of what is called the \u201cmiddle passage\u201d are,\nno doubt, correctly stated in history. We have no motive to controvert\nthese statements, nor indeed to inquire into their authenticity. We\nare not even the apologists of any of the actors in these scenes, much\nless their defenders. There may have been cruel wrongs, and under\ncircumstances of even greater aggravation than those recorded in\nhistory. Be it so! The actors have long since gone to their account,\nand we may safely leave them to Him who judgeth righteously. The\nconduct of these agents, whether cruel or kind, is not an element in\nthis discussion. Our inquiry goes to the foundation of this\nmatter--the true producing cause for the introduction of the African\ninto this country, and his position as a slave. What was this? It will\nnot be maintained that these agents, whether humane or not, can in any\nproper sense be said to be the cause or foundation of African slavery\nin this country. With much greater propriety it may be said that the\nartisans of Boston were the founders and builders of the city. They\nwere necessary agents. They might have done their part well. They\nmight have done it dishonestly, cruelly. Neither hypothesis will\nentitle them to rank as the true and proper founders and builders of\nthe city. So neither are the men in question to be regarded as the\nfounders and builders of African slavery in America. Whether they did\ntheir part as they should have done, or should not have done; or\nwhether _they_ did the work at all, or not, is the mere logical\naccident of a _cause_, which lay back of all they did, and of all they\nmight have done, whether good or bad. This cause is evolved by the\ninquiry, Why did they bring them into the country at all? If some\npotent _cause_ had not been at work, would they or any others have\nbrought them into the country? Certainly not. This _cause_, then,\nwhatever it was, is without doubt the true foundation, the immediate\ncause, of African slavery in America. What, then, was this cause? But\none answer can be given to this inquiry. On it there can be no\ndivision of opinion. It was the state of public opinion in Great\nBritain, and the state of public opinion in her colonies in this\ncountry at the time. This state of public opinion demanded their\nintroduction and employment as slaves, and hence they were introduced\nand so employed. Whatever demerit or merit, then, was in the origin\nand maturity of this state of things, is traceable directly to public\nopinion, and attaches directly as a virtue or a crime, as the case may\nbe, to those who controlled public opinion, through the long period\nof its inception, formation, and maturity, and to them alone. This\nbeing the true origin and foundation of the system, if it had its\nfoundation in _robbery_ and _violence_, it was because public opinion,\nthrough that long period, was so eminently corrupt as to set itself,\ndeliberately and of full purpose, to work to perpetrate _robbery_ and\n_violence_, without any redeeming virtue; for such crimes admit of\nnone. Was this so? Can we be prepared to believe it? In default of all\nhistory at this point to detail the origin and progress of public\nopinion on this subject, we are left to form our judgment from our\nknowledge of the men whom we know to have participated more largely\nthan any others in directing public opinion in their day, and to the\nhistory of the times in which they lived.\n\nIn the seventeenth century, African slaves were first introduced into\nthis country, and the practice was continued, under the sanction of\nlaw, until the years 1778 and 1808, inclusive. At an early period,\npublic opinion was matured on this subject both in England and in the\ncolonies, and we see that for a long period it sustained the practice\nof introducing slaves directly from Africa into this country. Now, we\naffirm that the position postulated in regard to this case is among\nthe most palpable absurdities that can be conceived. The character of\nthe men who controlled public opinion in that day, and the patriotic\nand Christian age in which they lived, utterly disprove the gross\nassumption that they yielded themselves up to falsify the truth and\nthe conscience that was in them, and become a mere corporation of\nlandpirates and freebooters! If our ignorance of the history of those\ntimes should disqualify us to account for the existence of this state\nof public opinion on any strictly rational grounds, common sense would\nforbid that we assign for it so unreasonable a cause as this; whilst\nthe least that charity could suggest would be, that we place it among\nthose things for which we were unable to account.\n\nFrom the time they were first introduced into the colonies, about\n1620, to the time the system may be considered as permanently\nestablished, makes a period of some hundred and fifty years. Among the\neminent personages who appeared in Great Britain during this period,\nand did not fail to impress their genius and moral character upon the\nage in which they lived, we may mention, James I., Cromwell, and\nWilliam III., Burnet, Tillotson, Barrow, South, with Bunyan and\nMilton; and also Newton and Locke.\n\nIn the colonies, during this time, there lived Cotton Mather,\nBrainerd, Eliot, and Roger Williams; Winthrop, Sir H. Vane, and\nSamuel Adams, with Henry, Washington, and Franklin.\n\nThese great men, and some of them eminently good men, stood connected\nwith a numerous class of highly influential men, though inferior in\nposition, and all together may be regarded as embodying and\ncontrolling public opinion in their day. Some of them were\npre\u00ebminently distinguished for their patriotic devotion to the rights\nof humanity. Many others were men of wide views on all subjects, and\nof broad and expansive feelings of benevolence, and indeed of the\nsoundest piety. Add to all this, many of them are to this day without\na peer in intellectual distinctions, if indeed the same may not be\nsaid of their attainments in literature and science. The age of\nBarrow, and of Locke, and Newton, in philosophy, and of Washington and\nFranklin, in patriotism, public benevolence, common sense, and general\nlearning, still stands on the pages of history without a rival. But\nthese men, and their numerous compeers and co-laborers, were no better\nthan a hoard of mountain robbers! They coolly coincided with each\nother, without formal concert or convention, but by the common\nattraction of their natural affinity for power and plunder, to murder,\nrob, and enslave thousands of their innocent and defenceless\nfellow-creatures--the helpless victims of public cupidity! Such is\nthe shameless position strangely postulated in regard to these men and\ntheir times! We scruple not to affirm that this is more than a stupid\ngratuity! It is a gross calumny upon humanity itself, of which the\nauthors should be profoundly ashamed!\n\nThe advantages enjoyed in this day, by the great success which has\nattended the art of printing--an art for which we are indebted to the\ngenius of a former age--would no doubt afford us a satisfactory\nhistory of the rise and progress of public opinion on such a subject,\nif it were to occur in this age. The state of the art at that period,\nthe proscription of the press, and especially the new and unsettled\ncondition of the colonies, furnishes good cause for the deficiency. We\nmay not, therefore, account for public opinion as satisfactorily now,\nas might have been done at that time. Still we have abundant materials\nfor a charitable construction of the conduct of our forefathers--both\nhere and in England. The savage, and indeed the brutal condition of\nthe larger portion of Africa, had long since been a matter of history.\nAll well-informed men were familiar with the facts of African history.\nThey were not only Pagans, but Pagans of the most stupid and enslaved\nkind--without the knowledge of God, or the rudest forms of\ncivilization. The population was divided into tribes, each governed\nby an ignorant petty king, who ruled his equally Pagan subjects as\nabsolute slaves. In the place of the knowledge and worship of the true\nGod, which was found to exist among the savages of America, the\nAfrican worships the devil--the evil spirit, and that by the most\nhumiliating and debasing rites of superstition. His superstitions\nfurnished frequent occasions for wars. These wars were highly\nsanguinary--often exterminating, as all wars amongst an ignorant and\nhighly superstitious people have always been. To spare the life of an\nenemy in war, make him a prisoner, guard him as such, or make him\nlabor as a slave for his support, is an advance of civilization. To\ncontinue to put the enemy to death to the end of the war, is the\nnecessary condition of a state of war in uncivilized life. Such was\nthe known condition of all the African population south of Egypt and\nthe States of Barbary. Did not their condition appeal, as it still\ndoes, to the benevolence of the civilized world? But what could they\ndo? Send Christian missionaries? No. We, in this country, have\nsucceeded, to some extent at least, in civilizing the savage tribes\nupon our border! But the Indians were not, like the Africans,\nidolatrous Pagans. Be this as it may, the competency of missionary\nenterprise to civilize and christianize Pagans, was, as it still is\nto any very material extent, an untried experiment. The opinion then\nobtained, and to this hour it is not wholly invalidated, that to\nreduce Pagans to a state of labor was, among other agencies, a\nnecessary condition of their civilization. What then could Christians\ndo in that age for African civilization? They could not introduce them\nas laborers in England, or on the continent of Europe. Such a step\nwould have denied bread to the multitudes who already filled the\nmenial offices of society. It was impracticable to do this, and\ninhuman to attempt it. Thus for long ages had degraded and enslaved\nAfrica \u201cstretched forth\u201d her imploring hands, appealing to the\nbenevolence of the world for relief. But the wisest and best men of\nthe times saw no means of relief, and attempted none. In this state of\nAfrican history, colonial settlements were ultimately effected on the\ncoast of North America. At an early period an experiment was made by a\nDutch Manhattan, to introduce African labor into the colonies. Here a\nwide field was open for their labor. It was greatly demanded. To labor\nhere denied bread to no other laboring poor, as would have been the\ncase in England. The idea was caught at in both hemispheres, as a\n\u201c_God-send_\u201d for the African--for the colonies, and a common\ncivilization. No one dreamed of robbery, injustice, or wrong to any\none! All considered it a wide door which a kind Providence had opened,\nand which piety itself bade them enter! No man who was worthy of the\nage authorized any one to fit out a ship, from the port of Boston or\nelsewhere, go to the coast of Africa, steal a cargo of natives, murder\nall who stood in the way of his schemes, tumble them into the hold of\ntheir ship, without regard to health or comfort, and make their way\nwith their piratical cargo to Boston and other markets, and turn them\ninto money! Those who did this--as many no doubt did--acted on their\nown responsibility, and have long since given their dreadful account\nto God! But the men who were worthy of the age, and who would be\nworthy of any age, did authorize, by a common public opinion, the\npractice of going to Africa, and negotiating a purchase with those who\nhad long held and treated them as slaves, and especially those who by\nthe usages of barbarous war were condemned to death. They considered\nthat thus to arrest the practice of putting prisoners to death was\nhumane, and worthy of a Christian people; that to introduce them into\ncivilized society, teach them the habits of civilized life, the\nprinciples and experience of Christianity, and ultimately perhaps to\nsend them back to regenerate their fatherland, was an achievement\nworthy of the highest attainments of piety! Hence they had no scruple\nto purchase them when brought to the country. The most eminently\npatriotic and benevolent of the colonists purchased them. The most\npious members of churches, and distinguished Christian ministers, did\nthe same. The immortal Whitefield did not scruple to sustain his pious\nfoundation in Georgia by a large income, for the times, from slave\nproperty. Were they correct in these views? We appeal to facts.\nMultitudes were brought to the country who had otherwise perished in\nbarbarous warfare, or been murdered as captives, and the others would\nhave remained in a state of Pagan ignorance, superstition, and\nslavery. By coming into the country, they have been greatly improved\nin their mental, moral, and physical condition. I do not stay to\ntrouble you with statistical details. But my investigations warrant a\nstatement, which you can test at your leisure; it is this: the number\nof Africans who have died in the communion of the Methodist and\nBaptist churches of America to the present time--and who, therefore,\nwe may assume, were christianized by their residence in this\ncountry--exceeds the whole number of all the heathen who have been\nchristianized by the labors of all the Protestant denominations of\nChristendom since the days of Luther. Hence, we conclude, that\nwhatever were the cruelties of individuals engaged in the original\nslave trade, (for which they were responsible,) and whatever may have\nbeen the abuses of the system since, by individual slave owners, the\nsystem itself was originally founded in a profound view of the\nprinciples of political science, so far as regards this country, and\nof political economy, and the claims of Christian benevolence, so far\nas it regards the Africans themselves. The resources of this vast\ncountry have been rapidly developed. It is already the asylum of the\noppressed, and the home of the poor, of all lands. Slave labor has had\nno small share in all this. The regeneration of the continent of\nAfrica has already commenced, and the ultimate result is looked to\nwith increasing confidence.\n\nThus we have invalidated the _doctrine_, and also the hypothesis,\nwhich form the basis on which the abolitionists rest their argument\nagainst the justice and policy of the South. That their position is\nnot tenable is no direct proof that ours is right; but it does afford\na _presumption_ that we are right. This _presumption_ we claim, for\nthe several reasons given. The direct argument in vindication of the\nsystem of domestic slavery, upon its own merits, is reserved for the\nnext lecture.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VIII.\n\n     DOMESTIC SLAVERY, AS A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE AFRICANS IN\n     AMERICA, EXAMINED AND DEFENDED ON THE GROUND OF ITS ADAPTATION\n     TO THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE RACE.\n\n\n     There should be a separate and subordinate government for our\n     African population--Objection answered--Africans are not\n     competent to that measure of self-government which entitles a\n     man to political sovereignty--They were not prepared for\n     freedom when first brought into the country, hence they were\n     placed under the domestic form of government--The humanity of\n     this policy--In the opinion of Southern people they are still\n     unprepared--The fanaticism and rashness of some, and the\n     inexcusable wickedness of others, who oppose the South.\n\nIt having been proved that both the doctrine and the assumption of\nfact by Northern fanatics, in regard to the claim of the African to a\nrepublican form of government, are false, and that the presumption is\nin favor of the position of the South, that domestic slavery is the\nappropriate form of government for them, we are now left free to\npursue our inquiry, without offset from these vagaries, into the\nmerits of this system, and its appropriateness to the African race in\nthis country.\n\nThe African is now here. Whether right or wrong originally, is not the\nquestion before us. He is here. What form of government is best suited\nto him, and those with whom he is necessarily associated? And,\n\nI. Let it be observed, that they are a distinct race of people,\nseparated by strongly marked lines of moral and physical condition\nfrom those amongst whom they reside. This difference is so strongly\nmarked that there can be no spontaneous amalgamation by intermarriage,\nand consequently no reciprocity of social rights and privileges\nbetween the races. Their history in the whole country shows this to be\nthe case. They must therefore continue to exist as a separate race. To\nthis state of things the government over them should be adapted,\nunless we would violate a material condition of the problem to be\nsolved. For if the law should not provide for this state of the case,\nthe conventional usages of the superior race amongst whom they dwell\nwill certainly do so. This is in proof from the example of all those\nStates which have failed to provide for the African as a separate and\ndistinct race; for the usages of society always supply the deficiency.\nThis omission on the part of the law is evidently to the injury of\nthe African. The history of the race in the Northern States will show\nthis. Essential liberty is founded in, and is inseparable from,\ncertain social rights and privileges. But in these respects, the\nAfrican is a far more proscribed and degraded race in the Northern\nthan in the Southern States.\n\nA government, then, should be provided for the African, as a distinct\nand separate race, existing in the bosom of another and superior race.\nOf course this will be an _imperium in imperio_. And as they are\nconfessedly the inferior race, who can never enjoy essential liberty\nor reciprocity of social condition with the whites, the government\nadapted to them must be inferior and subordinate to that of the whites\namongst whom they dwell. It must be subordinate; for, in the nature of\nthings, it must be an independent or a subordinate one. But two\nindependent civil governments cannot co\u00ebxist, and control distinct\nraces dwelling together in the same community. It follows that it must\nbe subordinate. As subordinate, it must either assume some form of\nmilitary government, or it must conform to the patriarchal species of\ngovernment--a kind of family government--that is, the domestic form\nfor which we contend. And as between a subordinate military or\npatriarchal form of government, both as regards the expense and the\ncomfort, there can be no controversy, we may consider the claims of\nthe patriarchal form, or the system of domestic slavery, as\nestablished in this case.\n\nBut it may be supposed that the experiment in the Northern States\ninvalidates the position, that this, being a distinct race of people,\nmust be controlled by a separate and subordinate form of government.\nThese States have a portion of this race, and it is said they find no\ndifficulty to result from having placed them on a political footing\nwith other citizens. But this is a mere assumption. It is not borne\nout by the facts of history.\n\nAs before stated, the conventional usages of society have denied them\nthe social rights and privileges of free citizens! They have\nproscribed them as an inferior and degraded race.\n\nThe usage which forbids intermarriage is at once a bar to all social\nequality. The road to offices of trust, honor, and profit, is closed\nagainst them--nay, even the means of subsistence beyond a scanty\nsupply of the necessaries of life. These facts are undeniable. Now, to\ntalk of liberty when we effectually deny to a people all that\nessentially constitutes it, is idle in the extreme. It is a mere\npaper liberty!--liberty to submit to the crushing usages of\nsociety!--liberty to perish, in many instances, and that without\nsympathy from the State. In these respects the condition of the race\nis unquestionably better in the Southern States. If they must be a\ndegraded race in the North as well as in the South, I hesitate not to\naffirm that our domestic system affords them a much better security\nfor a competent and comfortable living. It makes better provision for\nthem in old age and in youth, in sickness and in health, than is\nsecured to them by their so-called liberty in the Northern States.\n\nOf course, poor families (in the literal sense) in the South do not\nown slaves. They are usually held by those who at least enjoy the\nnecessaries of life. Now, the progress of civilization has established\nthe custom in all such families of sharing with their slaves the\nnecessaries, and, not unfrequently, many of the comforts of life. The\nexceptions only make the rule general.\n\nAgain, the Southern system, by making the African a part of the family\ncircle, brings him into more immediate contact with the habits of\ncivilized life, and cultivates a high degree of sympathy between him\nand his owners. Hence, the well-known attachment of slaves to the\nfamilies in which they were brought up; and their utter repugnance to\nbeing hired to a Northern family, whatever may be their reputation for\npiety. They are without practical sympathy for them. They often\nsubject them to a degree of hard labor to which they are not\naccustomed. Many humane men in the South decline hiring their servants\nto such persons.\n\nThere are evils, it is true, inseparable from the presence of the race\nin this country, under any circumstances. By conferring on them a mere\npaper liberty, the Northern States have adroitly freed themselves of a\nportion of these evils; but then they have evidently accumulated them\nupon the African. The policy is marked by no sympathy for the blacks.\nThere is much more of selfishness than of benevolence in the working\nof the system. We conclude that our position is true, that the\nAfricans, being a separate and distinct race of people, who cannot\nspontaneously amalgamate with the whites, should be placed under a\nseparate and subordinate form of government, if we consult either\ntheir welfare or our own. The examples referred to, as proof of the\ncontrary, are strongly confirmatory of the position.\n\nBut to claim for the African political equality with the whites is\nsubject to still stronger objections. We may further appeal to facts\nin support of our proposition.\n\nII. They are not, in point of intellectual and moral development, in\nthe condition for freedom: that is, they are not fitted for that\nmeasure of self-government which is necessary to political\nsovereignty. It cannot, therefore, be justly claimed for them. They\nhave no right to it. It would not be to them an essential good, but an\nessential evil, a curse. To confer it on them, either by an act of\ndirect or gradual emancipation, would be eminently productive of\ninjury to the whole country, and utterly ruinous to them.\n\nThis proposition is capable of division. We will discuss the points in\nthe order in which they stand.\n\nFirst. They are not, in point of intellectual and moral development,\nfitted for that measure of self-government which is necessary to\npolitical sovereignty.\n\nWe have said they are an inferior race. That they are so in the\noriginal structure of their minds I pretend not to affirm--nay, I do\nnot believe it. I believe in the unity of the races--that _God \u201chath\nmade of one blood all nations of men_.\u201d Acts xvii. 26. But that the\nrace in this country are inferior, in the general development of their\nintellectual and moral faculties, I am free to affirm. This I\nattribute to the crushing influence of the ages of barbarous and pagan\nlife to which their forefathers in Africa were subjected. For, as, in\nthe progress of civilization, each succeeding generation of civilized\npersons occupies a higher intellectual and moral platform, so, in the\ndescending scale of barbarism, each succeeding generation of\nbarbarians occupies a lower platform of intellectual and moral\ndevelopment. Hence, we can account for the exceedingly barbarous\ncondition of the race when first brought into this country. It also\nfollows, that a race of men whose intellects have been long stultified\nby ages of barbarism, cannot, by any contact with the principles and\nusages of civilized life, be speedily thrown up to an elevated\nplatform.\n\nThis also accounts, in a good degree, for the slow progress which the\nrace has made in civilization, since their introduction into the\ncountry.\n\nTo recur now to the fact, which cannot be controverted, that they were\nbrought into this country in a state of extreme barbarism and Pagan\nignorance: in the first place, were they then in a condition which\nfitted them for political sovereignty, and equality of social rights\nand privileges with the whites? If they were not for the latter, it is\nvery plain that they were not for the former. It is quite certain that\nthey were not prepared for either. If they were, why did not the\nPuritans of New England allow them this sovereignty and equality? By\ntheir consent and active co\u00f6peration, they were brought into the\ncountry. Shall we revilingly say, with some of their ungrateful\ndescendants, that the good sense and love of liberty which had so\nlately driven them from their fatherland, to find an asylum here from\nthe galling yoke of British oppression, had been so entirely absorbed\nin the passion for gain, as to cause them to be deaf to the claims of\njustice and humanity in behalf of the African! Shame on their\ngraceless accusers! No: their good sense forbade that a race of\nbarbarous Pagans, who could not be absorbed by intermarriage, but who\nmust continue to exist amongst them as a separate and inferior race,\nshould be placed on a common platform with free citizens! Their\nhumanity, no less than their good sense, induced them to adopt the\nplan of domestic government, or slavery, sanctioned by the usages of\nall civilized nations in similar circumstances. If, for any cause, a\nhorde of barbarians should be introduced into New England in the\npresent day, in numbers too great to be absorbed without injury, and\nin a physical condition making it improper to permit their absorption\nby intermarriage with themselves, as in the case of the Africans, does\nany man in his senses pretend to believe that those States would\nconfer on them either social equality or political freedom? They would\ncertainly consider it due to themselves, no less than to the\nbarbarians, to place them under a subordinate government of some\nkind. Well, this is precisely what their forefathers did in the case\nof the Pagan Africans; and what the Southern colonies did when the New\nEngenders brought them South. Thus the origin of domestic slavery, as\na political institution, in the country, shows that it was founded in\nthe humanity of our forefathers, no less than in their good sense.\nHence the second position stated: Political equality cannot be justly\nclaimed for them. They have no right to it. To them it would not be an\nessential good, but an essential evil--a curse.\n\nOn the basis of the doctrine of rights discussed in a preceding\nlecture, this proposition follows as a conclusion from the fact here\nestablished in regard to the Africans of this country.\n\nBut it may be said that the barbarous character of the race has\ngreatly improved since their first introduction into this country.\nThis is true--eminently so. And standing, as this fact evidently does,\nconnected with the civilization and redemption of a whole continent of\nbarbarians, upon whom the crushing sceptre of Pagan ignorance has lain\nfor unnumbered ages, it fully vindicates both the wisdom and\nbenevolence of the providence of God, which permitted their\nintroduction in such vast numbers into civilized life, as affording\nthe only means of accomplishing his humane design.\n\nBut the question of practical interest at this point is, Have they\nbeen so far raised in the scale of intellectual and moral elevation as\nto acquire for them the right in question? This point can be settled\nonly by an appeal to facts. I hesitate not to allow, that if they are,\nit may be justly claimed for them, because they are in that moral\ncondition which justly entitles them to it. It is also admitted that\nif at the same time, they are in a condition to be absorbed by a\nspontaneous amalgamation, they are entitled to it here; and much more\nso than a certain other class, who are flocking into the country, and\nto whom the right is accorded without scruple! This latter, however,\nis certainly not the case, as the facts before alluded to do clearly\nshow. If, then, they be entitled to political freedom, they should be\nremoved to another territory. Africa is the rightful home of the\nAfricans. Thither they must go, if they should ever be fitted for\nself-government. Providence has wisely forecast this result, and is\nrapidly building up a free government on the coast of Africa, as their\nfuture home, and the centre of civilization and Christianity to that\nlong-benighted continent.