{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_44736/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_44736","id":"gutenberg_44736","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44736","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - American","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Slavery","Slavery -- United States"],"text":"SLAVERY.\n\nBY\n\nWILLIAM E. CHANNING.\n\n\nBOSTON:\n\nJAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY.\n\nM DCCC XXXV.\n\n\n     Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1835, by JAMES\n     MUNROE & CO., in the Clerk's office of the District Court of\n     Massachusetts.\n\n\nCAMBRIDGE PRESS:\nMETCALF, TORRY, AND BALLOU.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n                              Page\nINTRODUCTION                     1\n\nCHAPTER I.\nProperty                        13\n\nCHAPTER II.\nRights                          30\n\nCHAPTER III.\nExplanations                    54\n\nCHAPTER IV.\nThe Evils of Slavery            65\n\nCHAPTER V.\nScripture                      108\n\nCHAPTER VI.\nMeans of Removing Slavery      116\n\nCHAPTER VII.\nAbolitionism                   130\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\nDuties                         149\n\nNOTES                          161\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nThe first question to be proposed by a rational being is, not what is\nprofitable, but what is Right. Duty must be primary, prominent, most\nconspicuous, among the objects of human thought and pursuit. If we cast\nit down from its supremacy, if we inquire first for our interests and\nthen for our duties, we shall certainly err. We can never see the Right\nclearly and fully, but by making it our first concern. No judgment can\nbe just or wise, but that which is built on the conviction of the\nparamount worth and importance of Duty. This is the fundamental truth,\nthe supreme law of reason; and the mind, which does not start from this\nin its inquiries into human affairs, is doomed to great, perhaps fatal\nerror.\n\nThe Right is the supreme good, and includes all other goods. In seeking\nand adhering to it, we secure our true and only happiness. All\nprosperity, not founded on it, is built on sand. If human affairs are\ncontrolled, as we believe, by Almighty Rectitude and Impartial Goodness,\nthen to hope for happiness from wrong doing is as insane as to seek\nhealth and prosperity by rebelling against the laws of nature, by sowing\nour seed on the ocean, or making poison our common food. There is but\none unfailing good; and that is, fidelity to the Everlasting Law written\non the heart, and rewritten and republished in God's Word.\n\nWhoever places this faith in the everlasting law of rectitude must of\ncourse regard the question of slavery first and chiefly as a moral\nquestion. All other considerations will weigh little with him, compared\nwith its moral character and moral influences. The following remarks,\ntherefore, are designed to aid the reader in forming a just moral\njudgment of slavery. Great truths, inalienable rights, everlasting\nduties, these will form the chief subjects of this discussion. There are\ntimes when the assertion of great principles is the best service a man\ncan render society. The present is a moment of bewildering excitement,\nwhen men's minds are stormed and darkened by strong passions and fierce\nconflicts; and also a moment of absorbing worldliness, when the moral\nlaw is made to bow to expediency, and its high and strict requirements\nare decried or dismissed as metaphysical abstractions, or impracticable\ntheories. At such a season, to utter great principles without passion,\nand in the spirit of unfeigned and universal good-will, and to engrave\nthem deeply and durably on men's minds, is to do more for the world,\nthan to open mines of wealth, or to frame the most successful schemes of\npolicy.\n\nOf late our country has been convulsed by the question of slavery; and\nthe people, in proportion as they have felt vehemently, have thought\nsuperficially, or hardly thought at all; and we see the results in a\nsingular want of well defined principles, in a strange vagueness and\ninconsistency of opinion, and in the proneness to excess which belongs\nto unsettled minds. The multitude have been called, now to contemplate\nthe horrors of slavery, and now to shudder at the ruin and bloodshed\nwhich must follow emancipation. The word Massacre has resounded through\nthe land, striking terror into strong as well as tender hearts, and\nawakening indignation against whatever may seem to threaten such a\nconsummation. The consequence is, that not a few dread all discussion of\nthe subject, and if not reconciled to the continuance of slavery, at\nleast believe that they have no duty to perform, no testimony to bear,\nno influence to exert, no sentiments to cherish and spread, in relation\nto this evil. What is still worse, opinions either favoring or\nextenuating it are heard with little or no disapprobation. Concessions\nare made to it which would once have shocked the community; whilst to\nassail it is pronounced unwise and perilous. No stronger reason for a\ncalm exposition of its true character can be given, than this very\nstate of the public mind. A community can suffer no greater calamity\nthan the loss of its principles. Lofty and pure sentiment is the life\nand hope of a people. There was never such an obligation to discuss\nslavery as at this moment, when recent events have done much to unsettle\nand obscure men's minds in regard to it. This result is to be ascribed\nin part to the injudicious vehemence of those who have taken into their\nhands the care of the slave. Such ought to remember that to espouse a\ngood cause is not enough. We must maintain it in a spirit answering to\nits dignity. Let no man touch the great interests of humanity, who does\nnot strive to sanctify himself for the work by cleansing his heart of\nall wrath and uncharitableness, who cannot hope that he is in a measure\nbaptized unto the spirit of universal love. Even sympathy with the\ninjured and oppressed may do harm, by being partial, exclusive, and\nbitterly indignant. How far the declension of the spirit of freedom is\nto be ascribed to the cause now suggested I do not say. The effect is\nplain, and whoever sees and laments the evil should strive to arrest it.\n\nSlavery ought to be discussed. We ought to think, feel, speak, and write\nabout it. But whatever we do in regard to it should be done with a deep\nfeeling of responsibility, and so done as not to put in jeopardy the\npeace of the slave-holding States. On this point public opinion has not\nbeen and cannot be too strongly pronounced. Slavery, indeed, from its\nvery nature, must be a ground of alarm wherever it exists. Slavery and\nsecurity can by no device be joined together. But we may not, must not,\nby rashness and passion increase the peril. To instigate the slave to\ninsurrection is a crime for which no rebuke and no punishment can be too\nsevere. This would be to involve slave and master in common ruin. It is\nnot enough to say, that the Constitution is violated by any action\nendangering the slave-holding portion of our country. A higher law than\nthe Constitution forbids this unholy interference. Were our national\nunion dissolved, we ought to reprobate, as sternly as we now do, the\nslightest manifestation of a disposition to stir up a servile war. Still\nmore, were the free and the slave-holding States not only separated, but\nengaged in the fiercest hostilities, the former would deserve the\nabhorrence of the world, and the indignation of Heaven, were they to\nresort to insurrection and massacre as means of victory. Better were it\nfor us to bare our own breasts to the knife of the slave, than to arm\nhim with it against his master.\n\nIt is not by personal, direct action on the mind of the slave that we\ncan do him good. Our concern is with the free. With the free we are to\nplead his cause. And this is peculiarly our duty, because we have bound\nourselves to resist his efforts for his own emancipation. We suffer him\nto do nothing for himself. The more, then, should be done for him. Our\nphysical power is pledged against him in case of revolt. Then our moral\npower should be exerted for his relief. His weakness, which we increase,\ngives him a claim to the only aid we can afford, to our moral sympathy,\nto the free and faithful exposition of his wrongs. As men, as\nChristians, as citizens, we have duties to the slave, as well as to\nevery other member of the community. On this point we have no liberty.\nThe Eternal Law binds us to take the side of the injured; and this law\nis peculiarly obligatory, when we forbid him to lift an arm in his own\ndefence.\n\nLet it not be said we can do nothing for the slave. We can do much. We\nhave a power mightier than armies, the power of truth, of principle, of\nvirtue, of right, of religion, of love. We have a power, which is\ngrowing with every advance of civilization, before which the slave-trade\nhas fallen, which is mitigating the sternest despotisms, which is\nspreading education through all ranks of society, which is bearing\nChristianity to the ends of the earth, which carries in itself the\npledge of destruction to every institution which debases humanity. Who\ncan measure the power of Christian philanthropy, of enlightened\ngoodness, pouring itself forth in prayers and persuasions, from the\npress and pulpit, from the lips and hearts of devoted men, and more and\nmore binding together the wise and good in the cause of their race? All\nother powers may fail. This must triumph. It is leagued with God's\nomnipotence. It is God himself acting in the hearts of his children. It\nhas an ally in every conscience, in every human breast, in the wrong\ndoer himself. This spirit has but begun its work on earth. It is\nbreathing itself more and more through literature, education,\ninstitutions, and opinion. Slavery cannot stand before it. Great moral\nprinciples, pure and generous sentiments, cannot be confined to this or\nthat spot. They cannot be shut out by territorial lines, or local\nlegislation. They are divine inspirations, and partake of the\nomnipresence of their Author. The deliberate, solemn conviction of good\nmen through the world, that slavery is a grievous wrong to human nature,\nwill make itself felt. To increase this moral power is every man's duty.\nTo embody and express this great truth is in every man's power; and thus\nevery man can do something to break the chain of the slave.\n\nThere are not a few persons, who, from vulgar modes of thinking, cannot\nbe interested in this subject. Because the slave is a degraded being,\nthey think slavery a low topic, and wonder how it can excite the\nattention and sympathy of those who can discuss or feel for any thing\nelse. Now the truth is, that slavery, regarded only in a philosophical\nlight, is a theme worthy of the highest minds. It involves the gravest\nquestions about human nature and society. It carries us into the\nproblems which have exercised for ages the highest understandings. It\ncalls us to inquire into the foundation, nature, and extent of human\nrights, into the distinction between a person and a thing, into the true\nrelations of man and man, into the obligations of the community to each\nof its members, into the ground and laws of property, and above all into\nthe true dignity and indestructible claims of a moral being. I venture\nto say, there is no subject, now agitated by the community, which can\ncompare in philosophical dignity with slavery; and yet to multitudes the\nquestion falls under the same contempt with the slave himself. To many,\na writer seems to lower himself who touches it. The falsely refined, who\nwant intellectual force to grasp it, pronounce it unworthy of their\nnotice.\n\nBut this subject has more than philosophical dignity. It has an\nimportant bearing on character. Our interest in it is one test by which\nour comprehension of the distinctive spirit of Christianity must be\njudged. Christianity is the manifestation and inculcation of Universal\nLove. The great teaching of Christianity is, that we must recognise and\nrespect human nature in all its forms, in the poorest, most ignorant,\nmost fallen. We must look beneath \"the flesh,\" to \"the spirit.\" The\nSpiritual principle in man is what entitles him to our brotherly regard.\nTo be just to this is the great injunction of our religion. To overlook\nthis, on account of condition or color, is to violate the great\nChristian law. We have reason to think that it is one design of God, in\nappointing the vast diversities of human condition, to put to the test\nand to bring out most distinctly the principle of love. It is wisely\nordered, that human nature is not set before us in a few forms of\nbeauty, magnificence, and outward glory. To be dazzled and attracted by\nthese would be no sign of reverence for what is interior and spiritual\nin human nature. To lead us to discern and love this, we are brought\ninto connexion with fellow-creatures, whose outward circumstances are\nrepulsive. To recognise our own spiritual nature and God's image in\nthese humble forms, to recognise as brethren those who want all outward\ndistinctions, is the chief way in which we are to manifest the spirit of\nHim, who came to raise the fallen and to save the lost. We see, then,\nthe moral importance of the question of slavery; according to our\ndecision of it, we determine our comprehension of the Christian law. He\nwho cannot see a brother, a child of God, a man possessing all the\nrights of humanity under a skin darker than his own, wants the vision\nof a Christian. He worships the Outward. The Spirit is not yet revealed\nto him. To look unmoved on the degradation and wrongs of a\nfellow-creature, because burned by a fiercer sun, proves us strangers to\njustice and love, in those universal forms which characterize\nChristianity. The greatest of all distinctions, the only enduring one,\nis moral goodness, virtue, religion. Outward distinctions cannot add to\nthe dignity of this. The wealth of worlds is \"not sufficient for a\nburnt-offering\" on its altar. A being capable of this is invested by God\nwith solemn claims on his fellow-creatures. To exclude millions of such\nbeings from our sympathy, because of outward disadvantages, proves,\nthat, in whatever else we surpass them, we are not their superiors in\nChristian virtue.\n\nThe spirit of Christianity, I have said, is distinguished by\nUniversality. It is universal justice. It respects all the rights of all\nbeings. It suffers no being, however obscure, to be wronged, without\ncondemning the wrong doer. Impartial, uncompromising, fearless, it\nscreens no favorites, is dazzled by no power, spreads its shield over\nthe weakest, summons the mightiest to its bar, and speaks to the\nconscience in tones, under which the mightiest have quailed. It is also\nuniversal love, comprehending those that are near and those that are far\noff, the high and the low, the rich and poor, descending to the fallen,\nand especially binding itself to those in whom human nature is trampled\nunder foot. Such is the spirit of Christianity; and nothing but the\nillumination of this spirit can prepare us to pass judgment on slavery.\n\nThese remarks are intended to show the spirit in which slavery ought to\nbe approached, and the point of view from which it will be regarded in\nthe present discussion. My plan may be briefly sketched.\n\n1. I shall show that man cannot be justly held and used as Property.\n\n2. I shall show that man has sacred and infallible rights, of which\nslavery is the infraction.\n\n3. I shall offer some explanations to prevent misapplication of these\nprinciples.\n\n4. I shall unfold the evils of slavery.\n\n5. I shall consider the argument which the Scriptures are thought to\nfurnish in favor of slavery.\n\n6. I shall offer some remarks on the means of removing it.\n\n7. I shall offer some remarks on abolitionism.\n\n8. I shall conclude with a few reflections on the duties belonging to\nthe times.\n\nIn the first two sections I propose to show that slavery is a great\nwrong, but I do not intend to pass sentence on the character of the\nslave-holder. These two subjects are distinct. Men are not always to be\ninterpreted by their acts or institutions. The same acts in different\ncircumstances admit and even require very different constructions. I\noffer this remark, that the subject may be approached without prejudice\nor personal reference. The single object is to settle great principles.\nTheir bearing on individuals will be a subject of distinct\nconsideration.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nPROPERTY.