\n\nBut what of the question--Are they indeed fitted for political\nsovereignty? That many of the free colored population, and some among\nthe slaves, may be so, I think is more than probably true. Of the\nformer I would say, that it is a duty they owe themselves no less than\nthe country to accept the offer of the Colonization Society, and\nremove to their native land. For, although it be allowed that they are\nin the moral condition of freedom, it is obvious that they never can\nbe essentially free, in the bosom of a people with whom they can never\namalgamate by marriage. And in regard to the latter, I have to say\nthat such of their owners as give that play to their benevolent\nfeelings which their circumstances admit, and, as far as they can do\nso with propriety, facilitate their removal to Africa by consent,\nentitle themselves to high commendation, and it is usually awarded\nthem with great unanimity by Southern people.\n\nBut that the same admissions can be made in regard to the masses of\nthis population in the country, I utterly deny. On the contrary, I\naffirm that duty to ourselves and humanity to them alike forbid that\ncivil liberty be conferred on them in Africa, or elsewhere, and least\nof all in this country.\n\nThe assumption of Northern agitators, that the Southern people are not\ncompetent judges in this matter, because they are too much interested\nin their bondage, is as untrue in fact as it is offensive to our good\nsense and morals. No doubt there are many in the South capable of any\nform of wickedness; nor need it be denied that we are as liable to be\nmisled in our judgments as other people. But it is equally true, that\nthe good sense and integrity of the great mass of our population is a\nfull counterbalance to the acknowledged cupidity of the few. And for a\nset of Northern agitators, who never resided at the South, and who\nknow but little or nothing of the African character, to affect to\nunderstand it better than the intelligent communities of the South, is\nperhaps the coolest piece of impertinent self-conceit to be found on\nrecord!\n\nThe intelligent and honest portion of the country will scarcely fail\nto allow that the judgment of the Southern people as to the character\nand capabilities of the African is entitled to the highest confidence,\nand may be regarded as an authoritative settlement of this question.\nWhat, then, is the concurrent opinion of the Southern people? I think\nmyself well and fully informed on this point. I hazard nothing in\nasserting, that it is the general and well-nigh the universal opinion\nof the intelligent and pious portion of our entire population, that\nour African subjects, taken as a whole, are not fitted for any form of\npolitical freedom of which we can conceive; that they are not in a\ncondition to use it to their own advantage, or the peace of the\ncommunities in which they reside; and that to confer it upon them, in\nthese circumstances, would in all probability lead to the extirpation\nof the race, as the only means of protecting civilization from the\ninsufferable evils of so direct a contact with an unrestrained\nbarbarism. It is also an opinion equally sanctioned, that if they were\nprepared for political freedom, it would be scarcely less disastrous\nto confer it upon them in this country. The reason is obvious. As they\ncannot spontaneously amalgamate with the whites, they could not, in\nthe nature of things, enjoy freedom in their midst. Hence, if the\nmasses should ever reach that point, in the progress of civilization,\nat which it might be proper to confer on them the rights of political\nfreedom, another location would have to be sought for them.\n\nThe Southern people (using the term in the sense specified) constitute\na large portion of the whole Union. They have progressed as far in\ncivilization, and, in many respects, much farther than any people in\nthe whole country. A very large portion of them are confessedly pious,\nas well as intelligent. Taken as a whole, they are as eminently\nentitled to be regarded a religious people as any other people on the\nface of the globe. Now, that such a people, so obviously entitled to\nthe highest consideration throughout the civilized world, should, in\ntheir circumstances of proximity to the African race, and\nlong-continued personal acquaintance with their habits and character,\ntheir capabilities and their liabilities, be of the settled and almost\nundisputed opinion that they are not competent to self-government; and\nthat, in their present circumstances, both the law of reciprocity and\nthe law of benevolence to the African forbid that the rights of\npolitical freedom be accorded to them, does appear to me to afford the\nmost conclusive settlement of this question of fact that the subject\nis capable of receiving. For, although a question of fact, it is\ncapable of no more conclusive settlement than an enlightened public\nopinion can afford; and who are so well situated to form an opinion as\nthe free and intelligent communities of the South? and who can be more\nhonest in its expression?\n\nAs we cannot suppose the agitators of the country on this subject to\nbe ignorant of the fact that such is the opinion of the Southern\npeople, and as we cannot allow that they are incapable of appreciating\nthe weight of this testimony, we reach the conclusion that they are\nthe victims of a fanaticism resulting from a mistaken religious\nopinion and feeling, which hurries them madly forward, as regardless\nof the extent to which they implicate their own good sense as they are\nof the extent to which they are aspersing the reputation of their\nfellow-citizens, or the degree to which they are actually putting to\nhazard the lives of the very people for whom they piously persuade\nthemselves they are laboring.\n\nThose whose conduct does not admit of this apology are generally men\nwho occupy the arena of political agitation. Their object, evidently,\nis to accumulate political power in the so-called free States, and to\npromote the ends of personal ambition. The fanatical excitement of the\ncountry may be turned to the account of these objects. Hence, they\nlabor with a zeal worthy of a better cause. We of the South regard the\nagitators in Congress, for the most part, to be of this class. We\nconsider them highly culpable, if, indeed, they be not actually\ncriminal. For we cannot suppose them to be ignorant of the facts and\nreasonings here adduced. And besides these, there are other facts of\ngreat and conclusive authority in the settlement of this question,\nwhich we cannot suppose have escaped the attention of men occupying\ntheir high stations. I propose to notice some of them in the next\nlecture.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE IX.\n\nTHE NECESSITY FOR THE INSTITUTION OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY EXEMPLIFIED BY\nFACTS.\n\n     The attempts made at domestic colonization--The result of the\n     experiment in the case of our free colored population--The\n     colonization experiment on the coast of Africa--The example of\n     the Canaanitish nations--Summary of the argument on the general\n     point, and inferences.\n\n\n\u201cThat the Africans are not, in point of intellectual and moral\ndevelopment, fitted for that measure of self-government which is\nnecessary to political sovereignty: that political equality cannot be\njustly claimed for them--they have no right to it: that to them it\ncould not be an essential good, but an essential evil, a curse; and\nthat to confer it on them, by an act of direct or gradual\nemancipation, would be eminently productive of injury to the whole\ncountry, and utterly ruinous to them.\u201d\n\nThis is the general proposition still under consideration. We have\nalready discussed to some extent the first two points. I reserve the\nsubject of emancipation for future lectures. I now proceed to\nexemplify the truth of the positions discussed on this general\nproposition, and thereby show the actual necessity that we sustain, in\nthe present circumstances of the race, the system of domestic slavery.\nAnd,\n\nFirst. We adduce the fact of domestic colonization.\n\nThis has been frequently attempted in the Southern States, and has as\noften failed for the want of success. Eminently humane, though\nmistaken men, have tried this experiment with their slaves. Some have\ntried it on a small scale: standing only as their nominal owners, and\ngiving them the control of their time and labor, and the use of\nnecessary lands for cultivation. Others have tried the same plan on a\nmore extended scale of operations. But if there is a single successful\nexperiment now in operation in the Southern country, I am not aware of\nit. In every instance the owners have been compelled to resume the\ncontrol of their slaves, to prevent them from becoming a tax on the\ncommunity, and a nuisance in the neighborhood.\n\nSecond. The result of the experiment in the case of the free colored\npopulation, is equally in proof that the race, taken collectively, is\nnot fitted for self-government.\n\nHumane individuals have, from time to time, freed their slaves. In\nthis way a large number has been accumulated. There is not a county in\nany one of the older States in which there are not many, and in some a\nlarge number. In this experiment we have a full test of what the\nAfrican is in the enjoyment of civil liberty, or of his capacity for\nself-government, at least in the midst of a people with whom he cannot\namalgamate. The result is daily before our eyes, and may be known and\nread of all men. After a few honorable exceptions, the multitude are\nby no means as well fed or clothed, and otherwise provided for, as the\nslaves in their vicinity. They make but little provision against the\ninclemency of winter, and in sickness are often the objects of public\ncharity. A disposition to live by petty depredations upon society,\ninstead of by honest industry, and a general depravation of morals,\nare characteristic of the caste. Their retrograde tendency is so\nobvious, that no doubt is entertained among men of reflection that,\nbut for the props and checks thrown around them by the laws and usages\nof civilization, they would soon relapse into the savage state. These\nfacts are so obvious as long since to have engaged the attention of\nour domestics. Among them, the term \u201cfree nigger\u201d is one of deepest\nreproach. Those who respect themselves, it is well known, form no\nmatrimonial alliance with them, from sheer contempt of their\ndegradation. I have frequently met, in my travels, with old men, in\nindependent circumstances, who by the doctrines of the pulpit,\nenforced by the personal influence of a favorite minister in private\nlife, were induced, in early life, to free their slaves, who now\nconfess, with the result of their mistaken piety before their eyes,\nthat they conferred no boon upon them, but rather inflicted an injury\nboth upon them and upon society. They console themselves with the\nreflection that they intended all for the best. This picture is not\nsurcharged. You will do me the justice to remember that no dark\npicture can be drawn without dipping the pencil in dark colors.\n\nI have an interest in a slave, who is no doubt in the moral condition\nof freedom, as before defined. I have assured this man that he ought\nto go to Liberia, in Africa, and have insisted on his consenting to\ngo. But still I am so deeply convinced of the truth and importance of\nthe facts here stated in regard to our free colored population, that a\nsense of duty to him and to the community forbid that he be placed\namong the number.\n\nBut it may be supposed that a popular feeling of selfish hostility\nserves to crush a people who would otherwise rise at once in the scale\nof civilization. But this is not so. I repeat, with confidence, this\nis not so. The honorable exceptions, to which allusion has already\nbeen made, are universally respected. \u201cJohn\u201d (to use a general title)\n\u201cis as honest a man, and has as much self-respect, as any man in the\nneighborhood,\u201d is a meed of praise which is readily accorded to free\nblacks, by all intelligent citizens, and with peculiar satisfaction,\nwhenever it can be done. Such men of course enjoy the confidence and\nrespect of their white neighbors in a high degree. But, I repeat, that\nexamples of this kind are rare among our free colored population. No!\nan original cause of this general degradation is found in the fact\nstated, that is, that they are not prepared for self-government, and\ntherefore can derive but little, if any, benefit from its political\nand social advantages. The crushing weight of ages of barbarism still\npresses heavily upon the intellect of the African, and in his present\ncircumstances, to say the least, he is too feeble to rise. It is the\naccident of his position that he is free, and not the law of his\nintellectual and moral nature that makes him so. He is a slave in\nfact; and without the restraints of the domestic system, the\ntendencies of his barbarous nature are left, in a good degree, to take\ntheir downward way. In many counties within our knowledge containing\na large population of free colored persons, I am satisfied that\nnothing but the humanity developed by a high state of civilization,\nprevents the adoption of a summary process, by which the nuisance\nwould be abated.\n\nBut if the objection I am combating be modified and restricted to the\ninfluence of that usage which denies them social freedom, I will agree\nthat it has weight. It certainly retards the progress of those who are\nrising to the moral condition of freedom: hangs like an incubus upon\nthose who have already risen to that state, and effectually shuts the\ndoor of enjoyment against them. This is no doubt true. But why are\nthey denied social freedom? The answer is, Because they cannot\namalgamate by a spontaneous intermarriage with the whites. But this is\na disability under which God, by the nature of their physical\nconstitution, has placed them, and which the progress of civilization\nitself forbids the whites to disregard. Therefore it is obvious that\nthey never can be free in a community of whites. Because, as there is\nno essential freedom, but that which is inseparable from social as\nwell as political freedom, and as there can be no social freedom, but\nthat which coincides with the law of amalgamation by intermarriage;\nand as Divine Providence has closed the door against this, it follows\nthat the African never can be free in the midst of a community of\nwhites.\n\nBut still, that this is not the primary and essential cause of the\nextreme degradation of those Africans upon whom the experiment of\nfreedom has been tried in this country and found to be a failure, and\nthat it is originally traceable to the fact that they are not,\nintellectually and morally, prepared for self-government, is still\nmore clearly deducible from a\n\nThird consideration--the colonization experiment on the coast of\nAfrica.\n\nThe colony of Liberia has already taken its place among the nations of\nthe earth as a free and independent government. No colony has ever\nprospered as that has done. As a rising nation, it shares the sympathy\nof the civilized world. It is destined to become the asylum of the\nAfricans of America, and the centre of civilization to the\nlong-benighted continent of Africa. Thither all eyes are turned as the\noasis of hope in her desert history.\n\nBut let us briefly trace the progress of this hopeful colony. How has\nit arisen to its present position? It has been built up from the free\ncolored population of this country--colonized by their own consent.\nHerein Divine Providence has wisely discriminated the proper subjects\nfor this great enterprise. His own established order of things has\neffected a judicious discrimination of the proper persons for this\nwork. The sacrifices to be made were great. The climate was\ninhospitable. Extreme hazard of life, in all cases, was to be\nencountered in the process of acclimation. A Pagan and savage\npopulation were to be encountered and subdued. Every thing gave\nundoubted indications, that if ever the tree of African liberty should\nbe made to flourish upon that Pagan coast, its roots must be watered\nby the blood of many patriot martyrs. In these circumstances, it is\nobvious that there would be no volunteers in this work but men of the\nright stamp. Those only whose intellects furnished the flint and steel\nfrom which the spark of liberty could be struck, and upon the altar of\nwhose hearts the fires of freedom could be kindled, to light their\npathway to that far-off and inhospitable land, would embark in this\ngreat work. Those who were in the condition of freedom--whose hearts\nthrobbed with the pulsations of liberty--were the first to embark in\nthe cause of African civilization. For several years the work went\non--slowly, but surely. Many fell in the conflict. Still the work went\non! The spirit which animated the patriot colonists is eloquently\nexpressed in the dying words of the immortal Cox: \u201cLet a thousand\nmissionaries fall, ere Africa be given up!\u201d\n\nThus far the work went on in the order of Divine Providence. The\nvoluntary principle was discriminating. Those who were in the moral\ncondition of freedom gladly embraced the opportunity. Those who were\nbelow that condition were deaf to the call. But this divinely\nsanctioned process was quite too slow for the fiery zeal of\nemancipationists. The door of Providence did not open fast enough!\nEncouraged by past successes, they attempted to hasten the work.\nForgetful of the original and avowed objects of the Society--the\ncolonization of the free people of color, _with their own\nconsent_--the friends of colonization began to preach manumission to\nthe owners of slaves. Many hearkened to the call as a Macedonian\nappeal to their feelings of benevolence. The slaves upon large\nplantations were emancipated, and funds placed at the disposal of the\nSociety, to remove and settle them as free citizens in the new colony.\nThey were sent off in considerable numbers, for several years. The\nresult was disastrous. It threatened speedily to reduce the whole\ncolony to a savage state. They were not in the moral condition of\nfreedom--they were not prepared for that degree or form of\nself-government. They could not be absorbed by the body politic,\nwithout imparting their character to the body. The full measure of\ntheir golden dreams was simply liberty to do nothing. We need only\nglance at the results. Mr. Ashman, at that time Governor of the\ncolony, remonstrated, in official communications, with the\nColonization Society in this country: the officers generally, and\nother eminent citizens, also remonstrated in private letters to their\nfriends--all begging to be spared the calamities that awaited them\nfrom so great an influx of population, evidently unprepared for\nfreedom, and praying that they might be strengthened, as heretofore,\nby a judicious selection of persons in some degree, at least,\nqualified for civil liberty!\n\nIf the colonization experiment has proved the capacity of the African,\nunder suitable developments, for self-government, (which, in our view,\nit has very satisfactorily done,) it has proved, with equal clearness,\nthat without those developments he is wholly unfit for it; and that\nthe masses of the race are, as yet, undeveloped, and consequently\nunfit for political sovereignty.\n\nThese facts are open to the observation of all men. They strongly\nrebuke the restless agitators of the country. They clearly confirm our\nposition that the Africans in America are not, as yet, in the moral\ncondition for freedom. I have proved in a former lecture that\npolitical sovereignty is not a natural but an acquired right. The\nfacts here adduced demonstratively prove that they have not yet\nacquired this right, and that therefore it cannot be justly claimed\nfor them. But more than this--they afford the strongest presumption\n(and further than the presumption in its favor, I do not design to\nnotice this topic at this time) that the emancipation of the slaves,\nin their present moral condition, confers no benefit upon them, but is\ncalculated to inflict a deep injury both upon them and upon society.\n\nIt is a general, and indeed an almost universal opinion in the South,\nthat any thing like a system of emancipation, whether direct or\ngradual, by which the number of free colored persons should be\nmaterially increased in the Southern States, would inevitably be\nfollowed by their indiscriminate massacre, as the only means of\nabating an insufferable nuisance, unless the citizens were to forsake\nthe soil in favor of a barbarous horde. Such an opinion, (I may\nrepeat,) so generally entertained by so large a community of\nenlightened and virtuous citizens, who are in immediate proximity with\nthe race, and acquainted with their character from early life, taken\nin connection with the historical facts here enumerated, affording to\nany mind so clear a proof of the correctness of their opinion, should\nbe admitted as an authoritative settlement of the position I have\ntaken on this branch of the subject. Hence, we may conclude that the\nlaw of reciprocity and the law of benevolence require that the\nAfricans be continued under an inferior and subordinate government.\n\nThe question again recurs, What form of government shall this be? Of\ncourse, it must be a modification of a military despotism, or a\nmodification of the patriarchal form of government. I am free to say\nthat I can conceive of none so appropriate as that adopted by\ncivilization, for the purpose of controlling a barbarous or\nsemi-barbarous race (and especially such as could not amalgamate)\ndwelling in the midst of a civilized community: that is, the system of\ndomestic government now in operation in the Southern States. If any\nshall devise another, it will, at least, have the merit of novelty to\ncommend it to public attention.\n\nThe correctness of the doctrine here assumed, that domestic slavery is\nthe appropriate form of government for a people in the circumstances\nof the Africans in America, is very strikingly exemplified by the\nhistory of the remnant of Canaanites, who still dwelt in the land\nafter its subjugation and settlement by the ancient Israelites. An\ninquiry into the Divine policy in regard to these heathen will fully\nvindicate this position. The civil code of a nation is admitted to be\nthe best index of the habits and morals of the people. This remark,\nhowever, cannot always be taken without modification. We shall greatly\nunderrate the civilization of the Israelites, who first settled the\nland of Canaan, if we judge them alone by their civil code. Smiting\nand cursing father and mother, brutal assaults upon pregnant married\nwomen, digging pits to destroy neighbors\u2019 cattle, (Ex. xxi.,)\nseduction, adultery, dealing with familiar spirits and witchcraft, and\nvarious wickedness which delicacy forbids to repeat, (see Lev.\nxviii.,) unnatural marriages, such as with mothers, sisters, children,\nand grandchildren, (Lev. xviii.,) are all practices which are\nmentioned in a manner that shows they were common in that day. If we\njudge the morals of the Israelites by the statutes here referred to,\nwe shall certainly conclude that they had not the slightest claim to\nthe character of a civilized people; but it is equally certain that\nsuch judgment would be wide of the truth. For although in many\nrespects the national morals and standard of public opinion and\nfeeling were in a feeble condition, as seen in their obvious\nproclivity to idolatry, still those laws are far from being\ncharacteristic of the morals of the nation. The Divine record does not\nleave us to conjecture the cause for these laws. It is written, Lev.\nxviii., \u201cDefile not ye yourselves in any of these; for in all these\nthe nations are defiled which I cast out before you. For all these\nabominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and\nthe land is defiled;\u201d and, \u201cYe shall not walk in the manners of the\nnations which I cast out before you; for they committed all these\nthings, and therefore I abhorred them.\u201d\n\nWe can be at no loss to see that the remnant of heathen who survived\nthe slaughter, and still dwelt in the land which the Israelites\nsettled, were in such power, and accustomed to such opinions and\nhabits of bestiality, as to render the progress of civilization, in\nunrestrained contact with them, at least a problem, if not an absolute\nimpossibility.\n\nEquality of political and social condition with the Jews would have\nmade short work of civilization in that age. Hence we find that bold\nlines of demarcation were drawn between the Jews and those depraved\n\u201cstrangers.\u201d Both political and social equality were forbidden. The\nJews were authorized (Lev. xxv.) to make \u201cbond-men and bond-maids\u201d in\nperpetuity (unlike the slavery of their brethren, which was for a\ndefinite period) of the \u201cheathen that were round about them, and of\nthe children of the strangers that sojourned among them; of them they\nshould buy and of their families that were with them, which they begat\nin the land\u201d--\u201cthey should take them as an inheritance for their\nchildren, and they should be their bond-men for ever.\u201d The theory of\ncertain pseudo-philanthropists of the present day, would have led them\nto prate loudly in behalf of equality, and the duty and practicability\nof speedily elevating this people in the scale of civilization. But He\nwho was too wise to err and too good to do wrong, knew better, and\nordered differently. Barbarism--long-continued barbarism--cannot be\nspeedily elevated by any contact with the forms of civilization. He\nwho denied them political sovereignty, (except on certain conditions,\nwhich clearly indicated such an appreciation of the privilege as\nproperly entitled them to the right,) at the same time provided that\nthey be denied social equality, and reduced to a state of absolute\nslavery--they were made bond-slaves in perpetuity. Herein they were\nplaced under the ban of social as well as political proscription--a\nposition in which they could do the least possible mischief to the\nprogress of civilization, but would contribute greatly to its\nadvancement, and thereby promote their own improvement much beyond any\nthing they could have attained in their original heathen state.\n\nThe Africans when first brought into this country were not a whit\nbetter in morals, and were greatly inferior in intellect to the\nancient inhabitants of Canaan. And, although it be admitted that they\nhave improved, the facts given clearly prove that they are still\nincompetent to self-government. They are, therefore, no more entitled\nto the right of political sovereignty than the Canaanites were. But\nmore than this, the Canaanites did not materially differ from the Jews\nin their physical condition. There were no physical reasons against\namalgamation. Intermarriage, it is true, was forbidden, but it was for\nreasons growing out of their heathen state alone. Whilst that state\nshould last, the common interests of each in civilization forbade such\nsocial equality; but this cause out of the way, the Canaanites could\nbe absorbed and lost in the stream of posterity. But not so with the\nAfrican, as we have shown. He is destined to exist as a separate\npeople. We do not say he shall not, but he cannot to any material\nextent amalgamate with the Caucasian race. If, therefore, it was\nproper for the Jews to make slaves of the Canaanites, for a much\nstronger reason it is now right for us to retain the African in a\nsimilar state, and until such time as Providence shall--if ever--open\nthe door for his return to his fatherland.\n\nOn the general question, Is the system of domestic government existing\namongst us, and involving the abstract principle of slavery, justified\nby the circumstances of the case, and therefore right? we reach an\naffirmative conclusion, for the reasons:\n\nI. That the Africans are a distinct race of people, who cannot\namalgamate to any material extent with the whites, and who, therefore,\nmust continue to exist as a separate class.