\n\n\nThe slave-holder claims the slave as his Property. The very idea of a\nslave is, that he belongs to another, that he is bound to live and labor\nfor another, to be another's instrument, and to make another's will his\nhabitual law, however adverse to his own. Another owns him, and of\ncourse has a right to his time and strength, a right to the fruits of\nhis labor, a right to task him without his consent, and to determine the\nkind and duration of his toil, a right to confine him to any bounds, a\nright to extort the required work by stripes, a right, in a word, to use\nhim as a tool, without contract, against his will, and in denial of his\nright to dispose of himself or to use his power for his own good. \"A\nslave,\" says the Louisiana Code, \"is in the power of the master to whom\nhe belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his\nindustry, his labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any\nthing, but which must belong to his master.\" \"Slaves shall be deemed,\ntaken, reputed, and adjudged,\" say the South Carolina laws, \"to be\nchattels personal in the hands of their masters, and possessions to all\nintents and purposes whatsoever.\" Such is slavery, a claim to man as\nproperty.\n\nNow this claim of property in a human being is altogether false,\ngroundless. No such right of man in man can exist. A human being cannot\nbe justly owned. To hold and treat him as property is to inflict a great\nwrong, to incur the guilt of oppression.\n\nThis position there is a difficulty in maintaining on account of its\nexceeding obviousness. It is too plain for proof. To defend it is like\ntrying to confirm a self-evident truth. To find arguments is not easy,\nbecause an argument is something clearer than the proposition to be\nsustained. The man, who, on hearing the claim to property in man, does\nnot see and feel distinctly that it is a cruel usurpation, is hardly to\nbe reached by reasoning, for it is hard to find any plainer principles\nthan what he begins with denying. I will endeavour, however, to\nillustrate the truth which I have stated.\n\n\n1. It is plain, that, if one man may be held as property, then every\nother man may be so held. If there be nothing in human nature, in our\ncommon nature, which excludes and forbids the conversion of him who\npossesses it into an article of property; if the right of the free to\nliberty is founded, not on their essential attributes as rational and\nmoral beings, but on certain adventitious, accidental circumstances,\ninto which they have been thrown; then every human being, by a change of\ncircumstances, may justly be held and treated by another as property. If\none man may be rightfully reduced to slavery, then there is not a human\nbeing on whom the same chain may not be imposed. Now let every reader\nask himself this plain question: Could I, can I, be rightfully seized,\nand made an article of property; be made a passive instrument of\nanother's will and pleasure; be subjected to another's irresponsible\npower; be subjected to stripes at another's will; be denied the control\nand use of my own limbs and faculties for my own good? Does any man, so\nquestioned, doubt, waver, look about him for an answer? Is not the reply\ngiven immediately, intuitively, by his whole inward being? Does not an\nunhesitating, unerring conviction spring up in my breast, that no other\nman can acquire such a right in myself? Do we not repel indignantly and\nwith horror the thought of being reduced to the condition of tools and\nchattels to a fellow-creature? Is there any moral truth more deeply\nrooted in us, than that such a degradation would be an infinite wrong?\nAnd if this impression be a delusion, on what single moral conviction\ncan we rely? This deep assurance, that we cannot be rightfully made\nanother's property, does not rest on the hue of our skins, or the place\nof our birth, or our strength, or wealth. These things do not enter our\nthoughts. The consciousness of indestructible rights is a part of our\nmoral being. The consciousness of our humanity involves the persuasion,\nthat we cannot be owned as a tree or a brute. As men we cannot justly be\nmade slaves. Then no man can be rightfully enslaved. In casting the yoke\nfrom ourselves as an unspeakable wrong, we condemn ourselves as wrong\ndoers and oppressors in laying it on any who share our nature. It is not\nnecessary to inquire whether a man, by extreme guilt, may not forfeit\nthe right of his nature, and be justly punished with slavery. On this\npoint crude notions prevail. But the discussion would be foreign to the\npresent subject. We are now not speaking of criminals. We speak of\ninnocent men, who have given us no hold on them by guilt; and our own\nconsciousness is a proof, that such cannot rightfully be seized as\nproperty by a fellow-creature.\n\n\n2. A man cannot be seized and held as property, because he has Rights.\nWhat these rights are, whether few or many, or whether all men have the\nsame, are questions for future discussion. All that is assumed now is,\nthat every human being has _some_ rights. This truth cannot be denied,\nbut by denying to a portion of the race that moral nature which is the\nsure and only foundation of rights. This truth has never, I believe,\nbeen disputed. It is even recognised in the very codes of\nslave-legislation, which, while they strip a man of liberty, affirm his\nright to life, and threaten his murderer with punishment. Now, I say a\nbeing having rights cannot justly be made property; for this claim over\nhim virtually annuls all his rights. It strips him of all power to\nassert them. It makes it a crime to assert them. The very essence of\nslavery is, to put a man defenceless into the hands of another. The\nright claimed by the master, to task, to force, to imprison, to whip,\nand to punish the slave, at discretion, and especially to prevent the\nleast resistance to his will, is a virtual denial and subversion of all\nthe rights of the victim of his power. The two cannot stand together.\nCan we doubt which of them ought to fall?\n\n\n3. Another argument against property is to be found in the Essential\nEquality of men. I know that this doctrine, so venerable in the eyes of\nour fathers, has lately been denied. Verbal logicians have told us that\nmen are \"born equal,\" only in the sense of being equally born. They have\nasked whether all are equally tall, strong, or beautiful; or whether\nnature, Procrustes-like, reduces all her children to one standard of\nintellect and virtue. By such arguments it is attempted to set aside the\nprinciple of equality, on which the soundest moralists have reared the\nstructure of social duty; and in these ways the old foundations of\ndespotic power, which our fathers in their simplicity thought they had\nsubverted, are laid again by their sons.\n\nIt is freely granted, that there are innumerable diversities among men;\nbut be it remembered, they are ordained to bind men together, and not to\nsubdue one to the other; ordained to give means and occasions of mutual\naid, and to carry forward each and all, so that the good of all is\nequally intended in this distribution of various gifts. Be it also\nremembered, that these diversities among men are as nothing in\ncomparison with the attributes in which they agree, and it is this which\nconstitutes their essential equality. All men have the same rational\nnature, and the same power of conscience, and all are equally made for\nindefinite improvement of these divine faculties, and for the happiness\nto be found in their virtuous use. Who, that comprehends these gifts,\ndoes not see that the diversities of the race vanish before them? Let it\nbe added, that the natural advantages, which distinguish one man from\nanother, are so bestowed as to counterbalance one another, and bestowed\nwithout regard to rank or condition in life. Whoever surpasses in one\nendowment is inferior in others. Even genius, the greatest gift, is\nfound in union with strange infirmities, and often places its possessors\nbelow ordinary men in the conduct of life. Great learning is often put\nto shame by the mother-wit and keen good sense of uneducated men.\nNature, indeed, pays no heed to birth or condition in bestowing her\nfavors. The noblest spirits sometimes grow up in the obscurest spheres.\nThus equal are men; and among these equals, who can substantiate his\nclaim to make others his property, his tools, the mere instruments of\nhis private interest and gratification? Let this claim begin, and where\nwill it stop? If one may assert it, why not all? Among these partakers\nof the same rational and moral nature, who can make good a right over\nothers, which others may not establish over himself? Does he insist on\nsuperior strength of body or mind? Who of us has no superior in one or\nthe other of these endowments: Is it sure that the slave or the slave's\nchild may not surpass his master in intellectual energy or in moral\nworth? Has nature conferred distinctions which tell us plainly, who\nshall be owner? and who be owned? Who of us can unblushingly lift his\nhead and say that God has written \"Master\" there? or who can show the\nword \"Slave\" engraven on his brother's brow? The equality of nature\nmakes slavery a wrong, Nature's seal is affixed to no instrument, by\nwhich property in a single human being is conveyed.\n\n\n4. That a human being cannot be justly held and used as property is\napparent from the very nature of property. Property is an exclusive,\nsingle right. It shuts out all claim but that of the possessor, What one\nman owns cannot belong to another. What, then, is the consequence of\nholding a human being as property? Plainly this. He can have no right to\nhimself. His limbs are, in truth, not morally his own. He has not a\nright to his own strength. It belongs to another. His will, intellect,\nand muscles, all the powers of body and mind which are exercised in\nlabor, he is bound to regard as another's. Now, if there be property in\nany thing, it is that of a man in his own person, mind, and strength.\nAll other rights are weak, unmeaning, compared with this, and in denying\nthis all right is denied. It is true that an individual may forfeit by\ncrime his right to the use of his limbs, perhaps to his limbs, and even\nto life. But the very idea of forfeiture implies that the right was\noriginally possessed. It is true that a man may by contract give to\nanother a limited right to his strength. But he gives only because he\npossesses it, and gives it for considerations which he deems beneficial\nto himself; and the right conferred ceases at once on violation of the\nconditions on which it was bestowed. To deny the right of a human being\nto himself, to his own limbs and faculties, to his energy of body and\nmind, is an absurdity too gross to be confuted by any thing but a simple\nstatement. Yet this absurdity is involved in the idea of his belonging\nto another.\n\n\n5. We have a plain recognition of the principle now laid down, in the\nuniversal indignation excited towards a man who makes another his slave.\nOur laws know no higher crime than that of reducing a man to slavery. To\nsteal or to buy an African on his own shores is piracy. In this act the\ngreatest wrong is inflicted, the most sacred right violated. But if a\nhuman being cannot without infinite injustice be seized as property,\nthen he cannot without equal wrong be held and used as such. The wrong\nin the first seizure lies in the destination of a human being to future\nbondage, to the criminal use of him as a chattel or brute. Can that very\nuse, which makes the original seizure an enormous wrong, become\ngradually innocent? If the slave receive injury without measure at the\nfirst moment of the outrage, is he less injured by being held fast the\nsecond or the third? Does the duration of wrong, the increase of it by\ncontinuance, convert it into right? It is true, in many cases, that\nlength of possession is considered as giving a right, where the goods\nwere acquired by unlawful means. But in these cases the goods were such\nas might justly be appropriated to individual use. They were intended by\nthe Creator to be owned. They fulfil their purpose by passing into the\nhands of an exclusive possessor. It is essential to rightful property in\na thing, that the thing from its nature may be rightfully appropriated.\nIf it cannot originally be made one's own without crime, it certainly\ncannot be continued as such without guilt. Now, the ground, on which the\nseizure of the African on his own shore is condemned, is, that he is a\nMan, who has by his nature a right to be free. Ought not, then, the same\ncondemnation to light on the continuance of his yoke? Still more. Whence\nis it that length of possession is considered by the laws as conferring\na right? I answer, from the difficulty of determining the original\nproprietor, and from the apprehension of unsettling all property by\ncarrying back inquiry beyond a certain time. Suppose, however, an\narticle of property to be of such a nature that it could bear the name\nof the true original owner, stamped on it in bright and indelible\ncharacters. In this case, the whole ground, on which length of\npossession bars other claims, would fail. The proprietor would not be\nconcealed or rendered doubtful by the lapse of time. Would not he, who\nshould receive such an article from a robber or a succession of robbers,\nbe involved in their guilt? Now, the true owner of a human being is made\nmanifest to all. It is Himself. No brand on the slave was ever so\nconspicuous as the mark of property which God has set on him. God, in\nmaking him a rational and moral being, has put a glorious stamp on him,\nwhich all the slave-legislation and slave-markets of worlds cannot\nefface. Hence no right accrues to the master from the length of the\nwrong which has been done to the slave.\n\n\n6. Another argument against the right of property in man may be drawn\nfrom a very obvious principle of moral science. It is a plain truth,\nuniversally received, that every right supposes or involves a\ncorresponding Obligation. If, then, a man has a right to another's\nperson or powers, the latter is under obligation to give himself up as a\nchattel to the former. This is his Duty. He is bound to be a slave; and\nbound not merely by the Christian law which enjoins submission to\ninjury, not merely by prudential considerations, or by the claims of\npublic order and peace; but bound because another has a right of\nOwnership, has a Moral claim to him, so that he would be guilty of\ndishonesty, of robbery, in withdrawing himself from this other's\nservice. It is his Duty to work for his master, though all compulsion\nwere withdrawn; and in deserting him he would commit the crime of taking\naway another man's property, as truly as if he were to carry off his\nowner's purse. Now, do we not instantly feel, can we help feeling, that\nthis is false? Is the slave thus morally bound? When the African was\nfirst brought to these shores, would he have violated a solemn\nobligation, by slipping his chain, and flying back to his native home?\nWould he not have been bound to seize the precious opportunity of\nescape? Is the slave under a moral obligation to confine himself, his\nwife, and children, to a spot where their union in a moment may be\nforcibly dissolved? Ought he not, if he can, to place himself and his\nfamily under the guardianship of equal laws? Should we blame him for\nleaving his yoke? Do we not feel, that, in the same condition, a sense\nof duty would quicken our flying steps? Where, then, is the obligation\nwhich would necessarily be imposed, if the right existed which the\nmaster claims? The absence of obligation proves the want of the right.\nThe claim is groundless. It is a cruel wrong.\n\n\n7. I come now to what is to my own mind the great argument against\nseizing and using a man as property. He cannot be property in the sight\nof God and justice, because he is a Rational, Moral, Immortal Being;\nbecause created in God's image, and therefore in the highest sense his\nchild; because created to unfold Godlike faculties, and to govern\nhimself by a Divine Law written on his heart, and republished in God's\nWord. His whole nature forbids that he should be seized as property.\nFrom his very nature it follows, that so to seize him is to offer an\ninsult to his Maker, and to inflict aggravated social wrong. Into every\nhuman being God has breathed an immortal spirit more precious than the\nwhole outward creation. No earthly or celestial language can exaggerate\nthe worth of a human being. No matter how obscure his condition.\nThought, Reason, Conscience, the capacity of Virtue, the capacity of\nChristian Love, an Immortal Destiny, an intimate moral connexion with\nGod,--here are attributes of our common humanity which reduce to\ninsignificance all outward distinctions, and make every human being\nunspeakably dear to his Maker. No matter how ignorant he may be. The\ncapacity of Improvement allies him to the more instructed of his race,\nand places within his reach the knowledge and happiness of higher\nworlds. Every human being has in him the germ of the greatest Idea in\nthe universe, the Idea of God; and to unfold this is the end of his\nexistence. Every human being has in his breast the elements of that\nDivine, Everlasting Law, which the highest orders of the creation obey.