\n\nII. That they are, as a class, decidedly inferior to the whites in\npoint of intellectual and moral development, so much so as to be\nincompetent to self-government. Although they have shared largely in\nthe progress of civilization, they have not reached this point. The\nproof is:\n\n1. Such is the almost universal opinion of the most intelligent and\npious communities throughout the whole Southern country, who certainly\nare well acquainted with their character and capabilities, and\ntherefore fully competent to judge in their case.\n\n2. The experiments at domestic colonization which have been made in\nthis country prove it.\n\n3. The experiments in the case of the free colored population spread\nthrough the country are equally in proof.\n\n4. The colonization experiment on the coast of Africa is still more\nconclusive.\n\nIII. That domestic slavery is the appropriate form of government for a\npeople in such circumstances, is fully exemplified by the Divine\nprocedure in the case of the heathen subdued by the ancient\nIsraelites.\n\nWe infer:\n\n1. That they have no right to social equality or to political\nsovereignty--that to accord them either, in their present moral\ncondition, would be a curse instead of a blessing. It would in all\nprobability lead to the extermination of the race, and inflict a deep\ninjury both upon the moral and physical condition of the whole\ncountry.\n\n2. That every consideration of humanity and prudence requires that,\nuntil a better form of subordinate government shall be devised, they\nmust be continued under the system of domestic slavery now in\noperation.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE X.\n\nEMANCIPATION DOCTRINES DISCUSSED.\n\n     Gradual emancipation, the popular plan--It would operate to\n     collect the slaves into a few States, cut them off from contact\n     with civilization, and reduce them to barbarism--It would make\n     an opening for Northern farmers and their menials to come into\n     those States from which they retired--The modifications which\n     the system of slavery has undergone within late years--A\n     comparison of the menials of the free and of the slave States,\n     and the only plan of emancipation admissible--The gospel the\n     only remedy for the evils of slavery--Paul\u2019s philosophy and\n     practice, 1 Tim. vi. 1-5.\n\n\nImmediate emancipation is the scheme of the abolitionists proper,\nwhilst gradual emancipation is the favorite plan of the anti-slavery\nparty. The ground we should take is this, that no plan of\nemancipation, either immediate or gradual, is adapted to the present\nmoral condition and relative circumstances of our African population.\nNothing of the kind could at this time be attended with good, but only\nwith evil.\n\nI limit this discussion to the subject of gradual emancipation,\nbecause the reasons by which we invalidate this doctrine will, _a\nfortiori_, disprove the doctrine of immediate emancipation.\n\nIt is said that a system of gradual emancipation succeeded well in the\nNorthern States, and that it would succeed equally well in the\nSouthern. But I deny the assumption in each case.\n\nThere never was a large slave population in the Northern States, owing\nto the unsuitableness of the climate. The question arises, How did\nthis system operate with the few they had? It is well known that the\nowners anticipated the time appointed for the law of emancipation to\ngo into operation, and sold their slaves in the South! This law only\noperated to transfer the slaves, for the most part, to a climate and\nsoil more congenial to their constitution and habits. The operation of\nthe scheme, therefore, resulted only in the emancipation of a few of\nthe whole number, (see Lecture I., page 22;) and these few, as has\nbeen proved, have, by the social, and, we may add, in many instances,\nby the municipal regulations of the States within which they reside,\nbeen essentially injured by the change instead of benefited. Hence the\nscheme did not succeed well in the Northern States. And can it be\nassumed that it would succeed better in the Southern States? On the\ncontrary, the result would be much more fatal in the Southern, for\nthe reason that we have a much larger African slave population than\nexisted in the Northern States at the time their emancipation laws\nwere adopted. Now, suppose (what, however, can scarcely, if at all, be\nallowed a supposable case) that all the Southern States should\nsimultaneously pass laws, providing for the gradual emancipation of\nthe slaves, and hence, ultimately, effect their emancipation, as\nprovided for by law, for the reason that there would be no market open\nfor the sale of them, as was the case when the scheme was attempted at\nthe North: even in such a state of things, you cannot fail to perceive\nthat the propriety of such a measure turns entirely upon the truth or\nerror of a position already discussed.\n\nIf my position be correct, (and it is evidently established by the\nfacts adduced in the preceding lecture,) that their mental imbecility\nand moral degradation is such that, whilst it remains a fact that for\nphysical and uncontrollable causes they cannot amalgamate, any\nmaterial addition to our present number of free colored population\nwould result in their extermination, humanity, leaving all other\nreasons out of the account, would forbid the measure! Nor can I\npersuade myself that there is an emancipationist, however fanatical,\nthis side the strange delirium of a deliberately wicked purpose to do\nwrong, who would not \u201cpause upon the brink of this Rubicon,\u201d when\nassured that the Southern people generally believed that extermination\nwould, in all probability, be the result of his priceless experiment.\n\nBut it is extremely idle to suppose that all the Southern States would\nsimultaneously pass such a law; nor does the scheme assume that they\nwould do so. No: the plan advocated is, that the District of Columbia,\nand the States of Delaware and Maryland, should first emancipate their\nslaves; then Virginia, then Kentucky, then Missouri, and so on, until\nthe work should be consummated by a gradual process, requiring several\nyears in each State. Let us now inquire what this plan promises.\n\nIf the owners of slaves in the States which first in order passed such\na law, did not anticipate the time of its taking effect, (as in the\ncase before referred to,) and sell them in the States where no such\nlaw had, as yet, been passed, the result would be, as already stated,\nan accumulation of free colored population, with its inevitable\nconsequences. But this would certainly not be the general operation of\nsuch a law. For if cupidity should not prompt a different course, the\nowners, foreseeing the results of such an accumulation of free colored\npopulation, both to the whites and the blacks, would anticipate the\nlaw, in by far the greater number of instances, and sell their slaves\nin the States in which no such law had been passed. Still, many, no\ndoubt, would not take this course: a want of forecast, and most\ngenerally a mistaken notion of humanity, would prevent its adoption.\nIn this way, we cannot hesitate to believe that the accumulation of\nfree colored population would be so great as to induce their\nextermination at no distant day. This calamity could be averted only\nby a sale of the slaves into some other State in anticipation of the\nlaw providing for their manumission.\n\nNow, whatever of mere selfishness there may be in the proposed\nmeasure, nothing is more certain than that it is entirely destitute of\nall humanity for the slave, and of all just regard to his progress in\ncivilization, and his more speedy elevation to moral fitness for\nfreedom. For by the time this work had progressed through the District\nof Columbia, the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky,\nMissouri, and, it might be, North Carolina and Tennessee, the far\ngreater part of the numerous slave population of the whole country\nwould be accumulated in the remaining States of the South and\nSouth-west. This would be the inevitable result. For the free-soilers,\nit seems, are determined, if the effect of agitation can accomplish\nit at the ballot-box, that there shall be a cordon of free States,\nformed by the newly acquired territory of New Mexico and California;\nand in this case there would be no further outlet for the retiring\nslave.\n\nLet us now inquire what would be the effect of the accumulation of the\nrace within the limits of a few States:\n\nAt present, that element of slavery which is properly called domestic,\nconfers incalculable advantages on the slave. By this feature of the\nsystem, as it now operates, the slaves are distributed in small\nnumbers in different families. There they are brought, every one of\nthem, into more or less of immediate contact with a high state of\ncivilization. Many of them pass the early part of their lives in the\ndwelling-houses, and around the tables and firesides of their owners,\nand in the midst of all the company visiting the house. Others are\nengaged in field and mechanical pursuits, requiring frequent\nintercourse with the whites. Their Sabbaths are often spent (and it is\ndaily becoming more and more so) in the midst of our worshipping\nassemblies. In all these ways, to go no farther, they enjoy the means\nof improvement, and are making daily progress in civilization. This,\nwithout doubt, is the plan indicated by Providence, as affording the\nmost natural means of accomplishing their ultimate fitness for a more\ndesirable form of civil liberty.\n\nThat it cannot be said of any material portion of them that they have\nthrown off the incubus of preceding ages of barbarism, may be true;\nyet it is equally true that their progress in civilization, and that\nin an increasing ratio, is perfectly obvious to any man whose age and\nacquaintance with the race would entitle his opinion to credit. Any\nold man amongst us is prepared to speak of the great improvement of\nslaves within thirty or forty years past. The domestic element of the\nsystem has accomplished this improvement, and will certainly in\nprocess of time greatly elevate the race above what it now is; and\nthey are now a very different people from their forefathers who first\ncame into this country. I have no hesitation in believing that it is\nthe grand design of Providence that they shall be thus fitted (the far\ngreater portion of them) for position in Africa as the source of\ncivilization to that long-benighted continent.\n\nNow, to take from the present system its domestic element, or, what is\nvirtually the same thing, to place it under such disabilities as to\nprevent its benevolent results, would arrest the progress of African\ncivilization, and put off his moral elevation for ages to come. And\nthis is precisely the effect which the accumulation of all the slaves\nof the whole country within the limits of a few States must have. The\ndomestic element of the system would be effectually crippled, if not\nentirely destroyed. A large number of slaves would be congregated on\nsingle plantations. The whole territory would be in the possession of\nbut a few wealthy planters. They would chiefly reside in the cities\nand more healthy districts of the country. Their plantations would be\nunder the control of stewards. The steward and his family (usually\nsmall) would constitute the whole white population on a plantation,\nnumbering, as would often be the case, several hundred slaves; and the\nsame state of things would exist, to a greater or less extent, through\nlarge districts of country. This would be a condition of the race\nessentially different from that in which they are placed by the\npresent system; and we cannot fail to perceive that they would be\nwell-nigh cut off from all contact with civilization. Instead of\ncontinuing to rise in the scale of civilization, as they will do under\nthe present system, they would begin at once to relapse into the\nbarbarism of their original pagan state. This result would be\ninevitable--only so far as their downward progress might be arrested\nby the occasional voice of the self-sacrificing missionary, calling to\nthe altars of Christian worship! Would this be humane? Rather, would\nit not be brutal? Yet such would be the result of the scheme of\n\u201cgradual emancipation!\u201d\n\nThere is, however, another result of this pseudo-philanthropy that I\nneed not omit to mention: the removal of the slaves from the States\nnamed, and the extermination of the remaining free colored population,\nshould they be found to exist (as it is most likely they would) in\nnumbers so great as to constitute a nuisance requiring summary\nabatement, would make a fine opening for the enterprising farmers of\nthe Northern States to come in and possess these fertile hills and\nvalleys, abounding in wealth and blessed with a most salubrious\nclimate. It would also afford a fine outlet for their own menial\npopulation, which threatens so many and serious results to them--the\npapal vice and ignorance from Ireland and the continent of Europe,\nwhich is now flooding the free States. How far these lofty\nconsiderations may constitute items in the catalogue of motives which\nprompt the political agitators of the country to press the subject of\nAfrican emancipation, I pretend not to say! One thing, however, I may\nsay in behalf of the Southern people, and that is, that as they have\nno idea of perpetrating these cruel wrongs upon the unfortunate race\nwhich Providence has thrown amongst them, so they expect to have no\nuse for those depraved and perishing menials. They prefer the slaves,\nin any view of the subject. We may conclude, then, that the position\nestablished is not weakened in any degree by considerations of either\ndirect or gradual emancipation. No: the emancipation and removal to\nAfrica of those, and those only, whose moral and social condition\nentitles them to a higher form of political freedom, as the voluntary\nact of the individual owner, is the only natural and safe method of\nemancipation. It affords the only hope of Africa, and of the African\nin America.\n\nThe proposition discussed, and, I think, clearly established, relates\nto the essential propriety and the fitness of the system of domestic\nslavery as an institution. Whether this institution is capable of\nimprovement, and, if so, what improvements are demanded by the\nprogress of civilization, are questions quite independent of any thing\nyet discussed. These topics may engage our attention at a future\nperiod in these lectures. I would only remark, in this place, that the\nsystem has undergone great modifications since its adoption. Laws and\nusages that were, no doubt, eminently adapted to the extremely\nbarbarous character of the race, when first brought into the country,\nhave long since become obsolete, and the same may be said of many\nsubsequent regulations. Even the stringent measures adopted on the\nrise of abolition excitement in late years, have had but a brief\nauthority. The progress of civilization is the same in its results in\nthis case as in that of any other people. As a state of barbarism\nyields to the light of civilization, men are more and more disposed to\ndo right, and the laws and usages which were before necessary to\ncompel them to do right, are thereby superseded, and soon grow into\ndisuse. Hence, many of our Northern citizens who form their opinions\n(as many do) of the practical character of this institution at the\npresent day from the historical account of the laws and usages of a\nformer period, regardless of the fact that they have become, for the\nmost part, obsolete, entertain a very incorrect opinion. The\ninstitution at this day is a very different affair, practically, from\nwhat they suppose it to be, judging, as they do, from the laws and\nusages appropriate to a more barbarous condition of the race.\n\nI have no hesitation in affirming that in by far the greater number of\ninstances, the condition of Southern families, embracing domestic\nslaves, is much better (that is, both whites and blacks) than that of\nthe larger number of Northern families, with hired domestics, on large\nfarms. The labor is much less severe, and the discipline much less\nstrict. The Northern family has more frequently to appeal to the\nauthority of civil law, and to the right of dismissing unfaithful\nservants, than the Southern has to appeal to domestic discipline. And\nstill further, the Southern domestic is practically, in all respects\nsave one, quite as much upon a social footing with the white members\nof the family as the Northern domestic is with the family in which he\nis employed, whilst the sympathy existing between these different\ncastes in the Southern family is much greater than that which exists\nin the Northern.\n\nI acknowledge but one difference in regard to practical social\nequality between the domestics of these families. The white domestic,\nfrom the fact that he belongs to the same race, is capable, by\nindustry and enterprise, of rising to an entire social footing with\nhis employer, whilst the African domestic cannot do so. Although the\ncivil law should confer on him the right to do so, the paramount\nusages of civilized life, founded upon his physical condition, would\nforbid it. This advantage, we admit, is above all price; but having\nits foundation in the wise and inscrutable providence of God, it is\nwithout remedy by any means which we can adopt; and, indeed, why\nshould we wish even to alter a condition of things founded in physical\nnature by Him \u201cwho is too wise to err and too good to do wrong,\u201d\nsimply because to our limited view of the Divine economy it presents\npoints of friction which, viewing them from another stand-point, we\nshould desire to avoid! But aside from this advantage, I feel free to\naffirm, that in every neighborhood which is brought permanently under\nthe influence of the apostolic precepts enjoining the relative duties\nof master and slave, the practical working of the system secures to\nthe African a higher degree of essential happiness than is found to\nexist with the whites who fill the menial offices of society in the\nfree States. No white man can be satisfied with the position of a\nmenial in society. Perpetually chafed by the chains which fetter all\nhis attempts to rise in the scale of social equality, he is the\nsubject of a constant and painful irritation. Every failure in an\nenterprise which promised to elevate him to social equality with those\naround him, is a new cause of heart-burning and jealousy of all about\nhim, and often an overwhelming source of temptation, not only to\ndistrust the providence of God, but to employ the political franchise\nto unsettle the foundations of society, by levelling down the whole to\na common platform. Hence the agrarian doctrines which find embodiment\nin various social organizations in the free States. Nothing but that\nreligion which both teaches the duty and imparts the moral power to\n\u201cbe careful for nothing, but in every thing to give thanks,\u201d and in\nevery condition in which Divine Providence places us, \u201ctherewith to\nbe content,\u201d can reconcile a white menial to his condition in such a\ncountry as ours. The government itself can only be secure in a\nrepublic so long as a pure Christianity (for that only can do it)\noperates to elevate the social condition of those laboring classes who\nwould otherwise be menials, or reconcile them to a station to which\nthe accident of birth, miscarriage in business, or inferiority in\nintellect, inevitably consigns them in the competition of business\nlife; or so long as pure religion shall so operate as to leave the\nbalance of political power with those who are either so elevated or so\nreconciled to an inferior condition. But little, if any thing, of all\nthis, so far as it relates to our colored menials, is to be found at\nthe South. Always conscious of their intellectual inferiority (I speak\nof the masses) from constant contact with the superior moral power of\nthe whites, and equally conscious that their physical condition is an\nimpassable bar to all social equality by marriage, they not only do\nnot aspire to it in their feelings, but, in all cases in which they\nare treated as the Scriptures require masters to treat their servants,\nthey learn to be contented with their lot, and, looking to their\nowners as their lawful and safe protectors, become affectionately\nattached to the whole family, and, dismissing all care, are the most\ncheerful and, indeed, merry class of people we have amongst us. A\nslave who did not think more of himself, and feel himself to be better\noff, in all respects, than the state which agreed with his idea of\nwhat he calls \u201cpoor white folks\u201d and \u201cfree niggers,\u201d really would not\nbe worth having as a house servant in any Christian family of my\nacquaintance. Indeed, in freedom from care, and all the elements of a\nmere temporal happiness, the slaves of an enlightened and well-ordered\nfamily are often in a much more desirable situation than the heads of\nthe family, who are occupied with the duty of caring for all and of\nproviding for all. For the master of such a family to plod his weary\nway to daily labor on his farm, with a care-worn countenance, which\ntraces itself in his slow and measured step, whilst the loud laugh of\nhis merry hearted slaves is echoing around him, is no uncommon thing\nin the South. As to the corroding cares which weigh down the spirits\nand often bring on premature old age, the condition of heads of\nfamilies do not perhaps materially differ in any part of our country.\nBut, I repeat, the difference is very great between the menials of\nfamilies in the free and in the slave States, and this difference is\ngreatly in favor of the slaves of the South. The one--especially in\nthe cities--is often oppressed by a grinding poverty, and an active\ndiscontent which is as corroding to the heart as it is dangerous to\nthe state; whilst the other is a stranger, for the most part, to real\nwant--is free from painful cares, contented and cheerful in his\ncondition--adding daily to the progress of civilization and the\npermanency of the government. The emancipation and removal to Africa\nof those whose progress in civilization has so far developed their\nminds as to constitute them exceptions to this remark, for the reason\nthat they are by their moral condition fitted for a higher form of\ncivil freedom, may be allowed as the voluntary act of the owner. But\nall other schemes of emancipation, whether immediate or gradual, are\ntotally inadmissible. For if successful, for the reason that they\ncannot share social equality with the whites, they sink in the scale\nof civilization, and become a nuisance in the community requiring\nabatement; and if the scheme should prove a failure, the result of the\neffort can only be, as we have seen, to accumulate large bodies of\nslaves within small districts of country, cut them off from a more\ndirect contact with civilization, and arrest their progress in\nimprovement. No: emancipation in the popular sense offers no relief to\nany of the evils, real or imaginary, of African slavery in America;\nbut rather aggravates all that now exist, and threatens to multiply\nthem a thousand-fold. If any in the whole country be moved with\nsympathy for the race--as many think themselves to be--let them\ndiffuse the charities of a pure gospel through the whole extent of our\ncountry. No field was ever more \u201cwhite to the harvest,\u201d and none\nperhaps in which laborers could be employed to greater advantage in\nthe cause of humanity. They will promote a charity which shall save\nthe country from discord and civil war. They will give efficiency to\nthose precepts of the Scriptures which enjoin the duties of masters\nand slaves. By doing this they will lighten the task of masters, and,\nat the same time, interest them more deeply in all that concerns the\nwelfare of the slave. They will greatly improve the physical comfort\nof the slaves, and, what is of far greater importance, they will\ndevelop their moral natures, and therein add to their present cheerful\nand contented state, the enjoyment of that religion which, as it fits\nthem for the higher walks of life on earth, at the same time fits them\nfor the rest of heaven. In a word, they will effect all that the most\ndevoted friend of the slave can reasonably desire. For in this state\nof advanced progress, whatever modification of the system or change in\neither the condition or location of the race may be demanded by sound\nprinciples, will be readily adopted, and as peaceably effected. Thus\nthe long-disputed problem of emancipation will be found to solve\nitself. But instead of this active and efficient service in the cause\nof humanity, to stand aloof and pronounce silly and sluggish\ninvectives--for such they really are--against the South, for not\nfollowing the example of certain Northern States in manumitting their\nslaves,--which, by the way, we have shown they never did to any\nmaterial extent,--is calculated only to produce an irritation which\nmust result in the most incurable prejudices. These invectives are\noften founded upon certain abstract principles of political philosophy\nwhich are usually misunderstood, and still more frequently misapplied\nto the South. Such men, together with the nature and results of their\nlabors, are graphically described by the Apostle Paul, as \u201cproud,\nknowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words,\nwhereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil-surmisings, perverse\ndisputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth,\nsupposing that gain is godliness.\u201d The whole paragraph from which this\nquotation is made--1 Tim. vi. 1-5--is commended to particular\nattention. And I submit, that if the apostle understood the subject of\ndomestic slavery, either as a philosophical or a practical question,\nthe class of men now engaged in agitating our country on the subject\ndo not!\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XI.\n\nTEACHING THE SLAVES TO READ AND WRITE.\n\n     Superiors frequently neglect inferiors--The policy of the South\n     vindicated by necessity--The results that would follow an\n     attempt to establish a system for instructing the blacks in\n     letters, and those which would follow the establishment of such\n     a system--The _domestic_ element of the system of slavery in\n     the Southern States affords the means for their improvement\n     adapted to their condition and the circumstances of the\n     country: it affords the _natural_, the _safe_, and the\n     _effectual_ means of the intellectual and moral elevation of\n     the race--The prospects of the Africans in this country, and\n     their final removal to Africa--The country never will be\n     entirely rid of them--The Southern policy wise and humane.\n\n\nOne point remains to be considered to complete a full and candid view\nof the _institution_ of domestic slavery.\n\nIt is erroneously said that \u201cwe _keep_ the African in a state of\nbarbarism, and then plead that barbarism in vindication of our\npolicy.\u201d\n\nEvery thing is liable to abuse. I know that there are instances in the\nSouth of great neglect of the slaves, both of their moral and\nphysical condition. The same may be said of individuals at the North.\nSuperiors often neglect their inferiors, and that, in many instances,\nto a very culpable degree. I know no efficient remedy for this, but\nthat which the diffusion of a pure Christianity is calculated to\nafford. If any complain of these neglects in a captious spirit, we\nhave nothing to hope from them. But from those who claim to be\nsincere, we have a right to expect an active and hearty cooperation in\ndiffusing Christianity, as the only thing calculated to afford a\nremedy.\n\nBut it is said that a feature of the system, as established by law,\n_necessarily_ produces this result: that is, the law which excludes\nthe African from the benefits of school instruction.\n\nThe term _necessarily_ is in this instance certainly misapplied. The\nbarbarism in question is not the result of this law, _necessarily_, or\notherwise. It existed originally. It still exists, and to a great\nextent, though greatly modified; and in the present circumstances of\nthe race, an authorized system of school instruction would cause it to\ncontinue to exist, and perhaps in a much greater degree than it now\ndoes, and for a longer time than it promises to do under the present\nsystem. If this be so, it is the semi-barbarism that creates the\nnecessity for the _law_, and not the _law_ that makes the barbarism\nthe _necessary_ result.