\nHe has the Idea of Duty; and to unfold, revere, obey this is the very\npurpose for which life was given. Every human being has the Idea of what\nis meant by that word, Truth; that is, he sees, however dimly, the great\nobject of Divine and created intelligence, and is capable of\never-enlarging perceptions of Truth. Every human being has affections,\nwhich may be purified and expanded into a Sublime Love. He has, too, the\nIdea of Happiness, and a thirst for it which cannot be appeased. Such is\nour nature. Wherever we see a man, we see the possessor of these great\ncapacities. Did God make such a being to be owned as a tree or a brute?\nHow plainly was he made to exercise, unfold, improve his highest powers,\nmade for a moral, spiritual good! and how is he wronged, and his Creator\nopposed, when he is forced and broken into a tool to another's physical\nenjoyment!\n\nSuch a being was plainly made for an End in Himself. He is a Person, not\na Thing. He is an End, not a mere Instrument or Means. He was made for\nhis own virtue and happiness. Is this end reconcilable with his being\nheld and used as a chattel? The sacrifice of such a being to another's\nwill, to another's present, outward, ill-comprehended good, is the\ngreatest violence which can be offered to any creature of God. It is to\ndegrade him from his rank in the universe, to make him a means, not an\nend, to cast him out from God's spiritual family into the brutal herd.\n\nSuch a being was plainly made to obey a Law within Himself. This is the\nessence of a moral being. He possesses, as a part of his nature, and the\nmost essential part, a sense of Duty, which he is to reverence and\nfollow, in opposition to all pleasure or pain, to all interfering human\nwills. The great purpose of all good education and discipline is, to\nmake a man Master of Himself, to excite him to act from a principle in\nhis own mind, to lead him to propose his own perfection as his supreme\nlaw and end. And is this highest purpose of man's nature to be\nreconciled with entire subjection to a foreign will, to an outward,\noverwhelming force, which is satisfied with nothing but complete\nsubmission?\n\nThe end of such a being as we have described is manifestly Improvement.\nNow, it is the fundamental law of our nature, that all our powers are to\nimprove by free exertion. Action is the indispensable condition of\nprogress to the intellect, conscience, and heart. Is it not plain, then,\nthat a human being cannot, without wrong, be owned by another, who\nclaims, as proprietor, the right to repress the powers of his slaves, to\nwithhold from them the means of development, to keep them within the\nlimits which are necessary to contentment in chains, to shut out every\nray of light and every generous sentiment, which may interfere with\nentire subjection to his will?\n\nNo man, who seriously considers what human nature is, and what it was\nmade for, can think of setting up a claim to a fellow-creature. What!\nown a spiritual being, a being made to know and adore God, and who is to\noutlive the sun and stars! What! chain to our lowest uses a being made\nfor truth and virtue! Convert into a brute instrument that intelligent\nnature on which the Idea of Duty has dawned, and which is a nobler type\nof God than all outward creation! Should we not deem it a wrong which no\npunishment could expiate, were one of our children seized as property,\nand driven by the whip to toil? And shall God's child, dearer to him\nthan an only son to a human parent, be thus degraded? Every thing else\nmay be owned in the universe; but a moral, rational being cannot be\nproperty. Suns and stars may be owned, but not the lowest spirit. Touch\nany thing but this. Lay not your hand on God's rational offspring. The\nwhole spiritual world cries out, Forbear! The highest intelligences\nrecognise their own nature, their own rights, in the humblest human\nbeing. By that priceless, immortal spirit which dwells in him, by that\nlikeness of God which he wears, tread him not in the dust, confound him\nnot with the brute.\n\nWe have thus seen that a human being cannot rightfully be held and used\nas property. No legislation, not that of all countries or worlds, could\nmake him so. Let this be laid down, as a first, fundamental truth. Let\nus hold it fast, as a most sacred, precious truth. Let us hold it fast\nagainst all customs, all laws, all rank, wealth, and power. Let it be\narmed with the whole authority of the civilized and Christian world.\n\nI have taken it for granted that no reader would be so wanting in moral\ndiscrimination and moral feeling, as to urge that men may rightfully be\nseized and held as property, because various governments have so\nordained. What! is human legislation the measure of right? Are God's\nlaws to be repealed by man's? Can government do no wrong? What is the\nhistory of human governments but a record of wrongs? How much does the\nprogress of civilization consist in the substitution of just and humane,\nfor barbarous and oppressive laws? Government, indeed, has ordained\nslavery, and to government the individual is in no case to offer\nresistance. But criminal legislation ought to be freely and earnestly\nexposed. Injustice is never so terrible, and never so corrupting, as\nwhen armed with the sanctions of law. The authority of government,\ninstead of being a reason for silence under wrongs, is a reason for\nprotesting against wrong with the undivided energy of argument,\nentreaty, and solemn admonition.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nRIGHTS.\n\n\nI now proceed to the second division of the subject. I am to show, that\nman has by nature received sacred, inalienable Rights, which are\nviolated by slavery. Some important principles, which belong to this\nhead, were necessarily anticipated under the preceding; but they need a\nfuller exposition. The whole subject of Rights needs to be reconsidered.\nSpeculations and reasonings about it have lately been given to the\npublic, not only false, but dangerous to freedom, and there is a strong\ntendency to injurious views. Rights are made to depend on circumstances,\nso that pretences may easily be made or created for violating them\nsuccessively, till none shall remain. Human rights have been represented\nas so modified and circumscribed by men's entrance into the social\nstate, that only the shadows of them are left. They have been spoken of\nas absorbed in the public good; so that a man may be innocently\nenslaved, if the public good shall so require. To meet fully all these\nerrors, for such I hold them, a larger work than the present is\nrequired. The nature of man, his relations to the state, the limits of\ncivil government, the elements of the public good, and the degree to\nwhich the individual must be surrendered to this good,--these are the\ntopics which the present subject involves. I cannot enter into them\nparticularly, but shall lay down what seem to me the great and true\nprinciples in regard to them. I shall show that man has rights from his\nvery nature, not the gifts of society, but of God; that they are not\nsurrendered on entering the social state; that they must not be taken\naway under the plea of public good; that the Individual is never to be\nsacrificed to the Community; that the Idea of Rights is to prevail above\nall the interests of the State.\n\nMan has rights by nature. The disposition of some to deride abstract\nrights, as if all rights were uncertain, mutable, and conceded by\nsociety, shows a lamentable ignorance of human nature. Whoever\nunderstands this must see in it an immovable foundation of rights. These\nare gifts of the Creator, not grants of society. In the order of things,\nthey precede society, lie at its foundation, constitute man's capacity\nfor it, and are the great objects of social institutions. The\nconsciousness of rights is not a creation of human art, a conventional\nsentiment, but essential to and inseparable from the human soul.\n\nMan's rights belong to him as a Moral Being, as capable of perceiving\nmoral distinctions, as a subject of moral obligation. As soon as he\nbecomes conscious of Duty, a kindred consciousness springs up, that he\nhas a Right to do what the sense of duty enjoins, and that no foreign\nwill or power can obstruct his moral action without crime. He feels that\nthe sense of duty was given to him as a Law, that it makes him\nresponsible for himself, that to exercise, unfold, and obey it is the\nend of his being, and that he has a right to exercise and obey it\nwithout hindrance or opposition. A consciousness of dignity, however\nobscure, belongs also to this divine principle; and though he may want\nwords to do justice to his thoughts, he feels that he has that within\nhim which makes him essentially equal to all around him.