\n\nAn unwieldy mass of semi-barbarism dwelling in the midst of a\ncivilized community, with whom they cannot amalgamate by\nintermarriage, will, at all times, require a peculiar system of\nappliances for their improvement, so as to make it consistent with the\ncommon welfare. The principle of slavery must, of course, be kept in\nvigorous operation, and the means of improvement be wisely adapted to\nthe state of the pupil. Otherwise, there may not only be a very\nimprovident expenditure of means, but the most disastrous results. The\nhorn-book might be a valuable agent in the hands of a child, but the\ninstruments and agents in a chemical laboratory might prove its ruin.\n\nShould the time ever arrive (which in the opinion of some will be the\ncase, at some distant day) when the progress of African civilization\nwill justify it; and when an asylum in Africa is provided for\nthem--together with the means of their removal in large numbers--I\nhave no doubt that a system of popular education would not only be\nindicated as proper, but afford one of the most brilliant fields for\nthe display of public and of individual benevolence, that has ever yet\npresented itself in behalf of that degraded race. But what I have\nto say of this hypothesis is, that if it ever should, the\ngenerations--both North and South--that may then live, I have no\ndoubt, will have both sagacity enough to perceive it, and benevolence\nenough to improve it to the mutual advantage of themselves and the\nAfrican race. But it is very evident that neither of these conditions\nhas been fulfilled as yet. In this state of things, it cannot be\nsupposed that the Southern people are prepared for any enterprise of\nthe kind. I cannot imagine that any public movement, having for its\nobject the instruction of the blacks in reading and writing, could be\nmade without involving the most disastrous results.\n\nLet us suppose that a majority in our legislative councils were in\nfavor of such a measure, and were actually to tax the people to\nsupport a system of primary education for the blacks: any man would\ncertainly be excessively stupid who would not allow that a minority\nwould, at all times, (in the present state of public experience,)\nexist, who deemed the law sufficiently oppressive to justify\nrepudiation and physical resistance. If this object were sought to be\naccomplished by individual enterprise, the results could scarcely be\nless embarrassing. This will readily appear; for it would have to be\neffected either in the common schools of the country, or by the\nestablishment of separate schools for the Africans. But I am not\naware that the former is allowed to any material extent even in the\nfree States, where certainly, if the scheme were practicable, the free\nblacks might be educated in the same schools with the whites. The\nusage of civilization, which denies them a social footing in so many\nother respects, must, of course, so far deny them this privilege as to\nrender the scheme mainly ineffectual in the accomplishment of good, or\nthe usage is singularly inconsistent with itself.\n\nAnd can it be supposed that such a scheme would operate better in the\nSouth, where the reasons against it are a thousand-fold stronger,\ngrowing out of the large number of the African population? Certainly\nnothing could be more utopian than an enterprise of this kind. Public\nopinion would scarcely be sufficiently divided to justify even the\nwildest schemer in making a serious attempt to effect it. The latter\nplan might perhaps be attempted, but, on account of the evils it would\ninvolve, it would still be subject to impassable objections.\n\nSlaves, though not owned by the poor, are held for the most part by\nfarmers and planters whose pecuniary circumstances are what is called\nmoderate. There are exceptions. Occasionally, they are held by men of\nwealth; but in the older States particularly, (and of these I speak\nfrom personal knowledge,) the great mass of those who own them cannot\nbe said, in any popular sense of the term, to be rich. Now, the habits\nof half-labor, as any Northern man would regard them, in which the\nslaves are usually indulged, would put it quite out of the power of\nmost of slave-owners to afford the necessary support for such schools,\nhowever favorable they might be to the scheme. Withal, there is but\nlittle if any room to doubt that a great many, both among the rich as\nwell as the poor, would oppose the measure, for what appeared to them\nreasons of sound policy. This would leave the scheme to be supported\nentirely by the few rich men, whose benevolence might lead them to\noverlook the strong popular objections against it. It requires no\nparticular sagacity to foresee the practical mischiefs which would\nattend the efforts of a few rich men who might attempt to override the\npopular feeling on a subject of this kind. Public opinion would put it\ndown! This would be the end of it in one direction, but not in\nanother.\n\nThe whole movement would be attended, from first to last, with an\nirritation of the public mind in the highest degree unfavorable, and,\nindeed, dangerous to the peace and prosperity of the commonwealth. All\nirritations of the public mind in regard to the blacks, it is well\nknown, result injuriously to them, generally abridging them of their\ncivil privileges and social comforts. In this instance, viewing the\nsubject as a practical question, I cannot see that it would be\nattended with a single redeeming virtue, so far as the blacks are\nconcerned. But to place it in the most favorable light, let us suppose\nthat, by some means, one or the other of these plans had actually gone\ninto operation--which, by the way, can scarcely be conceived to be\npossible in the present state of society--and had already made a\ndecided impression upon the public mind of the Africans. Even in this\ncase it would still be liable to strong and impassable objections. It\nwould be educating them in advance of their circumstances and\nprospects. In their circumstances, it would be even more objectionable\nthan it could be to take the time and labor of a white youth, which\n(we will also suppose) were required for the immediate support of\nhimself and of those depending upon his labor, and educate him for the\nlearned pursuits of a Newton or a Macaulay, whilst at the same time,\nfor causes beyond his control, he was doomed for the remainder of his\ndays to work in the mines of Cornwall or Chesterfield, by the light of\nSir Humphrey Davy\u2019s lamp! No one of the important objects of so high\nan education is accessible to him. The least part of the objection to\nsuch a course as this is, that it would be a useless expenditure of\ntime and labor.\n\nBut the reason is much stronger in the case of the African. The civil\noffices are _all_ closed against him. No _one_ of the learned\nprofessions is open to him. The law of caste which forbids his\namalgamation bars him out from every thing of the kind. He is doomed\nto occupy, so long as he remains in the midst of a white community,\nthe position of an inferior. God himself has so ordered it. The bold\nline of distinction he has drawn between the races, is fully\ndeclarative of his will. He only can reverse the decree, \u201cThe\nEthiopian cannot change his skin,\u201d any more than \u201cthe leopard can\nchange his spots.\u201d In this state of facts, would not the public\nmind--whose decisions must be authoritative in the settlement of such\na question--very naturally inquire for _the good_ that it was thought\nmight result from so material a change in the circumstances of the\ninstitution? And is it not obvious that no answer could be given that\nwould insure satisfaction? No power of eloquence with which it is\ncompetent to enforce the claims of education, could possibly move the\npublic mind from the sober conviction that the advantages and\nprivileges of education, so necessary to a state of civil liberty, and\nso appropriate in other respects to that state, could not, with any\ndegree of propriety, be demanded in behalf of a necessary condition of\nslavery!\n\nThus far, the principles of political economy, alone considered,\nwould, in the public estimation, fully settle this question. But this\nis not all. The question has much graver aspects than money can\npossibly give it. The effect of generally enlisting the African mind\nin literary pursuits and inquiries, is too obvious either to be\noverlooked or slightly regarded. A state of popular disquietude must\ninevitably result, and this, too, at a time when the door of\nProvidence remains effectually closed against his release from slavery\nand his removal to Africa. This disquietude could not fail to lead to\nmany fanatical and fruitless attempts to effect a change in the\npolitical condition of the race. Such a state of popular solicitude\namong the blacks would of course be followed by much greater\nsolicitude and even irritation on the part of the whites. So potent a\ncause would certainly precipitate its appropriate results. The\noppressive and, in some respects, the savage laws by which ancient\nSparta, Greece, and Rome governed their slaves--some of whom were\nhighly educated men--would of necessity be reenacted in this country.\nOur present mild form of slavery would be substituted by a form of\noppression unknown to the history of this country, even in the most\nbarbarous condition of the African race. And thus would end the\nchapter of abolition benevolence in behalf of the African race in the\nUnited States.\n\nIn view of these considerations, the policy of the South on this\nsubject, allow me to affirm, is founded no less in benevolence to the\nAfrican and the peace of the commonwealth, than in the soundest\nprinciples of political economy. It relies upon the _domestic_ element\nof the system of slavery, as the _natural_, the only _safe_, and\nultimately the _effectual_ means of the intellectual and moral\nelevation of the African--so far as any means can be effectual in the\naccomplishment of that object.\n\n1. It is the _natural_ way--that is, the way adapted to their\ncondition as an inferior and naturally distinct race, who, both on\naccount of the physical facts which constitute them a distinct race,\nand the low state of civilization (if it may be called civilization at\nall) which they have yet been able to attain, should not be admitted\nto a social footing by intermarriage with the superior race.\n\nIn a former lecture, it was demonstrated that an uncivilized race,\ndwelling in the midst of a civilized community, had _no right_ to\nsocial equality, and, for a still stronger reason, _no right_ to\npolitical sovereignty in such a community. It was also shown that\ntheir natural rights entitled them to _protection_, and reasonable\nprovision for their _improvement_, and, as in the case of minors, to\nsuch \u201c_authoritative control_\u201d as is best calculated to preserve their\npower of self-action--their power of volition--from that enslavement\nto the baser passions of depraved nature, which is destructive of all\ntrue liberty, and the most degraded and ruinous form of\nslavery--subjection to the devil; in comparison with which, a physical\nsubjection to a fellow-man, in civilized life, with a power, defined\nby law, only to control his time and labor to a reasonable extent, is\na paradise. These--we of the South say--are their _natural\nrights_--the good to which they are entitled in virtue of their\nhumanity. Now as these rights are in their nature relative, they imply\nthe _duty_ on the part of the civilized race amongst whom, in the\nprovidence of God, they dwell, to afford them both the _protection_\nand _control_ in question. Their DUTY, in these respects, is clearly\nreciprocal with the _rights_ of the Africans. They can no more omit\nthese duties to the blacks with impunity, than they can do so to the\nminors and imbeciles of their own race. Now what form of control will\nmore naturally or appropriately fulfil the conditions of this problem?\nThey are to exercise the _sovereign_ control: all political freedom is\ndenied the blacks by their condition. They have no right to it. It is\nnot, to them, the essential good. Their _rights_ lie, as in the case\nof imbeciles of any other race, in being governed, not in governing\nthemselves, in those matters which constitute the objects of civil\ngovernment. To exercise this sovereign control of the blacks, and at\nthe same time afford them the _protection_ and _improvement_ which are\nappropriate to a necessary condition of slavery, or state of\nsubjection to such sovereign control, is the solemn _duty_ of the\nsuperior race. The position here advocated is, that the _domestic_\nelement of the present system in operation amongst us, affords a more\nperfect guaranty that all the conditions of this problem will be\nfulfilled, than could be effected by any other system, or by the\nproposed modification of the present system. The element in question\nconstitutes for them an invaluable school of instruction--a school in\nwhich both the mental and moral nature is developed. A school for the\nformal instruction of the blacks in letters, we have seen would\noperate only to defeat the end proposed by its establishment. To\ngovern and protect them, and at the same time make them useful to\nthemselves and to society, by a system of military police, could find\nbut few if any advocates, even among the visionary. But what more\nnatural than to accomplish all these objects, by a system which\ndistributes them in small numbers through the different families of\ncivilized life? Here they are brought into immediate connection with\nmuch that is calculated to develop the mind, cultivate the moral\nsense, and train the will to the habit of obedience to its high\nbehests. The law confers upon the head of the family the same right to\ndirect and appropriate the time and labor of the blacks, that he\nenjoys in the case of his children--and no more. The period of time to\nwhich this authority extends, differs in the one case from that of the\nother; but this is the only difference known to the law. Great abuses\nof this authority sometimes occur in the case of the blacks; but the\nsame is occasionally true of parental authority in all parts of the\ncivilized world. The former may furnish a fit theme for the perverted\ngenius of Mrs. Harriet Stowe. The fruit of such a genius may have a\npoetry--of its kind; but it can lay claim to neither philosophy nor\ncommon sense. The same force of logic which is hurled against the\nauthority of the master, rakes the authority of the parent in the line\nof its fire, with an effect no less destructive. Both are equally\nnecessary; both are equally protected by law; and both are open to\ngreat abuses. The poetry which invests these abuses with the show of\nargument against the authority of the master may cater to the corrupt\ntaste of both the \u201cgreat vulgar\u201d and the \u201clittle vulgar;\u201d but it is\nthe same cormorant appetite which is fed, that leads the _mere_\n\u201creaders and cipherers\u201d of the land to turn aside from those valuable\nproductions so appropriate to their real wants, and delight themselves\nin tragic stories of murder, arson, and rape, from the perusal of\nwhich they rise with passions inflamed to crusade against the morals\nof society. Christianity sternly rebukes the abuses complained of; and\nequally condemns that perversion of genius which employs those abuses\nto corrupt the public taste and the public morals. As far as\nChristianity prevails, the civil law which requires humanity in the\nexercise of domestic authority, no less in the case of the slave than\nin the case of the child or the apprentice, is sanctioned, and, in\ncases demanding it, is duly enforced by public opinion and sentiment.\nIn all communities in which Christianity is the presiding influence,\nAfrican slavery must, therefore, be a mild form of domestic servitude.\nIt even contributes in a measure to a knowledge of letters. Many\nservants are raised by their associations with civilized life to a\ndesire to read the word of God. The domestic relation often supplies\nthem with the means of gratifying this desire. Many pious slaves read\nthe word of God as a part of their family worship; and instances are\nnot wanting of those of whom it may be said, they \u201care mighty in the\nScriptures.\u201d Such are the tendencies and capabilities of domestic\nslavery as a system recognized by law; and apart from those abuses\nwhich all good men deplore--no less in the case of the slave than in\nthe case of the child and the apprentice, who are no further protected\nfrom inhumanity by the provisions of law than is the slave. Hence this\nsystem is the natural way of protecting, improving, and governing the\nAfrican for the mutual benefit of society. It is evidently indicated\nby Providence. No other can be appropriate to a mass of population who\ncan never be politically free in our midst, for the reason that, in\nthe order of Divine Providence, they never can amalgamate with us. But\nit is,\n\n2. The only _safe_ way.\n\nIt is slow, it is true, but it is for that reason only the more safe.\nIts effects are, for the most part, without observation. Hence, it\nproduces no irritation of the public mind. It develops the law of\nsympathy on both sides in the ratio in which it unfolds the\nintellectual and moral nature of the subordinate race. It raises no\nvisionary and fanatical hopes in the one, nor excites any morbid fears\nin the other. I say, its results march forward without observation. A\n_revenue tariff_, for example, affords a full support to the\ngovernment by a virtual tax upon the pockets of the people; and it\ndoes this at a time when they would not for a moment consent to pay\nthat tax, if it were made a _direct_ tax, to be collected by the\nauthority of an exciseman. So, without observation, the domestic\nelement of slavery is accomplishing its results, with equal safety.\nOr, more in point, perhaps, it is like the \u201ckingdom of heaven,\u201d which\n\u201ccomes without observation.\u201d The \u201ckingdom of heaven,\u201d in the form of\n_principles_, diffuses itself through the mass of society, and\nultimately works, as a legitimate result, the boldest political\nrevolutions. But by diffusing itself quietly, or \u201cwithout\nobservation,\u201d it prepares the public mind for its changes in the exact\nratio in which it effects them; and thus accomplishes that, by the\npopular will, the attempt to do which in another way would have razed\nthe foundations of civil society, and closed the history of\ncivilization for ages to come. So, this divine agent--for such I must\nconsider it--is working constant changes. It is daily modifying the\nfeatures of the system, and so developing the moral character of the\nAfrican, as to throw him up, by successive steps, higher and still\nhigher on the scale of civilization. But this it does so quietly,\nbecause naturally, that it actually works a specific result on the\nmasters, and accomplishes its objects by the consent of their wills\nand their own active co\u00f6peration.\n\nAll this, we see, is effected with entire _safety_. Even in those\ninstances--and they are numerous--in which the working of the domestic\nelement of the system results in teaching the African to read, we are\nnot aware that it involves, or even threatens, society, with any of\nthose evils which it is so obvious a more formal system of school\ninstruction would precipitate. Slaves who are below a certain point in\ncivilization, cannot be induced, by any of the influences employed by\nyoung masters and mistresses, (and they are often specific,) to deal\nwith the task of learning to read. Only those who are so far raised in\nthe scale of civilization as to have awakened in them a hallowed\ndesire to learn more of the will of God, and their duty as Christians,\never avail themselves of the opportunities afforded them by their\ndomestic relations, and learn to read. These devote a portion of their\nspare hours to reading the Bible; and a pious African, who reads his\nBible, is always known and appreciated as a better servant, as well as\na better man. He enjoys the respect and confidence of his owner, and\nis highly appreciated by all the family. I have often known the prayer\nof such a slave to be more relied on in times of domestic affliction\nthan that of any minister whose services could be commanded.\n\nBut, more than this, the results which have been brought to view are\nnot only effected with safety, but also with a high degree of\nsatisfaction to the owners. Everywhere families may be met with, who\nwill call your attention with hallowed satisfaction to what they have\ndone for the improvement or comfort of their slaves. But it will be\nfound that this very good is just such that if you had attempted to\neffect it by other means than the quiet influences of the _domestic_\nelement of this system, you would, by a universal law of our\nnature--self-preservation--have converted each of those families into\na kind of Roman amphitheatre, and made the unhappy slaves the chief\nvictims of your rashness. Hence, it is not without the gravest reasons\nthat the intelligence of the South rebukes the fanatical spirit of\nabolitionists, with the most solemn assurances that they know not the\nthings whereof they speak, when they urge upon the Southern people the\nduty of schooling and emancipating their slaves.\n\n3. But I also affirm that the feature of the system under\nconsideration will ultimately effect the moral elevation of the\nAfrican, so far as any means can be effectual in the accomplishment of\nthis object, whilst he remains in the bosom of a community with which\nhe cannot be admitted to a social footing.\n\nSo unobserved is the influence of this _element_, that I find but few,\neven among intelligent and practical men, who, before their attention\nis particularly called to the subject, are aware of what it has\nalready effected. But in numerous public addresses in the States of\nVirginia and North Carolina, I have appealed to the oldest and most\nobservant men in large assemblies, and in no instance have I met with\na single individual who did not concur in my statement that the\npresent race of Africans were very materially improved, both in their\nmoral and physical condition, above what they were some twenty or\nforty years ago, and that the change has been much greater with the\nslaves than with the free colored population. Now, it is obvious that\nthis improvement will continue to go on, and in an increasing ratio.\nOn the same principle that labor applied to capital is productive in\nan increasing ratio, the means in operation for the improvement of the\nAfrican will greatly accelerate his progress. Hence, _some_ future\nperiod will present a generation of Africans highly improved above\nwhat they are now. Consequently, there will arrive, at some distant\nday, a period at which this people will have reached that point of\nmoral progress at which they will be capable of appreciating, and, in\na _suitable physical condition, adapting them to social equality_,\nwill be prepared to occupy and wisely improve, the privileges of civil\nliberty.\n\nIt is on this principle that the laws of all civilized States confer\nthe privilege of political freedom on the descendants of their free\ncitizens. At the age of twenty-one they are made politically free.\nThe law assumes, what is found generally to be true, that previously\nto this period they are incapable of using this privilege to the\nadvantage of themselves and of the community; but that, at this age,\ntheir capacities are sufficiently developed to make a proper use of\nthis privilege; and as neither their physical condition nor any\naccidents of their position operate as a bar to their social equality\nwith other free citizens, it is conferred on them. By analogy,\ntherefore, we may infer, that when the African in America shall have\nreached a similar moral state, and when his physical condition and the\naccidents of his position shall fit him for social equality with other\nfree citizens, a similar right of political freedom will inure to him.\nIt will be to him _the right_--that is, _the good_--which ought to be\nallowed him. To withhold it would be despotism. Now, the former\ncondition of this problem, his moral state in this country at some\nfuture day may fulfil; but that the latter can never be fulfilled in\nthis country is obvious from the facts and reasonings already\nadduced. But when in future time his state shall fulfil the first\ncondition, it is a grave question which we may safely anticipate,\nwhether it will not be the duty of the superior race amongst whom the\nAfricans now dwell, to remove them to a land where they can enjoy\nsocial equality. We hazard nothing in deciding this question in the\naffirmative. Rights and duties are reciprocal. Then whatever it shall\nbe the right of the African to claim of their superiors, it will be\ntheir duty to confer. That they would be entitled to removal in large\nnumbers, will appear--1. They will have contributed largely to develop\nthe resources of the country, as the price of their civilization. 2.\nIt would be to them the good, without which their civilization could\nbut partially avail them. Hence, it would be the duty of their\nsuperiors to remove them in such numbers as their means of doing so\nmight allow. But more than this, it would be a duty which they owed\nthemselves, even if they were under no obligations to the inferior\nrace. For when a numerous population in our midst, though confessedly\ninferior, shall arise to the moral condition defined, the difficulties\nattending their longer continuance in a state of slavery, domestic or\notherwise, will be far too great to justify the experiment.\n\nHence I have long thought that there was usually a very unnecessary\nexpenditure of sympathy on behalf of certain enslaved nations of\nEurope, as well as the African of this country. A nation, the masses\nof whom have arisen to the moral condition of freedom, will assert\ntheir political rights; and they will usually do it on practicable\ngrounds. It is only at this point that they challenge public sympathy.\nFor the mind was never before sufficiently free to make their\nsituation an oppressive one, assuming that their rulers do not abuse\ntheir power. Before this period, their rights lay in being\ngoverned--not in governing. Political freedom would be as dangerous\nintrusted to them, as a razor would be in the hands of a child, and\nshould, for the same general reasons, be withheld from them. But\nwithheld by whom? asks the philosophy of Dr. Wayland. I answer, By\nthose who have the intelligence to do it. Both the principle of\nbenevolence and the law of reciprocity require this; and that\nintelligence which imposes this duty, can never fail to supply the\nmeans for the restraint of brute force.\n\nOf the truth of this general position no people appear to be more\nsensible than the aristocracy of Europe. De Tocqueville clearly\nasserts this on their behalf, when he states that the object of his\ntour through the United States arose from the necessity of becoming\nacquainted with the spirit and character of democracy, that a proper\ndirection might be given to it in Europe. To direct it wisely might be\ndone; but to crush it was utterly impossible. Now if this author be\ncorrect in supposing that the spirit of democracy is truly awake among\nthe masses of European population, and that consequently they are\nasserting their right to freedom--not from the abuse of legitimate\npower, which calls for _reform_ merely, but from the power _itself_,\nwhich their improved moral and social condition has rendered no longer\nappropriate, and which, therefore, they now sensibly feel to be an\noppression, calling for revolution--they are following the indications\nof nature, and there is no power in those nations that can shut the\ndoor of Providence against them. An obedient child will cheerfully\nsubmit to the reasonable though _stringent despotism_ exercised over\nhim by his parent, and even look back upon it in after life with the\nhighest pleasure. Nevertheless, on reaching his maturity, he will\nrefuse to submit to it any longer, and even feel an attempt to force\nit upon him as an oppression too intolerable to be borne. So, by\nparity of reasoning, will the masses of these nations demand an entire\nabolition of the existing modes of government, and claim such as are\nadapted to their state of maturity. But, on the other hand, if the\nmovements in question are the work of only a few master-spirits who\nhave mistaken the actual condition of the masses, who have not yet\nrisen to the moral condition of freedom, they will be found to be\nfighting against God. The door of his providence is closed against\nthem. There are no means in the compass of their power by which they\ncan force an entrance through this door. They may shed oceans of\nblood, but it shall not avail. So, in the former case, the aristocracy\nmay exhaust alike their treasures and their diplomatic resources, but\nit can only be to fill the land with desolation and mourning. The\nenlightened popular mind and will must prevail. \u201cVerily,\u201d a premature\nresistance in either case \u201chas its reward\u201d--great suffering, and a\nvast accumulation of guilt, but not success.\n\nThese principles are not without their application to the Africans in\nthis country. Should the remote period arrive when the state of the\nAfricans fulfils the first condition of the problem laid down, they\nwill certainly feel their political condition in this country to be an\noppressive one, and, if necessary, assert their right to remove. I\nsay, assert their right to remove; for in the mental condition\nassumed, they would have far too much good sense to do what many less\nqualified to judge than they would then be have done--ask for\n_political_ equality amongst a people with whom they could never be\non a footing of _social_ equality. I am equally satisfied that they\nwould be under no necessity to ask this. The intelligence and virtue,\nno less than the interest, of that age, will forestall such a\nnecessity, by the measures which justice and humanity will dictate as\nproper to meet the circumstances of the case.\n\nFor my own part, I have no doubt that, under that wise superintending\nProvidence which has so signally marked the progress of African\ncivilization, by introducing so large a portion of the race into this\ncountry, that distant day, when it arrives, will provide for itself.\nAnxious solicitude on the part of the present age is not demanded.\nNeither the intelligence nor the benevolence of _that_ remote age will\nbe unequal to the task of providing for the necessities of its times.\nAlready, indeed, \u201ccoming events cast their shadows before.\u201d The\nelements have been long combining, both to usher in and to dispose of\nthose events. The _domestic_ element of slavery is, as we have seen,\nquietly and effectually doing its work. God is raising up a vast\ngovernment on the coast of Africa, which promises to reach a\nrespectable station among the civilized nations of the earth--in moral\nand physical resources. In the progress of events, there is no ground\nto doubt that the abolition spirit, abroad in so large a portion of\nour country, will have had its day, and run its course through all the\nusual stages and phases of fanaticism, and, giving place to a sounder\nphilanthropy and a purer benevolence, those who now advocate it will\nbe prepared to unite with the philosophy of the South, and availing\nthemselves of the vast resources of this great country, and of those\nof the new government in Africa, will _transport_ large numbers to a\ncommunity in which their social equality will enable them to enjoy the\nfreedom for which they were fitted in this country. Many of those who\nremain will, no doubt, amalgamate with the whites, however it may be\nin violation of the laws of civilization. Those barriers which\nfree-soilism is now erecting on our Southern border, will ultimately\nyield to a sounder policy, and many of our slaves will find their way\nto the remote South, where the state of civilization will admit of a\nmore general amalgamation, and be lost in the Mexican races; whilst\nthe remainder--perhaps a large number--will continue in the United\nStates, but in a highly improved condition, and under a form of civil\ngovernment which will not be felt by them as a political oppression,\nand continue to bless the country. I have no idea that the race will\never become extinct in this country, or cease to exist under a\nsubordinate government of some kind.\n\nI would not claim entire accuracy for these views of the distant\nfuture; but of their general accuracy I have no doubt. Future history\nwill, doubtless, challenge the gratitude of the Christian world for\nthat wonderful providence by which the residence of the African in\nthis country was made as the sojourn of Joseph in Egypt. As God sent\nhim before his brethren \u201cto preserve life,\u201d so it will be found that\nhe permitted the introduction of the pagan African into this country,\nthat he might be raised by contact with civilization, redeemed by the\ngenius of the gospel, and returned to bless his kindred and his\ncountry. Thus all Africa shall, sooner or later, share the blessings\nof civilization and religion. I am not able to see any thing that can\nor will embarrass the progress of this great work, but the spirit of a\npremature abolition. The doctrines of emancipation and school\ninstruction may keep up an irritated state of the public mind, that\nmust act as a serious check to the civilizing tendencies of the\n_domestic_ element of the system; for the long-continued agitation of\nthese questions may excite fanatical aspirants to attempt to pass\nlimits which God has declared to be impassable--that is, to procure\npolitical freedom for a people who are not prepared for it, and that\nin the midst of another people with whom they can never generally\namalgamate. All attempts of this sort, it is well known, are\nextremely hurtful to the progress of the African in civilization.\nEvery consideration, therefore, of policy and of humanity forbids that\nthese doctrines should receive the slightest encouragement from an\nenlightened people. The race is not prepared for the operation of\neither of these schemes. No better evidence need be required by those\nnot personally acquainted with the character of the Africans, than the\nfact that they have never once attempted to assert a right to\npolitical freedom. The fact that, nowhere throughout the Southern\nStates, can it be said of even a respectable minority of the race,\nthat they have given the slightest indication of such a disposition,\n_is proof_ that they have not yet risen to that mental state, and\nhence are not entitled to the political privileges which are\nappropriate to it. It is vain to point to the few attempts at local\ninsurrection which have occurred. The highest conception which the\nmasses have ever yet formed of political freedom is simply _liberty to\ndo nothing_. To win this cherished object of _barbarism_--not of\n_civilization_--a bare handful, on a few occasions, have concocted\nplans as hopeless as the spirit in which they were conceived was\nbarbarian, and as visionary as the dreams of Miller that he could make\nan intelligent Christian people believe his vagaries; or the leaders\nof the Mormon folly and wickedness, that they could impose their\ngrossly stupid imposture upon the civilized world.\n\nIn view, therefore, of these facts and reasonings, we conclude that\nthe Southern people are not obnoxious to the charge of keeping the\nAfricans in a state of barbarism, by their policy, either on the\nsubject of emancipation or of school instruction; but that they are\nfollowing the indications of Divine Providence, and serving the cause\nof humanity in the civilization of the African in America, and the\nredemption of his fatherland.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XII.\n\nTHE CONSERVATIVE INFLUENCE OF THE AFRICAN POPULATION OF THE SOUTH.\n\n     Preliminary remarks--American party--The present and\n     prospective condition of our country--The large number of\n     voters in the free-soil States who will be under a foreign\n     influence, political and religious, inducing them to discard\n     the Bible and the right of private judgment--The freedom of the\n     Southern States from this anti-Christian and anti-republican\n     influence--The presence of the African race in the Southern\n     States secures them this advantage--The unpatriotic policy of\n     free-soilism\n\n\nWe have seen that nowhere throughout the South have the masses of our\nAfrican population given evidence of the first intelligent conception\nof political freedom. As to insurrections, we are freer from their\ndisturbing influences than are the communities of many of the Northern\nStates from the progress of a no less dangerous influence--the\nagrarian spirit which pervades a somewhat similar portion of society.\nWe of the South fear them less; and we have less cause to fear them.\nOn this score they make a useless expenditure of sympathy on our\nbehalf. It may be demonstrated that, without a singular interposition\nof Divine Providence, the South (using the term, as I generally do,\nfor all those States which maintain the system of domestic slavery)\nwill, ere long, be called upon to protect the liberties of the North\nfrom the progress of agrarianism, whilst there is not the remotest\nprobability that these will ever be called on to protect the South\nfrom the insurrectionary movements of their blacks. I repeat--no! no\npeople in the whole country who fill the menial offices of society are\nmore contented than our blacks, or as much so. There are none who less\nfeel their condition to be oppressive, or who have as little cause to\nfeel it so.\n\nIn discussing the proposition enunciated, it is proper to premise,\nthat if I should be found to agree to any extent with the \u201cAmerican\nparty,\u201d whose \u201ccouncils\u201d are now attracting so much attention, as to\nthe accumulation of a dangerous influence in the country, I find the\nchief remedy (whatever may or may not be true of those proposed by\nthis party) in a providential arrangement which seems not so much to\nhave engaged public attention.\n\nI propose to submit a brief sketch of the present and prospective\ncondition of our country.\n\nWe live in a country of vast geographical extent. A large portion of\nit is uninhabited. It is, however, rapidly filling up. Immigrants from\nevery section of the civilized world are rapidly arriving in our\neastern cities, and spreading to remote sections of our republic: men\nof every conceivable variety of taste, disposition, and opinion, both\nin politics and in religion. The fertility and abundance of our soil,\nand the variety of our staple articles of produce, have attracted\nuniversal activity and enterprise. To compare the civilized world to\none vast city, our republic seems destined to become the great market\nor business-street of it. Here, all is bustle and activity. Nowhere on\nthe face of the globe is so much energy of character displayed. No\nattentive observer can fail to perceive the tendency of all this to\ncall off the mind from those moral and intellectual pursuits that so\neminently fit men for the sober duties of life and the felicities of\nheaven. The public mind is already kept in a state of most unnatural\nexcitement, stimulated in the highest degree to the pursuits of wealth\nand political distinction, to the almost entire neglect of every other\ninterest. This is daily becoming the supreme attraction, to which the\npopular impulse yields as readily as the unfortunate ship obeys the\nresistless circles of the maelstrom.\n\nThus far, it is true, we have succeeded to \u201clay that broad foundation\nof modern society which promises the noble superstructure of rational\nliberty. But regarding the tendencies of this restless people, looking\nat the growth of our own improvidence, and at the copious additions\nwhich overstocked and perishing Europe is daily sending us, in\nmultiplied forms of ignorance and superstition, insomuch that in many\nrespects in our Northern States our republican fabric is fast changing\nand passing away before our very eyes, who can exult in the certainty\nof success! Who will not despair, except so far as he may be sanguine\nthat a tone and energy of moral effort is put forth, equal to that\nwhich achieved our national liberties! For if this be not done, in a\nday we may go down into hopeless bondage! The physical battle of our\nliberties has been fought and won, and we are fast rushing up to\nunparalleled eminence; but from this dizzy height, if we be not\nsustained by some conservative power, we shall go down in a moment to\nthe degradation of slavery. For let it be remembered that whilst\nliberty may be achieved by the sword, it cannot be maintained by the\nsword. Enlightened principles and moral excellence alone can maintain\nthe liberty that force achieves.\u201d\n\nI say nothing of that large class of foreign population whose\neducation and pecuniary resources enable them to come among us from a\nchoice of our institutions, and the other means of happiness which\nthis great country affords. I bid them all welcome. They add alike to\nthe permanency and strength of our institutions. Nor do I say any\nthing against that unfortunate multitude which accompanies these,\nwhose ignorance and vice compel them, reluctantly or not, to seek\ntheir bread in our fruitful country. So far as we may be able to\nreceive them, I rejoice that we have a home for them. But it is\nobvious that our safety can be found only in our ability to absorb\nthem into our political body, and impart our character to them; and in\nthose providential arrangements which shall sustain us through the\nprotracted process. Without these, there is no ground to hope for\nsuccess. For what power is that which (in the language of another)\n\u201chas been fitly styled the \u2018terror of Europe\u2019--the power that has sent\nearthquake after earthquake, rolling under the deep foundations of\ngovernments, till they have rocked to their basis, and tottered to\ntheir fall? It is the order, or rather the mass of vicious ignorance\nand poverty which has there accumulated for ages.\u201d This maniac power\nmust continue to work its extended desolations in Europe, except so\nfar as it may be enervated by expanding on the wilderness of North\nAmerica. It is fortunate for Europe that this enfeebling process is\nrapidly going forward; but it is most unfortunate for us that we are\ndestined soon to concentrate a power which Europe is so happily\nexpanding. We are destined, ere long, to become a great manufacturing,\nas well as commercial and agricultural people. Our condition is soon\nto condense millions into cities and manufacturing districts, where,\nas in Europe, from the class of population flowing in upon us, a\ndistinct class of menial poverty will be formed, \u201cimbecile of mind,\nand inapt but for one employment.\u201d[6]\n\n     [6] Some years ago, a pamphlet fell into my hands, written by\n     some one whose name, if I ever knew it, I have forgotten. I\n     think it likely that this language, or much of it, is to be\n     credited to that pamphlet.\n\nNor is _this_ all. It lays no claim to prophetic honor to venture the\nprediction, that the youth of our country who shall survive the next\nhalf century, will witness that which many will not believe, \u201cthough a\nman declare it unto them.\u201d But reasoning from the past, or from\nwell-established principles of political economy, it is morally\ncertain that our present population of twenty-three millions will then\nhave swelled to near one hundred millions. \u201cAgriculture, commerce, and\nmanufactures will have expanded their resources and powers of\nproduction to an inconceivable extent. The various portions of our\ncountry will be linked together by railroads, canals,\u201d telegraphic\nwires, and by some other--God knows what!--as yet undiscovered means\nof connection. Already, the cities of our Atlantic coast converse\nfreely, by means of \u201clightning post-boys,\u201d with their next-door\nneighbors--the cities of the great Mississippi valley! \u201cFlourishing\ncities are now lifting their spires in the hitherto pathless wilds of\nIowa, Oregon,\u201d and California, and will soon be in telegraphic\nconnection with those of the East. Who can doubt that in less than ten\nyears the prediction of an eminent son of Virginia, J. E. Heath, Esq.,\nwill be verified: \u201cAmerican steamships from the cities of our Western\ncoast shall strike off in the path of the setting sun, and following\nthat burning luminary where he dips his glowing axle in the waters of\nthe Pacific, return in the short space of thirty or forty days, laden\nwith the commerce and population of China, and the isles of the\nremotest West!\u201d[7]\n\n     [7] Literary Messenger.\n\nCan any man doubt the political and commercial changes that will then\nfollow throughout the civilized world? But who can estimate the extent\nof these changes? Who can tell the result upon the political and\nmoral destiny of this great country? Who can tell the end of that\ncommercial revolution by which a large portion of the tea trade of\nChina, now in the hands of that greatest of all monopolies--the\nBritish East India Company, contributing largely to the support of the\nBritish government--shall be transferred to American bottoms, and flow\ninto this country through our cities on the Pacific coast! Already the\nwalls of pagan China have bowed to the thunder of British cannon, and\nthe deep foundations of her ancient government are destined at no\ndistant day to yield alike to American enterprise and American\nliberty. Thousands of her perishing population--indeed, already they\ncome!--shall, ere long, flow in from the West, and meet the vast tide\nof papal superstition and vice that has been long setting in from\nEurope on the east. I am free to own that I contemplate this period\nwith profound amazement! I know not the extent of the vision that\nconfounds me. And when I turn my eyes to the canvas of Divine\ninspiration, and decipher its unerring pencillings, I cannot doubt\nthat the strange elements that even now are so rapidly combining, and\nthat are soon to concentrate the maddened powers of pagan ignorance,\nand papal superstition and vice, in the heart of this republic, are,\nere long, to make my native land the great theatre of those eventful\nbattles--the conflicts of truth and error in both politics and\nreligion--so graphically described in the apocalyptic vision of John.\nAnd as I believe in the truth of the prophecy, and confide in the\npromise of Heaven, I cannot doubt the result. But mark you, \u201cthe peril\nof our condition--the peril of that state of things on which our\nchildren may be but just entering!\u201d This conflict is to be the more or\nless fierce, the more or less disastrous to those who shall\nimmediately sustain its calamities, as they shall be the more or less\nprepared for it. And what are the great agencies that shall prepare us\nfor a successful conflict? What is it that shall give comparative\nmildness to this great moral and perhaps physical conflict that awaits\nour children, or the want of which shall arm it with all the terrors\nof a barbarous warfare? But one answer can be given to these\nquestions. The general education of the sovereigns of the land, and\nthe conservative influence of our institutions, or perdition, is the\nalternative.\n\nUpon the importance of the great educational movement of the country,\nI need not remark just now; nor need we notice in this connection the\nconservative influence of our free institutions, or rather the\ntendency of the great principle of liberty, (as embodied in our civil\nand religious institutions,) which, with all true Americans, is a\nkind of instinctive belief, to diffuse itself through the mass of\nsociety. The two together may justly be regarded as forming a bulwark\nof American liberty, upon which the intelligent mind of the country\nmay repose with great confidence. But still, history scarcely leaves\nus room to doubt that a _politico_-religious priesthood, firmly\nestablished in the superstitious devotions of a strong minority even\nof _menials_, who at the same time are political sovereigns, presents\nfearful odds in the strife of principles with the \u201cman of sin.\u201d Nor\nneed we be surprised at this. A large mass of our population--however\nthey may constitute but a minority of the whole population--have been\neducated from their cradles in the firm belief that it is a sin,\ninvolving the damnation of the soul, to read God\u2019s word, or to\nexercise private judgment upon any matters which such a priesthood may\nchoose to affirm are taught therein, and who are equally established\nin a superstitious opinion and feeling of devotion and submission, not\nonly to its right to decide all such matters, but also its authority\nto punish with the highest spiritual torments all who shall\nheretically disregard its decisions. This power has proved itself an\novermatch for the genius of liberty in the states of Europe. Thrones\nand kingdoms have fallen before it. To this day the despots of Europe\nhold their sceptres in virtue of a league with it. Louis Napoleon\nexercises despotic sway over a large portion of as free a people in\ntheir opinions and sentiments on all subjects without the range of\npriestly dictation and dogmatism as can be found on the globe. But how\ndoes he do it? He crushed the measures of liberty in Italy, and\nrestored the Pope to his throne. And why? Not only because a republic\nin Italy would be a dangerous neighbor, but also because he needed the\nauthority of the priesthood to enforce the politico-religious dogmas\nupon which alone his despotic throne could repose with safety! Thus a\nlarge community who are among the most enlightened and devoted friends\nof liberty, are ruled by a grinding despotism; and this is only an\ninstance in which the genius of liberty is crushed and trodden under\nfoot by the \u201cman of sin.\u201d Education and the genius of liberty have\ndone much in Europe, and are daily struggling against fearful odds;\nand may do much more in this country to modify and restrain this\npower, but they are impotent to its destruction. It is, in itself, so\nentirely contradictory of all liberty, and at the same time so full of\nvitality, that God in mercy has only relieved the despair of the world\nby the assurance that he would destroy it. Thus Paul says: \u201c_The man\nof sin, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called\nGod, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple\nof God, showing himself that he is God_--WHOM THE LORD SHALL CONSUME\nWITH THE SPIRIT OF HIS MOUTH, AND SHALL DESTROY WITH THE BRIGHTNESS OF\nHIS COMING.\u201d 2 Thess. ii. 1-12. The world has no hope of relief from\nthe oppression of this nightmare of superstition, but that which is\nfound in _this_ promise of God, that the word of his truth shall\noverthrow and utterly destroy this monster power, which for so many\nages has been the terror and the scourge of the civilized world. The\nBible--the word of God--freely circulated, read, and expounded, and\nfreely judged of by all who read or hear, according to the dictates of\ntheir own judgments and consciences--this is the religion of\nProtestants! in exact antagonism to the teachings of the \u201c_man of\nsin_.\u201d The triumph of the Bible is the overthrow of his power.\n\nNow, the Bible is not only being circulated, and its truths enforced\nfrom the pulpit, but a great many arrangements of Divine Providence\nare in constant operation, not only to secure the prevalence of Bible\ntruths in our land, but also to place these truths in such\ncircumstances as shall secure the permanent establishment of civil and\nreligious liberty. Of these arrangements of Divine Providence, we may\nselect as germane to the general subject of discussion, the\n_conservative influence of the system of domestic slavery_.\n\nThat providence of God, by which so large a number of the States of\nthis Union have been supplied with a population who cannot be absorbed\nby the body politic, but must exist among us, and for so long a time,\nin a distinct and menial position, provided the means of safety to the\nwhole Union in the coming conflict which is already awakening the\nfears of the country. If we do not greatly mistake the signs of the\ntimes, it is to these States that all eyes and all hopes will be\nturned as the great bulwarks of American liberty. The African race in\nthese States will give them this advantage of position.\n\nReview the facts of the case. As to that class of population coming\ninto the country with that liberty of choice which intelligence and\npecuniary means afford them, the whole land is before them, and few\nare more welcome than they, whatever may be their errors in religion.\nBut relatively, they make but a small portion of the whole number. The\ngreat mass of this coming population necessarily seek the _menial_\noffices of society as the only means of living. This evil is already\nsorely felt in some portions of our country; and as our unoccupied\nlands shall be filled up by Western as well as Eastern immigration,\nthis will be still more generally and deeply felt. For all these are\nabsorbed by the body politic, and form a part of the sovereignty of\nthe country.\n\nBut what portion of our country is it which now suffers, and is\nchiefly threatened in future with this heavy calamity? Not the South!\nThis is evident. Our menial offices are already occupied by a race\nwhich cannot be absorbed, and who therefore can never form a part of\nthe sovereignty of the country. Hence, there is no room for the\nmenials of either Europe or China. The door of Providence is closed\nagainst their admission. The foreign population which finds its way\ninto the South are, for the most part, a valued and welcome class of\nsociety. No: it is in the midst of the Northern States, and those new\nStates which repudiate the African race, that these shoals of vice,\nsuperstition, and ignorance--these hordes of modern Canaanites--are\ngathering, \u201cthick as the frogs and flies of Egypt.\u201d Upon these States,\nand not upon the South, this great and increasing calamity is to\ndisplay its strength. Are they destined to control the _primary_\nschools to a great extent, from which they exclude the Bible, and\neducate a large mass of the population to abandon the inherent right\nof private judgment on all matters which the priesthood may please to\ndefine--whether correctly or not--as matters of religion: that is, to\nabandon those rights of conscience which are guaranteed to every\ncitizen by the constitution of our country? Already, many of these\nschools are thus controlled, and a large portion of the citizens are\nthus being educated in the city and State of New York, and other\nplaces! But nothing of this sort can exist to any extent in the\nSouthern States. So far as popular education is promoted in these\nStates, it must be strictly Protestant education--Protestant, at\nleast, in its main feature: that is, every citizen brought up among us\ngrows up in the educated belief that, whatever aid he may seek or\nderive from a gospel ministry, he is still individually and personally\nresponsible to God and his country, for his opinions and his\npractices, both as to politics and religion. He should, therefore,\nread, reflect, and judge for himself. No \u201cman of sin,\u201d in the shape of\npope, bishop, priest, minister, or preacher of the gospel, or with any\nother title, has authority to \u201c_oppose and exalt himself above all\nthat is called God, or that is worshipped_,\u201d by dispensing either\npolitical or religious beliefs; \u201c_so that he, as God, sitteth in the\ntemple of God, showing himself that he is God_:\u201d enforcing his right\nto control the consciences of men, by severe spiritual and temporal\npenalties--reaching even to \u201c_anathema maranatha_!\u201d No material\nportion of Southern sovereigns can ever grow up in such an utter\nabandonment of all liberty, whilst the African race shall fill the\nmenial offices of society. All this, however, and perhaps much more,\nis reserved for those States which repudiate this race. And still\nfurther, Is all this calculated to corrupt the purity of elections, as\nit has done in many sections of New England and the State of New York,\nand eminently so in the cities of New York and Cincinnati?