\n\nThe sense of duty is the fountain of human rights. In other words, the\nsame inward principle, which teaches the former, bears witness to the\nlatter. Duties and Rights must stand or fall together. It has been too\ncommon to oppose them to one another; but they are indissolubly joined\ntogether. That same inward principle, which teaches a man what he is\nbound to do to others, teaches equally, and at the same instant, what\nothers are bound to do to _him_. That same voice, which forbids him to\ninjure a single fellow-creature, forbids every fellow-creature to do\n_him_ harm. His conscience, in revealing the moral law, does not reveal\na law for himself only, but speaks as an Universal Legislator. He has an\nintuitive conviction, that the obligations of this divine code press on\nothers as truly as on himself. That principle, which teaches him that he\nsustains the relation of brotherhood to all human beings, teaches him\nthat this relation is reciprocal, that it gives indestructible claims as\nwell as imposes solemn duties, and that what he owes to the members of\nthis vast family, they owe to him in return. Thus the moral nature\ninvolves rights. These enter into its very essence. They are taught by\nthe very voice which enjoins duty. Accordingly there is no deeper\nprinciple in human nature than the consciousness of rights. So profound,\nso ineradicable is this sentiment, that the oppressions of ages have no\nwhere wholly stifled it.\n\nHaving shown the foundation of human rights in human nature, it may be\nasked what they are. Perhaps they do not admit very accurate definition\nany more than human duties; for the Spiritual cannot be weighed and\nmeasured like the Material. Perhaps a minute criticism may find fault\nwith the most guarded exposition of them; but they may easily be stated\nin language which the unsophisticated mind will recognise as the truth.\nVolumes could not do justice to them; and yet perhaps they may be\ncomprehended in one sentence. They may all be comprised in the Right,\nwhich belongs to every rational being, to exercise his powers for the\npromotion of his own and others' Happiness and Virtue. These are the\ngreat purposes of his existence. For these his powers were given, and to\nthese he is bound to devote them. He is bound to make himself and others\nbetter and happier, according to his ability. His ability for this work\nis a sacred trust from God, the greatest of all trusts. He must answer\nfor the waste or abuse of it. He consequently suffers an unspeakable\nwrong, when stripped of it by others, or forbidden to employ it for the\nends for which it is given; when the powers which God has given for such\ngenerous uses are impaired or destroyed by others, or the means for\ntheir action and growth are forcibly withheld. As every human being is\nbound to employ his faculties for his own and others' good, there is an\nobligation on each to leave all free for the accomplishment of this end;\nand whoever respects this obligation, whoever uses his own, without\ninvading others' powers, or obstructing others' duties, has a sacred,\nindefeasible right to be unassailed, unobstructed, unharmed by all with\nwhom he may be connected. Here is the grand, all-comprehending right of\nhuman nature. Every man should revere it, should assert it for himself\nand for all, and should bear solemn testimony against every infraction\nof it, by whomsoever made or endured.\n\nHaving considered the great fundamental right of human nature,\nparticular rights may easily be deduced. Every man has a right to\nexercise and invigorate his intellect or the power of knowledge, for\nknowledge is the essential condition of successful effort for every\ngood; and whoever obstructs or quenches the intellectual life in another\ninflicts a grievous and irreparable wrong. Every man has a right to\ninquire into his duty, and to conform himself to what he learns of it.\nEvery man has a right to use the means, given by God and sanctioned by\nvirtue, for bettering his condition. He has a right to be respected\naccording to his moral worth; a right to be regarded as a member of the\ncommunity to which he belongs, and to be protected by impartial laws;\nand a right to be exempted from coercion, stripes, and punishment, as\nlong as he respects the rights of others. He has a right to an\nequivalent for his labor. He has a right to sustain domestic relations,\nto discharge their duties, and to enjoy the happiness which flows from\nfidelity in these and other domestic relations. Such are a few of human\nrights; and if so, what a grievous wrong is slavery!\n\nPerhaps nothing has done more to impair the sense of the reality and\nsacredness of human rights, and to sanction oppression, than loose\nideas as to the change made in man's natural rights by his entrance\ninto civil society. It is commonly said that men part with a portion of\nthese by becoming a community, a body politic; that government consists\nof powers surrendered by the individual; and it is said, \"If certain\nrights and powers may be surrendered, why not others? why not all? What\nlimit is to be set? The good of the community, to which a part is given\nup, may demand the whole; and in this good, all private rights are\nmerged.\" This is the logic of despotism. We are grieved, that it finds\nits way into republics, and that it sets down the great principles of\nfreedom as abstractions and metaphysical theories, good enough for the\ncloister, but too refined for practical and real life.\n\nHuman rights, however, are not to be so reasoned away. They belong, as\nwe have seen, to man as a moral being, and nothing can divest him of\nthem but the destruction of his nature. They are not to be given up to\nsociety as a prey. On the contrary, the great end of civil society is to\nsecure them. The great end of government is to repress _all wrong_. Its\nhighest function is to protect the weak against the powerful, so that\nthe obscurest human being may enjoy his rights in peace. Strange that an\ninstitution, built on the idea of Rights, should be used to unsettle\nthis idea, to confuse our moral perceptions, to sanctify wrongs as means\nof general good.\n\nIt is said that in forming civil society the individual surrenders a\npart of his rights. It would be more proper to say that he adopts new\nmodes of securing them. He consents, for example, to desist from\nself-defence, that he and all may be more effectually defended by the\npublic force. He consents to submit his cause to an umpire or tribunal,\nthat justice may be more impartially awarded, and that he and all may\nmore certainly receive their due. He consents to part with a portion of\nhis property in taxation, that his own and others' property may be the\nmore secure. He submits to certain restraints, that he and others may\nenjoy more enduring freedom. He expects an equivalent for what he\nrelinquishes, and insists on it as his right. He is wronged by partial\nlaws, which compel him to contribute to the state beyond his proportion,\nhis ability, and the measure of benefits which he receives. How absurd\nis it to suppose, that by consenting to be protected by the state, and\nby yielding it the means, he surrenders the very rights which were the\nobjects of his accession to the social compact!\n\nThe authority of the state to impose laws on its members I cheerfully\nallow; but this has limits, which are found to be more and more narrow\nin proportion to the progress of moral science. The state is equally\nrestrained with individuals by the moral law. For example, it may not,\nmust not on any account, put an innocent man to death, or require of\nhim a dishonorable or criminal service. It may demand allegiance, but\nonly on the ground of the protection it affords. It may levy taxes, but\nonly because it takes all property and all interests under its shield.\nIt may pass laws, but only impartial ones, framed for the whole and not\nfor the few. It must not seize by a special act the property of the\nhumblest individual, without making him an equivalent. It must regard\nevery man, over whom it extends its authority, as a vital part of\nitself, as entitled to its care and to its provisions for liberty and\nhappiness. If, in an emergency, its safety, which is the interest of\neach and all, may demand the imposition of peculiar restraints on one or\nmany, it is bound to limit these restrictions to the precise point which\nits safety prescribes, to remove the necessity of them as far and as\nfast as possible, to compensate by peculiar protection such as it\ndeprives of the ordinary means of protecting themselves, and, in\ngeneral, to respect and provide for liberty in the very acts which for a\ntime restrain it. The idea of Rights, I repeat it, should be fundamental\nand supreme in civil institutions. Government becomes a nuisance and\nscourge, in proportion as it sacrifices these to the many or the few.\nGovernment, I repeat it, is equally bound with the individual by the\nmoral law. The ideas of Justice and Rectitude, of what is due to man\nfrom his fellow-creatures, of the claims of every moral being, are far\ndeeper and more primitive than Civil Polity. Government, far from\noriginating them, owes to them its strength. Right is older than human\nlaw. Law ought to be its voice. It should be built on and should\ncorrespond to the principle of justice in the human breast, and its\nweakness is owing to nothing more than to its clashing with our\nindestructible moral convictions.\n\nThat government is most perfect, in which Policy is most entirely\nsubjected to Justice, or in which the supreme and constant aim is to\nsecure the rights of every human being. This is the beautiful idea of a\nfree government, and no government is free but in proportion as it\nrealizes this. Liberty must not be confounded with popular institutions.\nA representative government may be as despotic as an absolute monarchy.\nIn as far as it tramples on the rights, whether of many or one, it is a\ndespotism. The sovereign power, whether wielded by a single hand or\nseveral hands, by a king or a congress, which spoils one human being of\nthe immunities and privileges bestowed on him by God, is so far a\ntyranny. The great argument in favor of representative institutions is,\nthat a people's rights are safest in their own hands, and should never\nbe surrendered to an irresponsible power. Rights, Rights, lie at the\nfoundation of a popular government; and when this betrays them, the\nwrong is more aggravated than when they are crushed by despotism.\n\nStill the question will be asked, \"Is not the General Good the supreme\nlaw of the state? Are not all restraints on the individual just, which\nthis demands? When the rights of the individual clash with this, must\nthey not yield? Do they not, indeed, cease to be rights? Must not every\nthing give place to the General Good?\" I have started this question in\nvarious forms, because I deem it worthy of particular examination.\nPublic and private morality, the freedom and safety of our national\ninstitutions, are greatly concerned in settling the claims of the\n\"General Good.\" In monarchies, the Divine Right of kings swallowed up\nall others. In republics the General Good threatens the same evil. It is\na shelter for the abuses and usurpations of government, for the\nprofligacies of statesmen, for the vices of parties, for the wrongs of\nslavery. In considering this subject, I take the hazard of repeating\nprinciples already laid down; but this will be justified by the\nimportance of reaching and determining the truth. Is the General Good,\nthen, the supreme law to which every thing must bow?\n\nThis question may be settled at once by proposing another. Suppose the\nPublic Good to require that a number of the members of a state, no\nmatter how few, should perjure themselves, or should disclaim their\nfaith in God and virtue. Would their right to follow conscience and God\nbe annulled? Would they be bound to sin? Suppose a conqueror to menace a\nstate with ruin, unless its members should insult their parents, and\nstain themselves with crimes at which nature revolts? Must the Public\nGood prevail over purity and our holiest affections? Do we not all feel,\nthat there are higher goods than even the safety of the state? That\nthere is a higher law than that of mightiest empires? That the idea of\nRectitude is deeper in human nature than that of private or public\ninterest? And that this is to bear sway over all private and public\nacts?\n\nThe supreme law of a state is not its safety, its power, its prosperity,\nits affluence, the flourishing state of agriculture, commerce, and the\narts. These objects, constituting what is commonly called the Public\nGood, are, indeed, proposed, and ought to be proposed, in the\nconstitution and administration of states. But there is a higher law,\neven Virtue, Rectitude, the Voice of Conscience, the Will of God.\nJustice is a greater good than property, not greater in degree, but in\nkind. Universal benevolence is infinitely superior to prosperity.\nReligion, the love of God, is worth incomparably more than all his\noutward gifts. A community, to secure or aggrandize itself, must never\nforsake the Right, the Holy, the Just.\n\nMoral Good, Rectitude in all its branches, is the Supreme Good; by\nwhich I do not intend that it is the surest means to the security and\nprosperity of the state. Such, indeed, it is, but this is too low a\nview. It must not be looked upon as a Means, an Instrument. It is the\nSupreme End, and states are bound to subject to it all their\nlegislation, be the apparent loss of prosperity ever so great. National\nwealth is not the End. It derives all its worth from national virtue. If\naccumulated by rapacity, conquest, or any degrading means, or if\nconcentrated in the hands of the few, whom it strengthens to crush the\nmany, it is a curse. National wealth is a blessing, only when it springs\nfrom and represents the intelligence and virtue of the community, when\nit is a fruit and expression of good habits, of respect for the rights\nof all, of impartial and beneficent legislation, when it gives impulse\nto the higher faculties, and occasion and incitement to justice and\nbeneficence. No greater calamity can befall a people than to prosper by\ncrime. No success can be a compensation for the wound inflicted on a\nnation's mind by renouncing Right as its Supreme Law.\n\nLet a people exalt Prosperity above Rectitude, and a more dangerous end\ncannot be proposed. Public Prosperity, General Good, regarded by itself,\nor apart from the moral law, is something vague, unsettled, and\nuncertain, and will infallibly be so construed by the selfish and\ngrasping as to secure their own aggrandizement. It may be made to wear a\nthousand forms according to men's interests and passions. This is\nillustrated by every day's history. Not a party springs up, which does\nnot sanctify all its projects for monopolizing power by the plea of\nGeneral Good. Not a measure, however ruinous, can be proposed, which\ncannot be shown to favor one or another national interest. The truth is,\nthat, in the uncertainty of human affairs, an uncertainty growing out of\nthe infinite and very subtile causes which are acting on communities,\nthe consequences of no measure can be foretold with certainty. The best\nconcerted schemes of policy often fail; whilst a rash and profligate\nadministration may, by unexpected concurrences of events, seem to\nadvance a nation's glory. In regard to the means of national prosperity\nthe wisest are weak judges. For example, the present rapid growth of\nthis country, carrying, as it does, vast multitudes beyond the\ninstitutions of religion and education, may be working ruin, whilst the\npeople exult in it as a pledge of greatness. We are too short-sighted to\nfind our law in outward interests. To states, as to individuals,\nRectitude is the Supreme Law. It was never designed that the Public\nGood, as disjoined from this, as distinct from justice and reverence for\nall rights, should be comprehended and made our end. Statesmen work in\nthe dark, until the idea of Right towers above expediency or wealth. Wo\nto that people which would found its prosperity in wrong! It is time\nthat the low maxims of policy, which have ruled for ages, should fall.\nIt is time that Public Interest should no longer hallow injustice, and\nfortify government in making the weak their prey.\n\nIn this discussion, I have used the phrase, Public or General Good, in\nits common acceptation, as signifying the safety and prosperity of a\nstate. Why can it not be used in a larger sense? Why can it not be made\nto comprehend inward and moral, as well as outward good? And why cannot\nthe former be understood to be incomparably the most important element\nof the public weal? Then, indeed, I should assent to the proposition,\nthat the General Good is the supreme law. So construed, it would support\nthe great truths which I have maintained. It would condemn the\ninfliction of wrong on the humblest individual, as a national calamity.\nIt would plead with us to extend to every individual the means of\nimproving his character and lot.