--and is\nthis evil also destined to reach the national Legislature, either\ndirectly, as the result of numerical strength, or indirectly, as the\naction of a powerful minority, holding the balance of power between\ncontending political parties, and, in either case, sooner or later,\nseriously threatening if not precipitating evils upon the whole\ncountry, of which the oppressions of many of the States of Europe now\nfurnish us the mournful examples! But no such influence can ever\nreach, to any material extent, the ballot-boxes of the South. With an\neducated sovereignty, we have only to consummate our triumph over\nintemperance, and our elections are at once fair exponents of the will\nof an enlightened people. Our people may err in opinion, but, always\nright in sentiment, and with no motive to stay wrong, they may, in due\ntime, be put right in _opinion_ also. The Southern States may be\nlabored by the tempests that shall break upon them from other\nsources, but not from this, which its history in Europe shows to be\nthe most terrible calamity that ever scourged humanity. With their\nships well trimmed and their sails well set, and both worked and\ngoverned by an educated sovereignty, it is morally impossible that\nthey should founder in the open sea of free discussion. These States,\ntherefore, will remain, and shall ever remain, through all this fierce\nconflict, _free_ to settle the great quarrel of the country between\nlight and darkness, between religion and a vile superstition! Upon\nthese States will devolve the duty of holding the balance of power\nbetween these great contending forces, and of preserving the ark of\nAmerican liberty in the politico-religious storms that are to sweep\nover the land, and shake the foundations of our confederacy.\n\nIn view of all the facts, we are at no loss to account for the\nagrarian doctrines and organizations which are already so common in\nthe Northern States, and which are essentially so entirely subversive\nof all true liberty. Nor are we at a loss to account for the fact that\nthe Southern States have always, to the present time, stood forth as\nthe authors and uniform expounders of the soundest democratic\nprinciples of republican freedom. They owe it, and will for ages to\ncome continue to owe it, not so much to any superior devotion to\nsound principles above that of their intelligent and unbiased brethren\nof other States, but to the fact that only a small portion of their\nmenial population are, or ever can be, sovereigns. The great mass of\ntheir menials belong to a distinct and inferior race, who never can be\nabsorbed, and who, therefore, are not and never can become sovereigns\nof the land. The conservative influence, therefore, of the African\nrace in the Southern States, I set down as a _fixed fact_, for which,\nin the prospective condition of the country, we have abundant cause to\nbe devoutly thankful to Almighty God.\n\nIn view, therefore, of the condition of the Africans themselves, as\nwell as the calamities which overhang the country, how idly do they\ntalk who would expel the Africans from these States! How madly do they\nreason who, by a cordon of free-soil States, on the West and South,\nwould shut up the Southern States--as if, with bolts and bars, they\nwould cage a savage beast! False philosophers! Enemies alike to\njustice and humanity! Worse than Nadab and Abihu, in the republic of\nMoses! Kindred to Ahithophel and Judas, and, in later days, to\nBenedict Arnold! The day will come--passing events cast their long\n\u201cshadows before\u201d--when history will record the civilization of all\nAfrica, and the final solution of the problem, and the permanent\nestablishment of American liberty. A sound philosophy will be at no\nloss to trace both one and the other to the agency, and that in no\nsmall degree, of that wonderful scheme of Divine Providence, by which\nso large a number of Africans were introduced into so many of the\nStates of North America. Ay! and long before that day, the North will\nlearn to do justice to their brethren of the South. When the fight\nshall wax warm, and the \u201cbattle-cry\u201d shall be heard throughout all\ntheir coasts, then will it be seen and acknowledged that the Southern\nStates--always great in the counsels of the nation--are always, and\neverywhere, the true friends and invincible supporters of Protestant\nfreedom, or the rights of conscience; and then shall they do justice\nto these States as the chief bulwarks of American liberty, and equal\nhonor to that wonderful providence which has so signally marked their\nhistory, for good to the whole country, as well as to the continent of\nAfrica.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XIII.\n\nTHE DUTY OF MASTERS TO SLAVES.\n\n     \u201cMasters, give unto your servants (\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 slaves) that which\n     is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a Master in\n     heaven.\u201d--Col. iv. 1.\n\n\n     The duty of masters and the rights of slaves reciprocal.\n\n      1. The duty of masters to their slaves considered as \u201ctheir\n      money\u201d--in regard to working, resting, feeding, clothing,\n      housing, and the employment of persons over them; also to the\n      sick and the aged.\n\n      2. Their duty to their slaves considered as social beings.\n      Punishments and the social principle discussed.\n\n      3. Their duty to their slaves considered as religious beings.\n      Public instruction on the Sabbath, and at other times, and the\n      opportunity of attending. The employment of preachers, and the\n      religious instruction of children.\n\nIt has been shown in previous lectures that the principle of slavery\naccords fully with the doctrine of abstract rights, civil and social;\nand that a system of domestic slavery in the United States is demanded\nby the circumstances of the African population in the country. But it\nby no means follows that the conduct of all masters, in the exercise\nof their functions as masters, is proper, any more than that the\nconduct of all parents, or the owners of apprentices, is such as it\nshould be. The opinion is entertained that the domestic government of\nchildren does not more than approximate propriety as a general thing;\nand that the government of apprentices and of African slaves falls far\nshort of what is proper. In this lecture it is proposed to deal with\nthe relations of masters to slaves, that is, the duties they owe them.\nThe doctrine that the system of domestic slavery assumes that the\nslave is a \u201cmere machine--a chattel,\u201d has been fully exploded. The\nBible particularly regards the slave an accountable being. It requires\nhim to yield a willing obedience to his master, and teaches him that\nsuch service is accepted of the Lord as service done unto himself,\nEphesians vi. 5-8; and in the 9th verse, the master is required to \u201cdo\nthe same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your\nMaster also is in heaven.\u201d And again, (Colossians iv. 1,) \u201cMasters,\ngive unto your servants that which is just and equal.\u201d Hence, in the\nstrictest sense, religion holds the scales of justice between masters\nand slaves. Each one is held to a strict accountability for the\nfaithful performance of his duty, the one to the other--\u201cfor there is\nno respect of persons with God.\u201d\n\nIt behooves us, then, who are masters, or who expect to become\nmasters, to inquire into the duties of this relation. The master who\ndoes not inform himself on this subject, and endeavor conscientiously\nto do his duty, is strangely wanting in important elements of\nChristian character, and, indeed, even in some of those attributes\nwhich enter materially into the character of a good citizen.\n\nA most fanatical spirit is abroad in the land on the subject of\ndomestic slavery. The inhumanity of masters at the South is greatly\nexaggerated. (Instances in which the institution of slavery is abused\nno doubt contribute to this excitement.) Even those who are deficient\nin the duties they owe their domestics and apprentices--quite as much\nso as is common at the South with the masters of African slaves--lend\na willing ear to political demagogues and fanatical party-leaders in\ntheir denunciations of the South. Want of sympathy for hired servants,\nand instances in which they are overreached and oppressed beyond the\nmeans of legal redress, are as common in certain quarters as are the\ncases of inhumanity to the slaves at the South. But this does not help\nthe matter. Evils of this kind are to be deplored whether they occur\nat the North or the South. The injunction of the apostle reaches every\ncase of the kind--\u201cMasters, give unto your servants that which is\njust and equal: knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.\u201d\n\nBut what may the apostle mean by this precept? The view before taken\nof the _right_ will justify a departure from the usual line of thought\non this subject. To give any one that which is _just_ is to confer\nupon him that which is his right. To give that which is just and\nequal, is a form of expression that may limit the term \u201cjust\u201d to its\nlegal sense, that is, confer on him all the rights guaranteed to him\nby law. There is a special necessity for this command in any state of\nsociety. For whatever advantages the law might confer on the slave,\nhis subordinate relation, and the superior position and authority of\nthe master, will of necessity place it in his power to defeat the\nprovisions of the law in favor of the slave. But the command goes\nfarther than this: Give unto your servants that which is _equal_,\n_equitable_, that is, justice in a moral sense, or that which is\n_right_--good in itself. Whatever provision the law might make for the\nbenefit of the slave, as a slave, might be secured to him by his\nmaster, and yet many of his natural and acquired rights might be\noverlooked, and the claims of Christian charity annulled. To fulfil\nthe command, however, we must give the slave _equity_, as well as\nlegal justice: we must do unto the slave what we would have the slave\nto do unto us, on a change of relations. It is needless to repeat the\ndiscussion of this topic in a former lecture. Suffice it to say, that\nthe master is not required to give to his slave (any more than the\nparent is required to give to his child) whatever he might wish, but\nwhatever justice and equity claim for him, that is, whatever is right\nor good in itself; or, if you please, accord to him all his natural\nand acquired rights, as a slave. For this is precisely that, and no\nmore, to which the master would be entitled on a change of relations.\n\nWe now meet the question--What are the rights of the slave? The duties\nof the master are reciprocal of these. Those who believe, with\nChanning, that the relation they sustain as masters assumes that their\nslaves have no rights, we may consider are beyond the reach of reason.\nIf the master owes any duties to his slave, it is because the rights\nof the slave entitle him to the benefit of the faithful performance of\nthese duties on the part of his master. No point is more fully settled\nin Scripture than this: masters are held to a strict accountability to\nGod for the faithful performance of certain duties to their slaves.\nThe Bible puts it beyond all dispute that \u201cthe master stands to his\nbond-servant, one bought with his money or born in his house, in a\nrelation widely different from that which he sustains to the hired\nservant, or the stranger within his gates, or the neighbor without\nthem.\u201d And as he may be a good neighbor, and yet at fault as a husband\nand father, so he may be a good husband, a good father, and yet a bad\nmaster.\n\nThe duties which the master owes the slave are as binding on the\nconscience as those which the slave owes the master. To neglect either\ninvolves the party so neglecting in sin. Indeed, the duties of the\nmaster are as binding as those of any relation in life. On many\naccounts, they are peculiarly solemn. They are duties owed to\ninferiors, and inferiors in a helpless condition. They appeal to the\nmagnanimity of the master. He who disregards this appeal, not only\nviolates duty, but betrays a want of magnanimity, bordering upon that\nmeanness of spirit which delights to oppress an inferior, whilst it\ncowers before an equal. A brave man is always magnanimous, and a\nmagnanimous man will rarely fail to respect the rights of the\nhelpless. _Guardianship_, as well as authority, enters as an element\ninto the idea of master. Masters are not only rulers, but protectors.\nIf the servant is defrauded of his own, if his wants are not regarded\nand his grievances redressed, or he is otherwise oppressed, to whom\ncan he complain? True, his miseries are not voiceless. His cries\n\u201center into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.\u201d But his only earthly\nappeal lies to his master. He has permitted or done this thing, and it\nis laid upon the conscience of the slave to submit, \u201cnot answering\nagain.\u201d His master is his only earthly protector. His guaranty that\nhis master will protect him, is that he too has a \u201cMaster in heaven,\u201d\nwho is no respecter of persons, and that to him belongeth vengeance.\n\nAccording to principles established in the fourth and fifth lectures,\nthe Africans of this country, in common with minors, imbeciles, and\nuncivilized persons, have a right to be governed and protected, and to\nsuch means of physical comfort and moral improvement as are necessary\nand compatible with their providential condition. That which it is\ntheir right to have as slaves, it is the duty of masters to secure to\nthem. Superior positions devolve higher and more important duties. The\nmaster who ignores these claims, and affects to be offended with any\nwho may assert them on behalf of the slave, will do well to consider\nthat the \u201ccries of those who have reaped down their fields,\u201d that is,\nthe claims of those who have labored for them, and have no earthly\nfriend to vindicate their rights, are heard by Him who has said,\n\u201cVengeance is mine: I will repay, saith the Lord.\u201d But Christian\nmasters, or even men of religious sentiments, who always respect the\nclaims of the poor, find pleasure in attending to the wants of the\nhelpless, and to none more than those of their own slaves.\n\nHumanity, the claims of religion, and the pecuniary interest of the\nmaster, all unite to enforce the claims of the slave. The physical and\nthe moral man are so nicely blended, and the duties we owe the one run\nso naturally into those we owe the other, that it is difficult to make\na well-defined classification, especially in the case of either slaves\nor children. The following will be found sufficiently accurate for all\npractical purposes:\n\nI. The duties of masters to their slaves, considered as \u201ctheir money:\u201d\nsuch as relate to judicious labor, and reasonable time for rest,\nhabitations, clothing, food, arrangements for sickness, their own\ntime, and stewards or overseers.\n\nII. The duties of masters to slaves, considered as social beings: such\nas relate to moral treatment, punishments, matrimonial alliances,\nfamily connections, and duties relating to women, children, and the\naged.\n\nIII. The duties of masters to slaves, considered as religious beings:\nsuch as relate to the domestic and public instruction of their slaves\nin the principles and duties of religion.\n\n\nI. THE DUTIES OF MASTERS TO THEIR SLAVES, CONSIDERED AS \u201cTHEIR\nMONEY:\u201d \u201c_for he is his money_,\u201d Ex. xxi. 21.\n\n1. _Slaves should be subjected to reasonable labor._ Instances are to\nbe found in which ignorance with a natural tendency to idleness, or\nvast wealth, joined with a kind of sentimental religion, which\nexhausts itself in a morbid sympathy for the poor, leads to a\ndisregard of that great law of nature under which slaves should be\nsubjected to labor. Many are indulged in idleness. Idleness is a crime\nin any one. Even those whose wealth and social position in society\nenable them to indulge in idleness without incurring the ordinary\npenalties, inflict a great evil upon society thereby. And for those\nwho can only be occupied in the menial offices of society to be\nindulged in idleness is to create a nuisance. There are families in\nthe Southern country whose slaves can only be regarded as nuisances.\nSometimes the ignorance, but more frequently the dissipated habits of\nthe master, lead to this. Again, in some cases, widows with large\nfortunes in slaves furnish examples of the same. They are not\ngenerally in circumstances to manage a farm, without the aid of an\nintelligent and judicious steward. But a morbid sympathy, joined,\nperhaps, with parsimony, prevents the employment of such a one. The\nconsequence is, the slaves are indulged in great idleness. Families\nare sometimes broken up from these causes, and the slaves sold under\nthe hammer. The separation of family ties, which under given\ncircumstances is a cause for so much regret, is often to be traced to\nthese sources. But long before this result, the slaves are considered\nand felt to be a nuisance in the neighborhood. Many intelligent and\nhumane neighbors, who deplore the dissolution of the family and the\nseparations consequent upon it, are bound to admit that these\ndisasters after all are the least of evils. Hence, slaves should be\nsubjected to physical labor. \u201c_If any man will not work, neither shall\nhe eat_\u201d--so God has said, and the master who disregards it either for\nhimself or his slaves shall come to poverty; and this shall be the\nleast part of the evil.\n\n_But slaves should be subjected only to reasonable labor._ There is an\nexcess of physical exertion which the constitution cannot bear. The\nlaws of nature cannot be violated with impunity. Sooner or later the\neffects will follow. Excessive labor will result in a peculiar\nliability to disease, in premature old age, or in death. For the\nreckless industry of a few years, all this pecuniary loss and great\nmoral evil follows. He who transcends the limits which God has fixed\nto human labor, pays the forfeit of health, if not of life. \u201cTo coax\nor bribe one\u2019s slave to go beyond this limit is wretched economy: to\nforce him to do it is cruelty.\u201d The state of the weather is an\nimportant element in determining the amount of labor that may be\nreasonably required. The extremes of heat and cold, or inclement\nweather, rain or snow, should always be regarded. African slaves can\ndo but little, comparatively, in very inclement weather. A reasonable\nmaster will regard the extremes of heat and cold, and especially the\nlatter.\n\nSuitable tools or implements of labor constitute another important\nitem in determining the amount of labor that may be reasonably\ndemanded. It was cruel in Pharaoh to lay upon the Israelites the \u201csame\ntale of brick,\u201d without supplying them with the usual \u201cquantity of\nstraw.\u201d Ex. v. 7, 8. It is equally unjust to require an ordinary day\u2019s\nwork of your slaves, if you fail to supply them with the tools\nnecessary to perform it. A dull iron or an ill-shaped helve will\nrequire a much greater outlay of physical strength to accomplish a\ncertain result. There is certainly an evil in Southern society at this\npoint. Many persons are negligent of the kind and quality of their\nfarming implements. Their slaves do a reasonable amount of labor,\nstill the farm does not prosper. A slave is occasionally sold to meet\nexpenses. Humane persons struggle with what they call misfortunes.\nThose who are less careful of the claims of humanity make unreasonable\nexactions of their laborers. They are sufficiently near to certain\nneighbors to see that their lands are well cultivated, their fencing\nis good, their stock is in good condition, their houses neat and\ncomfortable for both man and beast, and their farms wear the\nappearance of thrift; but they are not sufficiently intimate to know\nthat it is the intelligence or good common sense that presides over\nthese farms, and not the extra amount of labor exacted of the slaves,\nthat makes the difference. The slaves on these prosperous farms,\nalthough they are made to observe great constancy and system in their\nlabor, are not subjected to the same amount of hard labor as are those\nof many less thrifty farmers. The achievements of science in\nlabor-saving machinery are very great. Man is greatly aided in his\nlabors by natural agents. They accommodate his work to his physical\nstructure, relieve his posture, and lessen his fatigue. With sharp\ninstruments, and those of the best kind, labor is no longer such a\ndrudgery. Indeed, labor is lightened by a thousand simple and cheap\narts. Science enables us to accomplish with one man the labor of two\nor more men in almost every pursuit of life. It is a great practical\nmistake to suppose that this is only true of manufacturing\nestablishments. It is equally so in the improved methods of farming\nand the improved implements by which the labor of the farm is\naccomplished. Farmers of enlightened views give their laborers the\nbenefit of the newest and best improvements in their line. To attempt\nto rival the productions of such farmers, by exacting extra labor of\nthe hands, is great injustice. For he who has the same work to do as\nanother, with only half his means of doing it, has twice his work to\ndo. \u201cThe ease of the patent spring,\u201d and the \u201cspeed of the\nlocomotive,\u201d are not more important to the comfort of the traveller\nand his economy of time, which is money, in accomplishing his journey,\nthan are the improved methods and instruments of farming to the ease,\nthe economy, and the success of the farmer. \u201cBut slaves are careless,\nwasteful, and destructive.\u201d So they are, and so perhaps would you be.\nThere is but little difference between slaves and any others who labor\nfor us in menial offices. All such operatives require a presiding mind\nto effect a proper division of labor, and have its eye in every place\nand on every thing. Without this, it is idle to prate about the\nwastefulness of slaves. If the master is himself too idle or\nimprovident for this, he is culpable: if he has no capacity for it, he\nis fit to labor under the direction of another--that is, he is fit to\nbe a slave; but he is not qualified to direct the labor of\nothers--that is, he is not fit to be a master.\n\n_Slaves should be allowed reasonable time for rest._ All animal nature\nrequires the refreshment derived from sleep. The muscular and nervous\nsystem of man requires not less than seven hours in twenty-four to\nrepair the wastes of a day of active labor. This is a general rule.\nSome do with less: a few require more. But in every case there is a\nlimit beyond which we cannot habitually go, without the sacrifice of\nhealth or life. The constitutions of some laboring men can bear a\ngreat loss of sleep; but it is on the same principle that a few\nconstitutions can, for a long time, resist the effects of the daily\nuse of alcohol. But still dram-drinking will tell, and so will the\nloss of sleep.\n\nWe unyoke the ox, we stable the horse, and the whole night is devoted\nto their repose. But this is often not the case with the weary slave,\nwho toiled with them through the day. He is convenient to demands, and\na great many extra jobs may be found for him before he reposes. I say\n\u201creposes,\u201d for sleep is not all that is required for rest. There is a\ntime of leisure, a waking repose, which is as necessary as sleep. No\nreasonable man denies himself the benefit of this. The slave is\nentitled to the early part of the night for this. No one has a right\nto require him to take all his rest with his eyes shut, and his senses\nlocked up in sleep. There is the refreshment of mind resulting from\nrepose from ordinary pursuits, and occupation with things which may\nplease the humor or minister to innocent gratification, by which, to a\ncertain degree, the exhausted system is restored as much as by sleep.\nIndeed, without this, \u201cbalmy sleep\u201d is not a \u201csweet restorer.\u201d The man\nwho works hard the six days of the week, does not require to sleep all\nSunday in order to restore his wasted system. There is a transition of\nmental pursuits from business to devotion, and there is to a virtuous\nmind the hallowed cheerfulness of that holy day, which contributes to\nrestore the system, no less than cessation from labor, and sleep. The\nslave, like his master, is entitled to the night. What if he do employ\na reasonable part of it to turn a penny, and in arranging for his\npersonal comfort? It gives repose to his mind: it ministers to his\ncheerfulness: along with sleep it re\u00efnvigorates his whole system, and\nmakes him a more valuable as well as a more happy servant. Who, then,\nshall deny him the boon? Surely not the economist, who calls him his\n\u201cmoney,\u201d and who, by any other course, would be reducing the value of\n\u201chis money\u201d below par!\n\nIn Virginia--and we are not at liberty to think it is materially\ndifferent in other Southern States--slaves are generally indulged with\ntime for repose at their day meals, and with the whole night from\nearly nightfall. A clear evidence of the economy of this system is\nafforded by the striking contrast which in some cases is to be found\non plantations between slaves thus treated, and masters of a certain\ndescription. The slaves are fat, sleek, cheerful, and long-lived:\nspending their leisure time in cheerful conversation, in singing, or\nin those little personal offices which give elasticity to mind and\nbody. But not so with some masters. They sleep as much--that is, lie\ndown as much--as their slaves; but their sleep is disturbed by an\nincoherent tracing of the anxious thoughts of the troubled day. They\nare not refreshed. Both mind and body are worn down by excessive\nfriction. They hasten to premature old age; and the weary wheels of\nlife stand still long before the appointed time. Some masters are\npersonally very industrious and enterprising: they work side by side\nwith their slaves. It is their boast that they require no more of\ntheir slaves than they do themselves. Yea, they do more than they,\nhaving the direction and care of all. Surely, say they, my slaves\nhave no right to complain. But this reasoning is not always fair. It\nmay be that the master overtasks himself. This does not give the right\nto overtask his slaves. Withal, he brings to his task a physical\nsystem stimulated to a high degree by those mental activities which\npush him forward to enterprise great things. He labors to exhaustion,\nand enjoys his rest only the more for having done so. Not so with the\nslave who works by his side. When he yields to over-fatigue, his\nthoughts administer no cordial to his weary limbs. It is well if he\nhave not intelligence enough to make them a source of still further\nprostration.\n\nAgain, the man-servant and the maid-servant, as well as the beast, are\nentitled to the rest of the Sabbath. More than this, we are commanded\nto \u201c_remember_ the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.\u201d The head of the\nfamily should not only do this himself, but see that all his household\nobserve the Sabbath. It is not enough that the children and servants\nbe left free to keep the Sabbath. The head of the family should see\nthat all the arrangements necessary to promote the due observance of\nthe Sabbath are properly made, so that, whilst he requires the\nobservance of the Sabbath, all the domestic arrangements invite to its\nobservance.\n\nThere are certain individuals about many families whose offices are\nso difficult to be dispensed with, because they are so necessary to\nself-indulgence, that they are often deprived of the rest of the\nSabbath. Of this class there are two humble but very important\npersonages, which it is neither beneath the subject nor the occasion\nto notice, namely, the cook and the carriage-driver. To the\ncarriage-driver of some families, all days are alike \u201cdays of rest.\u201d\nHe is the most idle personage about the premises. It is well if a\nfarm-hand be not presently sold to support his idleness. But the\ncarriage-driver of another family is himself also a farm-hand. With\nhim the case may be widely different. He may toil on the farm six days\nin the week, and spend the day of rest in burnishing harness, and with\ncarriage and horses. If he drive to church, the care of his horses is\nat least a pretext for neglecting the sermon; and if he drive to spend\nthe day with a neighbor, it is not a day of rest, and may not be a day\nof enjoyment. In either case, there is but little companionship, but\nfew church privileges, and still less opportunity for rest. It may be\nno better with the cook, and is often not so well. Indeed, the Sabbath\nis seldom a day of rest with the cook. It is oftener a day of much\ncloser confinement. Stewing, roasting, baking, and broiling the\ngreater part of the day on Sabbath, afford but little time for the\nrepose for which the fourth commandment provides. These are evils in\nthe land. It lies on right-minded men to correct them. At the least,\nthey can correct their own practices, and in doing this they will do\nmuch to reform the habits of society.\n\n2. _Slaves should be furnished with suitable habitations._ We are\nconsidering slaves as property, and the duty of masters as economists.\nOn the principle of good economy, slaves are entitled to habitations\nsufficiently airy and cool in summer, close and warm in winter. And as\nit costs no more, why may not their houses be located with due regard\nto their health, their convenience, and comfort? Let them then be\ngrouped together on the gentle slope of a hill, and, as lime is cheap,\nlet them all be neatly whitewashed. Who could object to a little\ngarden spot attached to each? And why may there not be nice rows of\nshade trees, and neat grass-plots upon which the children can sport,\nand where the men and women can sit and enjoy a delightful Sabbath\nevening? Economy will not object to this. The miserable smoky hovels\nin low damp situations, black and disagreeable to the sight, in which,\nin some instances, they are huddled together, cannot be too severely\ncondemned on the principles of economy, no less than on those of good\nmorals. For if the inhabitants of such buildings are not filthy,\ndegraded, and thievish to an extent that materially depreciates their\nvalue, it can only be because they are extraordinary examples of moral\npurity.\n\n3. _Slaves should be comfortably clothed._ All those families whose\nself-respect leads them to regard their position in society, supply\ntheir slaves with comfortable clothing, and pay particular attention\nto the neatness as well as the comfort of those kept about the house.\nIt would indicate a very low state of civilization, if these things\nshould be generally neglected. The improvements in the manufacture of\ncotton, wool, and leather have been so great that nothing short of\nthese could be tolerated in decent society. Our slaves are no doubt\ngenerally better fed, clothed, and housed than are the menials in most\nof the nations of Europe. Still, there are instances of neglect, which\nshould be noticed. Those who pay but little attention to their\nhabitations, generally neglect their clothing. Feet are to be found\nunshod when frost is on the ground; the head uncovered in all\nweathers; and the body far from being suitably protected. The color\nand tropical habitudes of our slaves render them peculiarly liable to\nsuffer from cold. Health as well as comfort requires them to be warmly\nclad in cold weather. \u201cA shivering servant is a shame to any master.\u201d\nIt is economy to sell a slave occasionally rather than let all suffer\nfor the want of clothing. But they should also be supplied with\nsuitable beds and bedding. The expense is really so trifling, and the\neconomy so great, that masters entitled to respect cannot be excused\nfor the neglect of this duty Shucks are plentiful on all farms, and\ncotton is abundant on many, and can be easily had at cheap rates on\nthose on which it is not raised. These articles make excellent\nmattresses, and the latter makes most excellent comforts. Those rainy\ndays on which slaves should not be allowed to work out, should be\nemployed in providing these articles. Health and life are often thus\npreserved. To allow slaves to labor in filth and rags through the\nweek, and lie about or stroll about on the Sabbath in their unwashed\nrags, should be severely censured. It does not help the matter a great\ndeal to throw them a thin blanket occasionally, with liberty to take\nrepose wherever they can find it. Such masters pay more in doctors\u2019\nbills than it would cost to make their slaves as comfortable as those\nof their more prudent neighbors. It is a shame to them. We cannot give\nthem any more credit for practical sense than for good morals.\n\n4. _Slaves should be well fed._ The quality, the quantity of food, and\nreasonable time to eat it and refresh themselves, are the ideas which\nenter into this duty. A sufficient quantity of good substantial food,\nwell prepared, should be furnished. Meat should form a fair proportion\nof the diet of a laboring African. The Irish, it is true, eat but\nlittle meat, and do well,--that is, such as do not perish,--but the\nAfrican constitution in this climate requires meat, and they must have\nit if they do full labor. Their food should be well prepared. To\nsecure this, it should be prepared by a cook, and eaten at a common\ntable. To put laboring farm-hands off with an allowance of meat and\nmeal, to prepare it or seek its preparation as they may, is too\nobviously wrong to require argument. The force of habit is exceedingly\nstubborn in the African. To eat a piece of meat exhausted of its\nnutriment by being crisped on the coals, is very much to the taste of\nthose accustomed to it: they will yield with great reluctance. But\nstill, this plan should give place to the better preparation of the\npublic table. An excellent habit of the slaves is to eat slowly.\nUsually something like two hours in the long days is allowed them to\neat and refresh themselves at noon. It is not too much to allow. An\nhour\u2019s repose after a meat dinner should be allowed to all laborers in\nthe heat of summer. Again, they are entitled to such variety as the\nseason affords. The early roasting ear, the ripe fruit, the melons,\nthe potatoes, the fat stock, all enter of right in due season and\nlimited proportions into their bill of fare. Better do all this than\npay doctors\u2019 bills, or tempt them to steal. Nor do I fall out with the\ncustom of some of our better families, to supply their tables with a\nportion of all the delicacies of the \u201cgreat house,\u201d on particular\noccasions. Some may think this too much for slaves! But the attachment\nof Southern slaves to the families in which they were born and brought\nup is proverbial. And let Northern fanatics believe and prate what\nthey will, it is still true that the practical workings of the system\ngenerally, on the basis of the duties here inculcated, is in a good\ndegree the cause of this attachment. Every right-minded master\ncontemplates the _physique_ of his servants with emotions of pride and\npleasure. Their looks reflect his character. A gang of half-starved,\nmeanly-clad, overworked slaves, with no heart to laugh or sing, and\neven without that attachment for their owners which the ox and the ass\nhave for theirs, is a disgusting spectacle, and as revolting to every\nfeeling of humanity as it is in violation of every principle of\neconomy.\n\n5. _Provision should be made for slaves in times of sickness._ Each of\nthe topics discussed derives much of its importance from its\nconnection with this. Reasonable labor, time for repose and sleep,\nhabitations, clothing, and food, are each and all of them provisions\nagainst the occurrence of sickness. Still, the topic deserves a more\nspecial notice. All families should have such domestic provisions as\nanticipate sickness by suitable arrangements for it when it\ncomes--such as comfortable apartments and the ordinary conveniences\nfor nursing. All families and manufactories employing a sufficient\nnumber of slaves to require it, should have a hospital: that is, a\nhouse so situated as to location and internal arrangements as to be a\nconvenient and comfortable place for the sick, and equally convenient\nto those who may have to nurse the sick, or to overlook those who do.\nThe economy of such an arrangement on large farms commends itself to\napprobation. So far from encouraging a well-known disposition among\nslaves of a certain character to lie by for trifling causes, it will\ncontribute very much to discourage such habits. If slaves are\npermitted to lounge about their own houses when sick, they may often\nelude observation, and spend their time in idleness, when they should\nbe at work; and in cases of actual sickness, they are liable to suffer\nfor want of attention. On the hospital plan, the case will be very\ndifferent with each of these. If all who are sick have to go to the\nhospital, and take physic, the former will not be so likely to feign\nsickness, and the really sick will be better attended to.\n\n6. _What is usually called their own time should be strictly allowed\nthem._ Besides Christmas, there are frequent holiday occasions through\nthe year, and still oftener a Saturday afternoon at particular\nseasons, which usage has secured to them as their _own time_. This\ntime is usually employed by the more provident in cultivating a\ngarden, in mending their clothes, cleansing about their houses, or in\nvarious ways earning a few dollars with which to purchase little\narticles of fancy or comfort in the way of furniture or dress, such as\nmasters do not usually furnish. Some masters obviate the necessity for\na portion of this, by cultivating a part of the crop, and dividing the\nproceeds of its sale among them for their exclusive benefit. None but\na tyrant, who is always a bad economist, will disregard their claims\nto what is known as their own time. Any other man who should attempt\nit, would soon be taught to feel that the force of public opinion,\neven among slaves, well sustained as it is on these points, is a\nmatter not to be despised. The claims of slaves and the rights of the\npublic coincide. Plantation slaves who may be no less than a body of\nragamuffins, carrying on petty depredations upon the rights of\nproperty in the neighborhood, are a serious nuisance. Public opinion\nwill not tolerate it. The economy of such a master is as bad as his\ninjustice to his neighbors is oppressive.\n\n7. _Stewards or overseers._ The duty which the master owes his slaves\nin the selection of a person to be over them is often embarrassing,\nand at all times important. That which a farmer has time and ability\nto do for himself, he should not employ an agent to do for him. He has\nmore interest in it than any one else, and will observe more fidelity\nin its performance. No economist will employ a steward to manage his\nfarm if he can prudently supply his place by his own personal\nattentions. Some employ them that they may with less loss indulge in\nidleness: others, because they distrust their own experience in\nfarming; and others again, because more important duties put it out of\ntheir power to give the necessary personal attention to their farms.\nBut whether from the one cause or the other, the master owes certain\nduties to his slave as well as to himself in selecting an individual\nto take his place over them. Economically considered, the rights of\nthe slave and the interests of the master coincide. Many overlook\nthis. An industrious but heartless business man may be found to act as\nsteward, who, with an interest in the crop, will stir late and early,\nand drive hard all the day; but the great laws which regulate the\nreciprocal operations of labor, sleep, and repose will be strangely\ndisregarded by such a man. He may succeed in a crop for a year,\nperhaps for a series of years; but the value of the personal property\nas well as of the lands will be annually depreciating. There is no\neconomy in employing an agent of this class. A plantation is an empire\nwithin itself. If the territory be large, and the subjects numerous,\nthe mind that presides, whether as master or steward, must be\ncompetent to direct a proper division of labor, and to govern on the\nprinciples of justice and equity. In such an empire, talents of a\npeculiar kind are required. It is only the income from such estates\nthat will justify the employment of the best talents, for these will\nalways command high prices. Masters with less income cannot command\nthe best talents. But, in either case, due regard should be paid to\nthe moral character of the man put over slaves. The authority\ncommitted to him is necessarily extensive. Though industrious, he need\nnot be cruel. He should be fully capable of sympathizing with the\nsemi-barbarous subjects of his empire. Industry, good moral habits,\nand common sense, are essential qualities in an overseer. To be\nwanting in any of these, constitutes an entire disqualification for\nthe office. To be himself immoral, and to contribute to corrupt the\nmorals of those under him, involves the master who employs him in the\nguilt of sin, as well as depreciates the value of his property. When a\nman of industry, common sense, and virtue is found, pains should be\ntaken to attach him to the estate. If he be a single man, he should be\nencouraged to marry. His situation should be made as permanent as\npossible. The man of common sense, who well understands that nothing\nbut industry, carefulness or prudence, and virtue, will secure his\nsituation, will, one year with another, make as good crops as it would\nbe reasonable to expect. More than a fair crop, like all other unfair\noperations, implies unfairness somewhere. If it be in the voiceless\nwoes of the slave, the master is sadly the loser in the end. He who\nretains his steward with a view to extra crops by such means, may be\nlikened to a barbarian king in Africa, but does not deserve to be\nranked among masters in civilized life. All masters, I should think,\nowe it to themselves and to their slaves to give a great deal of\npersonal attention to their farms.[8]\n\n     [8] I take this occasion to call your attention to a little\n     volume on the \u201cDuties of Masters to Servants,\u201d three premium\n     essays, by the Rev. Messrs. H. N. McTyeire, C. F. Sturgis, and\n     A. T. Holmes, published by the Southern Baptist Publication\n     Society, Charleston, S. C., to which I acknowledge myself\n     indebted for several suggestions on this topic. Read the book.\n\n\nII. THE DUTIES OF MASTERS TO SLAVES, AS SOCIAL BEINGS.\n\nThey are entitled to the restraints, the protection, and the\nencouragement, which a prudent administration of a system of good laws\nis calculated to afford. A part of this is secured to them by the\ncivil government; but a large part is left to the discretion and\nfidelity of the master. The civil government assumes that the\npecuniary interest of the master and the duty which he owes his slaves\ncoincide so perfectly, that the performance of certain duties may with\npropriety be left to him. He is the patriarch of his whole house. His\nfamily is his empire, subordinate, it is true, to the civil\ngovernment, but still an empire. He commands the time and labor of his\nchildren and his slaves--the one for a definite period in life, the\nother for an indefinite period. He gives law to the one and to the\nother. So long as he does not violate the constitution and laws of the\npolitical commonwealth of which he is himself a subject, his authority\nis absolute. All the rights of his children and his servants appeal to\nhim. He is responsible to the civil government not to violate its\nprovisions, and he is responsible to God for the faithful performance\nof his duties to his children and his servants; for the sin of\nomitting to do his duty to his children or servants could rarely be\nreached by the civil authority.\n\nThe duty of the master to his slaves as social beings is to give them\nlaws within the limits prescribed by the civil government, and to\ngovern them according to the principles of justice and equity.\n\nAs his empire is constantly under his eye, or the eye of his immediate\nagent, it is not necessary that he have recourse to a code of laws\ndefinitely drawn up and formally announced. As the teacher in his\nroom, and the mother in her nursery, may have their rules, and have\nthem obeyed without these formalities, so may the master. But these\nrules should not relate merely to the economical use of the slave\u2019s\ntime and labor, but should be adapted to his character as a social\nbeing. Hence, it is not proposed to give a code of laws for the\nplantation, but to discuss certain principles which should influence\nthe conduct of the master in the government of his domestic empire.\n\n1. _In regard to punishments._ Neither the magistrate, the parent, nor\nthe master, should bear the sword in vain. Disobedience, which, in all\nwise governments, is wickedness, must be restrained, and in extreme\ncases by severe punishments. It would be great weakness to forbear.\nBut one law, however, should govern in the infliction of punishments.\nThey should be inflicted for the purpose of correction, or as \u201ca\nterror to evil-doers, and a praise to them that do well,\u201d and not to\ngratify passion or resentment. Punishments inflicted from motives of\nresentment merely, and often repeated, tend directly to cow the\nspirit, stultify the intellect, destroy self-respect, and greatly\nweaken the power of arbitrary volition. Such a man approximates the\nnature of a brute, and is, in fact, scarcely of the value of a common\nhorse. He is a human being, but in circumstances in which he has few\nmotives of action above those which influence a brute--namely, the\nindulgence of his animal nature, restrained only by the fear of\npresent punishment. He is not as serviceable as a brute, and is far\nmore dangerous than a brute. A slave to whose sense of what is right\nand proper to be done nothing can be trusted, and from whom nothing\ncan be gotten but that which is extorted from his fears, is of no\nvalue unless it be to a master of the same genus--that is, like\nhimself, a brute. The prodigality as well as wickedness of this course\nrequires no comment. There is a more excellent way of maintaining\nauthority, and it lies upon the conscience of every master no less\nthan upon his purse to observe it as a duty: it is _to punish for the\npurpose of correction only--not to destroy, but to save_.\n\nPunishments can only be salutary as a means of moral discipline in the\nmeasure in which they produce shame and mortification. But one who has\nno self-respect can have no shame. The effect of punishment in such a\ncase is lost only so far as it may help to brutalize him. A desire to\nsecure the favor and preserve the confidence of those upon whom we are\ndependent is the highest guaranty for faithfulness. But he only who\nrespects himself will value the respect and confidence of others. And\nit is difficult for any man to retain his self-respect when he knows\nthat no one respects him. It is not impossible to be done; but only\nmen of great moral firmness and conscious integrity succeed in doing\nit. We have no right to expect it from slaves. They universally\nconcede the superior intelligence of the whites. And for one of these,\naccustomed from early childhood to hear himself disparaged in company,\nand degraded by harsh epithets for his stupidity and disobedience by\nthose whom he thinks to be superior in every thing, to grow up with\nthe necessary self-respect, is not to be expected. It would be\nsingular, indeed, even if one who had been better brought up should be\nable to retain his self-respect under this kind of treatment. And\nwithout self-respect, punishment can have no moral effect. Why then\nshould we thus sin against God? How much better to regard the counsel\nof Paul: \u201c_And ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing\nthreatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven._\u201d Ephesians\nvi. 9. He hath enjoined upon servants to serve their \u201c_masters in\nsingleness of heart as unto Christ_,\u201d \u201c_with good will doing service\nas to the Lord, and not to men_.\u201d _Masters_ are then commanded to \u201c_do\nthe same things unto them, forbearing threatening_;\u201d that is,\ncarefully avoiding all those hasty, unjust, and petulant censures,\nwhich display themselves in idle threatenings, or _scoldings_, do your\nduty to your servants as an act of duty to God; or, with a view to his\napprobation, govern them according to the principles of justice,\nequity, and kindness--remembering that your Master is in heaven, from\nwhose forbearance you may have need of more than you now extend to\nyour servants.\n\n\u201cI desire to be kind to my servants; but they are often so perverse,\nthey will not allow me to make their situation as comfortable as I\nwould.\u201d We sometimes meet with these remarks. There is often a great\ndeal of reason for them. Our slaves have many faults. They are\nignorant, careless, slothful, and sometimes perverse. These things are\nat all times vexatious, and sometimes a great temptation to sin. But\nthen it should not be forgotten that our children sometimes give us\nmore trouble, and furnish stronger temptations to sin, than our slaves\ncould possibly do. Having all the perverseness of the slave, their\nsuperior intelligence may make them much more potent for evil. But\nstill they are our children. The wisest and best parents will have to\nbe blind to a great many faults, and ultimately bear in silence with a\ngreat deal which cannot be concealed. The parent that does his best,\nand commits results to God, will find in the end that things turn out\na great deal better than his fears dictated they would do. So our\nslaves are ours still. They are God\u2019s poor, committed to us. We must\ncontrol and protect them for their profit, as well as work them for\nour mutual profit. They have great faults. Still, they are our\nheritage both for good and for evil. We may not dissolve the relation\nbetween us and them, any more than that between us and our children.\nWe dare not turn them loose in the savage wilds of Africa, any more\nthan we dare allow them to be hunted down as wild beasts by the\nadvances of a superior race, with whom they cannot be permitted to\namalgamate. To govern as well as work them, is, then, a moral\nnecessity. We cannot fulfil our duty without perhaps a great deal of\ntrouble in given cases. At all times we must be blind to many faults,\nand bear with some others which cannot be concealed. There is no\nrelease from this war. Penalties, severe penalties must be inflicted\noccasionally. Every steady government will sometimes have to wield\nauthority with a strong hand. This is a source of trouble to all, and\noften of great pain to good people. Still, there are views to be taken\nof the condition of the African which go far to relieve the whole\nsubject of its difficulties. Many of those faults which are sources of\nso much annoyance are to be traced to _ignorance_ and a _want of\nself-respect_, and these are oftentimes their infirmities. They are by\nnature slow to learn, and hence their ignorance; and few perhaps have\ntaken pains to cultivate in them much self-respect. Do not these facts\nplead in their behalf? Again, what master who desires to do justly can\nbe wholly indifferent to their good qualities? For a more docile and\nkind-hearted race of people are not to be found than the Africans of\nthe Southern States. Readiness to forgive, gratitude in their rude\nnotions of it, hospitality to strangers, and affection for friends,\nare characteristics of the race. Cases of ingratitude and resentment\nare the exceptions, not the rule. Confide, then, in your slaves, as\nfar as these qualities will allow you to do it. They will not\ndisappoint your confidence, as seriously, at least, as many others\nwith the same opportunities would probably do it. Give attention to\ntheir comfort in little things. This will not cost you much, and will\nshow your care for them. Pay due respect to their feelings and their\nreputation. This may cost you no more than a pleasant look or a kind\nword. Never be backward under proper circumstances to trust them in\nany thing in which it is proper to trust persons in a menial position.\nThis course will not be without its effect. Confidence will beget\nconfidence. For one to be respected by others, goes far to beget\nrespect in one\u2019s self. With a reasonable degree of self-respect in the\nslave, and confidence in the kindness and justice of his master, his\ndiscipline cannot fail to be salutary. He may punish in cases of\ndisobedience with great firmness, and to a merited extent, and it will\nnot fail to produce shame and mortification. His authority will be \u201ca\nterror to evil-doers, and a praise to them that do well.\u201d The public\nopinion of his little commonwealth will fully sustain his\nadministration. The counsels of age, the cutting jokes of early\nmanhood, and the merry laugh of the young, will all unite to teach the\noffender a valuable lesson. He who governs a plantation of slaves\nwithout the aid of a certain measure of public opinion, is a loser in\nthe end. Some masters affect to despise this. Brute force may sustain\nthem; but the public opinion even of so humble a commonwealth as a\nplantation of slaves is not to be despised. The sensible and humane\nmaster, who would obey the apostolic precept, and maintain a sound and\njudicious discipline among his slaves, will obey what is equally\nimplied in another injunction, and entitle himself to the respect and\nconfidence of his subjects. Tyrants who have operated upon wider and\nnobler fields have affected to despise public opinion, and lost their\ncrowns. The petty tyrants of whom we treat cannot fail to lose the\nrespect of their neighbors. It is impossible to respect a man whose\npolicy infests the neighborhood with a band of freebooters, and this\npolicy will rarely fail to reduce such a man to poverty also.\n\n2. _In regard to the social principle._ They are social beings. There\nare among them those great impulses of our nature, general love for\nsociety, and attachment to the sexes, out of which arise the affection\nof husband and wife, the love of parents to children, and children to\nparents, and all the various modifications of affection, resulting\nfrom collateral and more distant relationships. Besides these, there\nis the feeling of friendship between individuals of similar habits and\ncorresponding pursuits. All these social principles are common to our\nAfrican population. Any evidence to the contrary is only a proof of a\nlow state of civilization. Now, it is an easy matter for some minds to\noverlook the fact that they are _social_ and not _mere_ sentient\nbeings. But all the elements of simple society are to be found among\nthem. They associate together as other races. It is not peculiar to\nthem to wish to be together and to find pleasure in each other\u2019s\nsociety. They obey the common law of humanity. These elements of the\nsocial nature give rise to various relations and duties among\nthemselves. They do not operate mechanically, but morally. Hence their\nsociety is subject to all the mutations, the conflict of rights and\nthe violation of duties, of any other simple society, under like\nrestrictions. As in any other society, these relations must be\nunderstood and made to operate within certain limits. These rights\nmust be guarded and protected by the observance of certain duties\nenforced by certain penalties. Otherwise they may herd together, as in\nthe wilds of Africa; but they cannot dwell together as rational\nbeings. For the impulses of nature are not fulfilled when they are\npermitted merely to herd together. At this point, the master owes an\nimportant duty to his slaves. Its observance will greatly promote\ntheir progress in civilization, and enhance the value of his property.\nHe is their civil lawgiver, and the judge in all the grave\ncontroversies which arise among them. He should not be derelict in\nduty. He should not think it beneath him to arrest their broils by\nauthority, and settle their controversies by a kind of judicial\ndecision. A sensible man will not content himself by saying: \u201cThere\nwere no bones broken: no one was killed or crippled,\u201d or, \u201cA fine\nchild is born.\u201d These are not the only things which concern his\ninterest or his duty. It is not doing as he would be done by. The\ncivil government which protects him would not be worth a tithe of the\ntaxes, if it concerned itself no further to protect his rights of\nproperty and his happiness. His decisions, therefore, should regulate\nthe relations of this society, should protect such rights of property\nas he allows among them, and enforce the observance of such contracts\nas he allows them to negotiate either among their own fellow-servants\nor those of another plantation. At the same time that he sees that\nthey keep themselves within the position which they hold in the great\ncommunity of whites, in which they are subordinate members, he should\nsee that they are not overborne and oppressed by their superiors.\n\nThe first and most important of all the social relations is _the\nmarriage relation_. The civil government has not thought it wise to\ninterfere with this. It leaves this to the control of the master. His\ninterest and his duty afford a high guaranty that he will consult the\ninterests of his slaves in this matter. He should encourage the young\nto marry. He should not only positively forbid the herding together\nin indiscriminate intercourse, but he should promote marriage by all\nsuitable arrangements and influences. It is an important interest and\nduty with him to have his slaves suitably married and at home. He\nshould not scruple to buy and to sell to effect proper marriages among\nthe slaves of his own plantation. And when this cannot be done, he\nshould permit his slaves to intermarry with those of a neighboring\nplantation. There should be in all cases separate apartments for\nfamilies, and separate houses as soon as they can be provided.\n\nFrom causes which need not be enumerated, they are peculiarly addicted\nto licentious indulgences, and particularly disposed to violate the\nmarriage-bed. No master is at liberty to neglect or overlook these\nimmoralities. He should not allow any to marry without understanding\nthe obligations of the relation, and he should enforce, as far as his\ndiscipline can reach the case, the obligations of the marriage-bed.\nThe custom of leaving one wife and taking another, should be\npositively prohibited. Those masters whose policy actually makes this\ncustom in a good degree necessary, cannot be too severely censured. If\nslaves were mere chattels, as abolitionists affirm they are, there\nmight be an apology for this. But as it is, there is no apology for\nit. The custom of separating man and wife is the remnant of a\nbarbarous age: any gentleman should be ashamed of it. The civilization\nof the age may not be expected to countenance it. Those who think to\nmaintain the institution of slavery under so palpable a violation of\nthe laws of morality, may expect to meet the unqualified censure of\nthe civilized world. No: the marriage relation must be maintained. To\nbe maintained, it must be respected. Indiscriminate intercourse should\nbe restrained. Those masters whose policy renders this custom in a\ngood degree necessary should revise their system, and they must revise\ntheir system unless they would continue to outrage the moral sense of\ntheir fellow-citizens. For myself, I do not feel at liberty--and I\nspeak as a citizen--to treat the marriage relation among slaves other\nthan as a most sacred relation. Those marriages which are maintained\nin good faith, no master should feel himself at liberty to violate.\nNothing but conjugal infidelity or some capital offence which subjects\nthe party offending to imprisonment for life, to banishment, or to\ndeath, can dissolve the marriage obligation. \u201cThose whom God hath\njoined together, let not man put asunder.\u201d\n\nI have said that the Africans are a kind and docile race of people;\nbut still it is true of them, as of all other barbarous people, that\nthey have but little conception of moral influence as an element of\ngovernment. Fear is the motive to which in all cases they appeal--and\nwith the best intentions. They have but little idea of any thing else.\nWhatever authority, therefore, is placed in their hands is likely to\nbe exercised with great harshness, perhaps with cruelty. Many masters\navail themselves of the services of an intelligent servant, and make\nhim \u201chead-man,\u201d instead of incurring the expense of an overseer. In\nmany cases the plan succeeds remarkably well. But in most cases of the\nkind, the master owes an important duty to his other slaves: it is to\noverlook the exercise of the delegated authority, and restrain the\ntendency to excessive severity.\n\nThere are other points at which this tendency is liable to display\nitself. The husband is likely to exhibit it in the authority exercised\nover the wife, and both the husband and the wife in the authority\nexercised over the children. The husband is often found to beat and\notherwise maltreat the wife. In fits of passion, some of them are\nextremely cruel. The children are brought up in the same way. They are\noften subjected to cruel treatment. Impatience, fretfulness, and\nstunning blows, make up the system of cabin-discipline. The child is\noften stultified in early life, and, without self-respect, grows up a\nstupid, slovenly, and insufferable eye-servant. Thus, that which made\nthe young slave a source of so much annoyance in the kitchen, the\nchamber, and the dining-room, began in the discipline of the cabin,\nand with those who themselves were good servants, and who, for the\nmost part, intended to do their duty in their humble way to their\nchildren. Now, there are many families of great moral worth among us\nwho entirely neglect the discipline of the cabin. They take no account\nof the young negro, nor do they inquire into the treatment of wives.\nThis is a fault--a great fault. It presses with great force upon the\ninterests of the master, as well as upon the domestic happiness of the\nAfrican family and the moral character of the rising generation. The\nduty of the master is urgent. He should restrain the exercise of\ncruelty to wives. He should do the same in behalf of the children.\nBoth his example and his precepts should unite to introduce a sounder\nsystem of discipline. A well-trained slave, who respects himself, is\nfar more valuable in any view than a stupid eye-servant. The master\nwho will not condescend to pay some attention to the discipline of the\ncabin must content himself with the latter.\n\n_The sick and the aged_ should be suitably cared for. It is not enough\nthat provision be made for these: the master owes them a duty in the\n_kind_ of provision which he makes for them. The regular nurse can\nserve them with a little medicine, a cup of water, and help them to\nthe couch of straw, or support their heads in death; but they are\nsocial beings: their claims reach far beyond these things, and the\nduty of the master is imperative. It certainly should not come short\nof the service rendered by the good Samaritan. He who can free his\nconscience short of this, is low enough in the scale of civilization\nto change places with many slaves of our acquaintance. Humanity claims\nsomething for the sick and aged on the score of _comfort_ as well as\nnecessity. Why may they not be frequently ministered unto by their\nfriends? Do we think that the laws of friendship and consanguinity do\nnot operate among them? If so, we are mistaken; for they are social\nbeings, as we are. Why, then, deny them this boon, when it can be\nafforded them, as it often can, at so small a cost? I do not scruple\nto say that there are many circumstances in which any humane man would\nallow the husband and the child to quit even the harvest-field to\nminister as occasion might demand to the sick wife and mother, and to\nsoothe her sorrows in a dying-hour. And the aged father! Shall no\nchild or grandchild support his tottering limbs to his couch, and lay\nhim down to die in peace? Shall all these delicate services, if\nperformed at all, be left to stranger hands? Shall those who never\nknew mother, who never cared for grandfather, or who were never\nreckoned among their friends, be left to perform these last services?\nThere may be masters whose business or whose want of thought may lead\nthem to be inattentive to the social sorrows of the sick and the aged;\nbut they should remember that \u201c_they also have a Master in heaven_.\u201d\nWould they have Him to be as inattentive to their sorrows in sickness\nand in age? Let them beware \u201c_lest the same measure they mete be\nmeasured to them again_!\u201d\n\n\nIII. THE DUTIES OF MASTERS TO SLAVES AS RELIGIOUS BEINGS.\n\nThere are no duties which we owe our slaves as \u201cour money,\u201d or as\nsocial beings, which do not derive additional weight and importance\nfrom the fact that they are religious beings, and that, as such, we\nowe them all these duties, and still higher and more solemn duties.\n\u201cBut I am not a Christian, and therefore am not concerned in the\ndiscussion of this topic.\u201d But I am not aware that to omit to profess\nto be an honest man, or to neglect to strive to be an honest man,\nabsolves one from the obligation to be honest: so neither will a\nfailure to profess Christianity free any one from the duty of being a\nChristian. Both you and your slaves are religious beings; and if you\nare not a Christian, you ought to be, and God will hold you to account\nfor all the duties of a Christian life, whether in this world you\nacknowledge the obligation or not. Your slaves are entitled to the\nrights which belong to religious beings in their circumstances; and it\nis your duty to treat them as such; nor is there a single master who\nwill not be held to a strict account for the faithful performance of\nthese duties to his slaves.\n\nThe religious sentiment is strong in the African. Both his mind and\nhis heart respond readily to the fear of God, the love of virtue, and\nthe hope of heaven. But they are religious beings in a low state of\ncivilization. Their intellects are usually dull. They are subject to\nwild, extravagant, and superstitious opinions, and consequently to\nstrong and violent religious emotions. They do not, as some suppose,\nhave stronger feelings naturally than others. They do not differ in\nthis respect from barbarians of any other race of people; but they\nhave a low grade of mental development. Their wills, therefore, are\nnot supplied with those motives which would enable them to hold their\nattention to views of truth such as produce a more chastened,\nsubstantial, and elevated tone of Christian feeling. For the want of\nenlightened views, the religious sentiment displays itself in\nsuperstitious conceits, which usually lead to wild and sometimes\nfrantic feelings. We need not dwell upon the evils of this state of\nthings. They are too obvious, in their influence upon the blacks, and\noftentimes through them upon the nursery of white children, to require\ndiscussion. That which demands attention is this: it is a duty which\nthe master owes his slave to pursue that course in the government of\nhis domestic empire which shall contribute to correct these evils, and\nto fit his slaves for their destiny in the spirit-world, where the\ndistinction of master and slave will no longer exist. Aside, then,\nfrom other and less important objects in that Divine economy which\nintroduced the African into this country, God has thereby committed to\nyou these ignorant, these suffering poor. He requires you to care for\ntheir souls as well as their bodies. The latter of these duties you\nmay fulfil for your own interests merely. But each one of them you\nought faithfully to perform, both for God\u2019s sake and for the common\ninterests of yourselves and your slaves. \u201cAnd ye masters, do the same\nthings unto them:\u201d that is, as the context shows, serve their\ninterests faithfully, and that for the sake of Christ, as they are\nrequired to serve your commands faithfully, and that for the sake of\nChrist. But how may you do this?\n\nYou should provide for them the means of public religious instruction.\nThe owner of a large plantation of slaves should charge himself with\nthe expense of a minister of the gospel for his slaves. Smaller\nplantations should unite to employ the services of a minister. The\nowners of still smaller plantations in thinly settled communities of\nwhites, should see that the usual supply of ministerial service for\nthe neighborhood is sufficient to meet the demands of their slaves.\nThose who employ a minister, or those who unite with others to employ\none to devote himself to the religious instruction of their slaves,\nshould see that he is a man of blameless life, of sound, practical\nChristian experience, simple in his language, familiar in his manners,\nand fervent in spirit. He should devote himself to teach the children\nthe oral catechism, to visit the sick, to bury the dead, and preach\nthe gospel regularly on the Sabbath. On all occasions of public\nworship on the Sabbath, both old and young should be required to be\npresent, and in their best clothes. Masters should occasionally attend\nall these meetings. Our missions on plantations are fine examples of\nthe system here recommended. The Sabbath--the Christian Sabbath--is\nthe great civilizer of men. The clean skin, the Sunday suit, the\ncompanionship of friends, all unite with the sound instruction of the\npulpit, and the warm-hearted reception of the truth, to raise man in\nthe scale of being, to make him a better servant, and a better\ncitizen--an heir, together with the master, of the inheritance of the\nsaints in light.\n\nThose more densely populated white communities which are well supplied\nwith the Christian ministry should afford ample accommodations to the\ncolored population to hear the word of life, and share the blessings\nof the holy Sabbath. Masters should see to this. They have not done\ntheir duty when they subscribe to build a church in the neighborhood,\nand pay a trifle to the preacher. Their slaves should also be provided\nfor. If they will not go to heaven themselves, their slaves can go\nthere, and many of them desire to go there. Their masters unjustly\nwithhold the means. In many instances, suitable provision is not made.\nThe houses are small. The slaves are crowded out. They hear but\nlittle; at least, they are not instructed. A still greater defect of\nthis system in Virginia is, the slaves are but poorly supplied with\npastoral labor out of the pulpit. The sick are seldom visited. The\ndead are only buried in crowds. There is great room, then, for\nimprovement. Why may not the masters of a neighborhood engage the\nservices of their minister to have a regular appointment for an\nafternoon on the plantation of some one, for the benefit of the slaves\nof the neighborhood, and to visit their sick? I know many masters who\nare always ready to subscribe liberally to their minister if he would\nengage in this service. Why should he not do it? Perhaps some do. I\nshould rejoice to see this system more generally adopted, and by our\ncircuit preachers especially. They would accomplish great good. I\ndoubt if a better remedy for the wants of the African population in\nsuch communities can be found.\n\nBut not only to help supply this deficiency, but also on the score of\nits own intrinsic value, each family should contribute their personal\nattention to supply the religious wants of their slaves. The Sabbath\nshould be a day of rest, of companionship, and of religious\ninstruction and enjoyment in every family. From no part of these\nshould the slaves be excluded or overlooked in the domestic\narrangements. That slaves appear in their clean Sunday-clothes, is the\nfirst duty. They should all know that they are expected to be at\nchurch. For the invalids and the aged, the means of conveyance should\nbe provided. The old man, the old woman who nursed your parents, and\nwho have descended to you as the heir-looms of an ancient house; or,\nit may be, who began life with you, have nursed your children, and\nhelped to build up your house and your fortune--shall they be\nforgotten in the feebleness of their age? Do they still stand to\nservice, and help to make their bread; and when the merry crowd hies\naway \u201cto the Sabbath-meeting,\u201d shall the weight of their years make\nthem turn to their seat, because they shrink from the journey of a few\nmiles on foot? This should not be. We should provide for the old and\nthe infirm to ride to meeting. I wonder some masters do not fear that\nan ungrateful son will one day feed them in their old age in a private\nroom and from a trencher, instead of at the family table and around\nthe domestic hearthstone! To the credit of our system, the old family\nservants are generally honored. White and black do reverence to their\nage and their position. This is right.\n\nBut why should the master think it beneath him to call the young\ntogether on a Sabbath afternoon, and invite the attendance of all the\nslaves, and instruct them orally in the truths and lessons of our holy\nreligion: What God is: what the Saviour is: what man is: what is to\nbecome of us when we die; and how we may be saved. The simple forms of\nthese truths as laid down in our Catechism may by any one be made\ninteresting to children and instructive to all. The children should\nbe taught by being made to repeat after us and respond all together.\nTheir attention will be aroused, and they will readily catch the idea\nof a great many truths that may lead them to fear God and desire to do\nright. Withal, it will make them feel that you care for them. They\nwill think more of themselves. They will rise in the scale of social\nbeing. They will be less trouble to you. They will be more happy in\nthemselves, and ultimately share with you the joys of heaven. Much of\nall that is here enjoined, any gentleman may do and ought to do,\nthough he may not be a Christian. He will himself be profited by the\nexercise it will give his mind on spiritual subjects.\n\nI should not omit to notice, that in speaking of the duty of the\n_master_, I use the term generically--I embrace the mistress. All the\nduties enjoined require the cordial co\u00f6peration of the mistress. Much\nof it, if done at all, must be done by her. She oftener has a heart to\ndo it. She can do it, and, with a little encouragement, will do it,\nwhen other persons perhaps cannot or will not. If, then, the master\nwill not be the high-priest as well as the lawgiver of his house, let\nhim, at least, devolve a portion of the care for the religious\ninterest of the slaves upon his wife, and especially that which\nrelates to the instruction of the young. She, also, can often employ\nher own children to aid in this service. It will both interest and\ninstruct them.\n\nSo far as my observation goes, I am satisfied that the Southern family\nin which a proper discipline is maintained, and domestic religion, in\nthat wide sense which embraces both blacks and whites, is duly\ncultivated, for good order, for peace and quiet, for general morality\nand general prosperity, in all that concerns the comfort and happiness\nof a family, stands unrivalled in the history of the country.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPublications of the\n\nM. E. CHURCH, SOUTH.\n\n\n     =THE HOME CIRCLE; a Monthly Periodical, devoted to Religion and\n     Literature. Rev. L. D. Huston, Editor. Super-royal octavo, 48\n     pp., each number embellished with one or more engravings.=\n\n      =THE CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE, a Religious Family Paper, published\n      weekly. Rev. J. B. McFerrin, D. D., Editor. Price $1.50,\n      invariably in advance.=\n\n      =THE SUNDAY-SCHOOL VISITOR; a Monthly Illustrated Journal,\n      designed for Sabbath-schools. Rev. L. D. Huston, Editor.=\n\nPrice of single copies, 25 cents per year; from 5 to 20 copies to one\naddress, 23 cents; from 20 to 50 copies, 20 cents; 50 to 100 copies,\n18 cents; 100 copies and over, 15 cents.\n\n     =BEREAVED PARENTS CONSOLED. By the Rev. John Thornton. Carefully\n     revised, with an Introduction and Selection of Lyrics for the\n     Bereaved, by Thos. O. Summers. 18mo, full gilt, 50 cents; gilt\n     backs, 40 cents. 24mo, muslin, 30 cents.=\n\nThis is a perfect gem. It will be highly prized in the house of\nmourning. The grounds of consolation here adduced are admirably\nadapted to sustain the stricken spirit; and the \u201cSongs\u201d are just such\nas the Christian may sing to profit \u201cin the night\u201d of bereavement and\nsorrow.\n\n     =METHODIST PAMPHLETS FOR THE PEOPLE.=\n\n    =Series I. On Church Economy. 12 pamphlets, 25 cents.=\n          =II. On Doctrinal Points. 12 pamphlets, 25 cents.=\n         =III. On Romanism. 24 pamphlets, 30 cents.=\n          =IV. On Temperance. 12 pamphlets, 15 cents.=\n\n     =SUMMERS ON HOLINESS. Price, neatly bound in muslin, 22 cents,\n     with the usual discount to wholesale dealers.=\n\n\u201cAbility, perspicuity, precision, characterize his performance. His\nmethod and proofs are eminently striking. * * * The work is valuable\nas a doctrinal treatise, and is a seasonable addition to Methodist\ntheological literature. We commend it to the Church, to all whose\nviews are unsettled on the subject, and especially to those who differ\nwith us concerning it.\u201d--_Southern Methodist Quarterly._\n\n     =BAPTISM: A Treatise on the Nature, Perpetuity, Subjects,\n     Administrator, Mode, and Use of the Initiating Ordinance of the\n     Christian Church. With an Appendix, containing Strictures on\n     Dr. Howell\u2019s \u201cEvils of Infant Baptism,\u201d Plates illustrating the\n     Primitive Mode of Baptism, &c. By Thomas O. Summers. 12mo, pp.\n     252.=\n\nThis book is got up in handsome style, and sold at 65 cents retail,\nwith the usual discount to wholesale purchasers. Competent\njudges--among them the bishops and editors of the Church--have spoken\nof this work in unqualified terms of approval. Several thousand copies\nwere sold very soon after its first issue. Dr. M\u2019Clintock, Ed. Meth.\nQuar. Review, says: \u201cThis volume differs from ordinary books on the\nsubject, in treating at some length of the \u2018Administrator of Baptism,\u2019\nand of the \u2018Use of Baptism,\u2019--points rarely noticed, or, if at all,\nvery inadequately discussed, in the current treatises. It differs from\nthem also, and very happily, in the clearness of its arrangement, in\nthe aptness with which the joints of the discussion fit each other,\nand in the discrimination with which important points are brought out\nstrongly, while minor ones are comparatively thrown into abeyance. In\nan appendix Dr. Summers reviews Howell\u2019s \u2018Evils of Infant Baptism,\u2019\nwith keen discrimination and with some severity. We cordially commend\nthis little volume as one of the best summaries of Christian doctrine\non the subject of baptism that has come under our notice.\u201d\n\n     =WESLEY\u2019S SERMONS, with copious Indexes, carefully prepared by\n     Thomas O. Summers.=\n\nThis is an elegant 12mo edition in four volumes, got up expressly for\nthe convenience of ministers, Sunday-schools, and family libraries.\nPrice $2.75--30 per cent. discount to Sunday-schools and wholesale\npurchasers.--They are also put up in four packages, as Tracts--price\n$1.25.\n\n     =SONGS OF ZION. A Supplement to the Hymn Book of the M. E.\n     Church, South. Edited by T. O. Summers. Price 26 cents.=\n\nThis work, so loudly called for, has been received with great favor:\nthe Press of the Church pronounces it just the thing that was in\ndemand. It should everywhere accompany the Hymn Book.\n\n     =THE GREEK AND EASTERN CHURCHES: their History, Faith, and\n     Worship. 18mo, pp. 179. Price 30 cents.=\n\nWe have never met with so much reliable information on the Oriental\nchurches, in so short a compass, as is found in this neat volume.\n\n     =SEASONS, MONTHS, AND DAYS. By Thos. O. Summers. 18mo, pp. 110.\n     Price 25 cents.=\n\nThe design of this book is to make the reader acquainted with the\norigin and import of the names by which the seasons, months, and days\nare designated, including some of the historical, mythological, and\npoetical relations of the subject, and suggesting such moral\nreflections as may lead the contemplative mind through nature up to\nnature\u2019s God. The embellishments are beautiful and illustrative.\n\n     =DIALOGUES ON POPERY. By Jacob Stanley. 18mo, pp. 264. Price 35\n     cents.=\n\nA carefully revised and beautifully printed edition of an excellent\nbook: it has had an extensive circulation on both sides of the\nAtlantic.\n\n     =THE HEBREW MISSIONARY; Essays Exegetical and Practical, on the\n     Book of Jonah. By the Rev. Joseph Cross, D. D. 18mo, pp. 242.\n     Price 40 cents.=\n\nThis book is a valuable contribution to our Church literature--it\nexhibits great research, and abounds in eloquent passages and valuable\nreflections. The engravings and maps illustrative of Nineveh, as\nbrought to light by Layard and others, add great interest to the work.\n\n     =PROGRESS: CONSIDERED WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE M. E.\n     CHURCH, SOUTH. By the Rev. W. J. Sasnett, of Emory College, pp.\n     320. Price 80 cents.=\n\nThis is an elegantly printed 12mo volume, containing 320 pages. The\nAdvocates speak of it as a book of no common interest. The Home Circle\nsays: \u201cThe work is an earnest plea and practical plan for progress in\nthe Methodist Church; yet, with all our love of the old landmarks and\n_prima facie_ opposition to any interference with them, we have not\nmet with a sentiment or suggestion that we cannot endorse. We\ntherefore express the earnest hope that the book may find immediate\naccess to the entire Church. The sooner we all get our minds fully\nsettled upon the matters of which it treats, the better: and its pages\nwill greatly contribute to such settlement.\u201d\n\n     =AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. In a Series of Letters addressed to\n     Thomas Paine, Author of the \u201cAge of Reason.\u201d By Bishop Watson.\n     18mo, pp. 228. Price 30 cents.=\n\nA new and elegantly printed edition of this great Christian classic.\n\n     =A REFUTATION CF THE THEOLOGICAL WORKS OF THOMAS PAINE, not\n     noticed by Bishop Watson in his \u201cApology for the Bible.\u201d By\n     Thos. O. Summers. 18mo, pp. 84. Price 25 cents.=\n\nThe Memphis Christian Advocate speaks of this work as \u201cseasonable\u201d--in\nview of the revival of infidelity of the Thomas Paine type--and says,\n\u201cThe argument is terse and concise, but satisfactory.\u201d The author\naimed at saying a great deal in a few words. The \u201cRefutation\u201d is\nbeautifully gotten up. The \u201cApology\u201d and \u201cRefutation\u201d are also bound\ntogether, price 45 cents.\n\n     =STRICTURES ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. By the Rev. R. Abbey Price 5\n     cents.=\n\nThis essay has a special bearing on the government of the Baptist\nChurch.\n\n     =HYMNS FOR SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES, specially designed for the\n     Children cf the Church. Edited by Thos. O. Summers. Net price\n     to Sunday-schools: boards, 10 cents; roan, 21 cents. Retail, 30\n     cents; roan gilt, 50 cents; morocco, 75 cents. The fine ones\n     are gems. The book consists of 384 pages, and contains 600\n     Hymns.=\n\n\u201cAs its title indicates, it is a collection especially designed for\nthe children of the Church, and it has been compiled with the ability,\nresearch, and taste which characterize the labors of the accomplished\neditor in the department of hymnology. We are not saying too much for\nit, when we affirm that it leaves nothing to be desiderated hereafter\nin this line.\u201d--_Southern Christian Advocate._\n\n     =THE SUNDAY-SCHOOL TEACHER; or, the Catechetical Office. By\n     Thos. O. Summers. 18mo, pp. 144. Price 30 cents.=\n\nThis work discusses the most interesting questions connected with the\nCatechetical System--the Teacher\u2019s Qualifications, Difficulties, and\nEncouragements. It exhibits the obligations of pastors and teachers to\nthe children of the Church, and shows how they may be discharged.\n\n     =OLD MICHAEL AND YOUNG MAURICE; or, Country Scenes in England.\n     18mo, pp. 178. Price 30 cents.=\n\nA truthful, fascinating, and instructive volume.\n\n     =TALKS, PLEASANT AND PROFITABLE. By Thos. O. Summers 18mo, pp.\n     146. Price 30 cents.=\n\nThe topics of these dialogues are Orphans, May-Day, Birds, Temperance,\nPeter and the Tribute-money, Retribution, Recognition of Friends in\nHeaven. The style is adapted to the minds of intelligent youth The\nengravings are handsome.\n\n     =THE WORLD OF WATERS. By Fanny Osborne. With Illustrations Two\n     vols. 18mo, pp. 186, 224. Price 60 cents.=\n\nA couple of fascinating and instructive volumes. The tales and\nnarratives beguile, like sailors\u2019 yarns, the voyage over the world of\nwaters. The descriptions and anecdotes blend the charm of romance with\nthe credibility of truth.\n\n     =SCRIPTURE VIEWS OF THE HEAVENLY WORLD. By J. Edmondson, A.M.\n     18mo, pp. 249. Price 35 cents.=\n\nA neat edition of a book which takes rank with Baxter\u2019s Saints\u2019\nRest--to which great work it is in some respects superior.\n\n     =TRIAL OF THE WITNESSES OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. By Bishop\n     Sherlock. With an Introduction by Thos. O Summers 18mo, pp.\n     137. Price 30 cents.=\n\nThis masterly work is got up in convenient form and beautiful style.\nThe Introduction contains a brief biography of the illustrious author.","title":"Lectures on the Philosophy and Practice of Slavery: As Exhibited in the Institution of Domestic Slavery in the United States, with the Duties of Masters to Slaves","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":75400}