\n\nIf the remarks under this head be just, it will follow that the good of\nthe Individual is more important than the outward prosperity of the\nState. The former is not vague and unsettled, like the latter, and it\nbelongs to a higher order of interests. It consists of the free\nexertion and expansion of the individual's powers, especially of his\nhigher faculties; in the energy of his intellect, conscience, and good\naffections; in sound judgment; in the acquisition of truth; in laboring\nhonestly for himself and his family; in loving his Creator, and\nsubjecting his own will to the Divine; in loving his fellow-creatures,\nand making cheerful sacrifices to their happiness; in friendship; in\nsensibility to the beautiful, whether in nature or art; in loyalty to\nhis principles; in moral courage; in self-respect; in understanding and\nasserting his rights; and in the Christian hope of immortality. Such is\nthe good of the Individual; a more sacred, exalted, enduring interest,\nthan any accessions of wealth or power to the State. Let it not be\nsacrificed to these. He should find, in his connexions with the\ncommunity, aids to the accomplishment of these purposes of his being,\nand not be chained and subdued by it to the inferior interests of any\nfellow-creature.\n\nIn all ages the Individual has in one form or another been trodden in\nthe dust. In monarchies and aristocracies he has been sacrificed to One\nor to the Few; who, regarding government as an heirloom in their\nfamilies, and thinking of the people as made only to live and die for\ntheir glory, have not dreamed that the sovereign power was designed to\nshield every man, without exception, from wrong. In the ancient\nRepublics, the Glory of the State, especially Conquest, was the end to\nwhich the individual was expected to offer himself a victim, and in\npromoting which no cruelty was to be declined, no human right revered.\nHe was merged in a great whole, called the Commonwealth, to which his\nwhole nature was to be immolated. It was the glory of the American\npeople, that in their Declaration of Independence they took the ground\nof the indestructible rights of every human being. They declared all men\nto be essentially equal, and each born to be free. They did not, like\nthe Greek or Roman, assert for themselves a liberty, which they burned\nto wrest from other states. They spoke in the name of humanity, as the\nrepresentatives of the rights of the feeblest, as well as mightiest, of\ntheir race. They published universal, everlasting principles, which are\nto work out the deliverance of every human being. Such was their glory.\nLet not the idea of Rights be erased from their children's minds by\nfalse ideas of public good. Let not the sacredness of individual man be\nforgotten in the feverish pursuit of property. It is more important that\nthe Individual should respect himself, and be respected by others, than\nthat the wealth of both worlds should be accumulated on our shores.\nNational wealth is not the end of society. It may exist where large\nclasses are depressed and wronged. It may undermine a nation's spirit,\ninstitutions, and independence. It can have no value and no sure\nfoundation, until the Supremacy of the Rights of the Individual is the\nfirst article of a nation's faith, and until reverence for them becomes\nthe spirit of public men.\n\nPerhaps it will be replied to all which has now been said, that there is\nan argument from experience, which invalidates the doctrines of this\nsection. It may be said, that human rights, notwithstanding what has\nbeen said of their sacredness, do and must yield to the exigencies of\nreal life, that there is often a stern necessity in human affairs to\nwhich they bow. I may be asked, whether, in the history of nations,\ncircumstances do not occur, in which the rigor of the principles, now\nlaid down, must be relaxed? Whether, in seasons of imminent peril to the\nstate, private rights must not give way? I may be asked, whether the\nestablishment of martial law and a dictator has not sometimes been\njustified and demanded by public danger, and whether, of course, the\nrights and liberties of the individual are not held at the discretion of\nthe state. I admit, in reply, that extreme cases may occur, in which the\nexercise of rights and freedom may be suspended; but suspended only for\ntheir ultimate and permanent security. At such times, when the frantic\nfury of the many, or the usurpations of the few interrupt the\nadministration of law, and menace property and life, society, threatened\nwith ruin, puts forth instinctively spasmodic efforts for its own\npreservation. It flies to an irresponsible dictator for its protection.\nBut in these cases, the great idea of Rights predominates amidst their\napparent subversion. A power above all laws is conferred, only that the\nempire of law may be restored. Despotic restraints are imposed only that\nliberty may be rescued from ruin. All rights are involved in the safety\nof the state; and hence, in the cases referred to, the safety of the\nstate becomes the supreme law. The individual is bound for a time to\nforego his freedom for the salvation of institutions, without which\nliberty is but a name. To argue from such sacrifices that he may be\npermanently made a slave, is as great an insult to reason as to\nhumanity. It may be added, that sacrifices, which may be demanded for\nthe safety, are not due from the individual to the prosperity of the\nstate. The great end of civil society is to secure rights, not\naccumulate wealth; and to merge the former in the latter is to turn\npolitical union into degradation and a scourge. The community is bound\nto take the rights of each and all under its guardianship. It must\nsubstantiate its claim to universal obedience by redeeming its pledge of\nuniversal protection. It must immolate no man to the prosperity of the\nrest. Its laws should be made for all, its tribunals opened to all. It\ncannot without guilt abandon any of its members to private oppression,\nto irresponsible power.\n\nWe have thus established the reality and sacredness of human rights;\nand that slavery is an infraction of these is too plain to need any\nlabored proof. Slavery violates not one, but all; and violates them not\nincidentally, but necessarily, systematically, from its very nature. In\nstarting with the assumption that the slave is property, it sweeps away\nevery defence of human rights and lays them in the dust. Were it\nnecessary I might enumerate them, and show how all fall before this\nterrible usurpation; but a few remarks will suffice.\n\nSlavery strips man of the fundamental right to inquire into, consult,\nand seek his own happiness. His powers belong to another, and for\nanother they must be used. He must form no plans, engage in no\nenterprises, for bettering his condition. Whatever be his capacities,\nhowever equal to great improvements of his lot, he is chained for life\nby another's will to the same unvaried toil. He is forbidden to do for\nhimself or others the work, for which God stamped him with his own\nimage, and endowed him with his own best gifts.--Again, the slave is\nstripped of the right to acquire property. Being himself owned, his\nearnings belong to another. He can possess nothing but by favor. That\nright on which the development of men's powers so much depends, the\nright to make accumulations, to gain exclusive possessions by honest\nindustry, is withheld. \"The slave can acquire nothing,\" says one of the\nslave-codes, \"but what must belong to his master;\" and however this\ndefinition, which moves the indignation of the free, may be mitigated by\nfavor, the spirit of it enters into the very essence of slavery.--Again,\nthe slave is stripped of his right to his wife and children. They belong\nto another, and may be torn from him, one and all, at any moment, at his\nmaster's pleasure.--Again, the slave is stripped of the right to the\nculture of his rational powers. He is in some cases deprived by law of\ninstruction, which is placed within his reach by the improvements of\nsociety and the philanthropy of the age. He is not allowed to toil, that\nhis children may enjoy a better education than himself. The most sacred\nright of human nature, that of developing his best faculties, is denied.\nEven should it be granted, it would be conceded as a favor, and might at\nany moment be withheld by the capricious will of another.--Again, the\nslave is deprived of the right of self-defence. No injury from a white\nman is he suffered to repel, nor can he seek redress from the laws of\nhis country. If accumulated insult and wrong provoke him to the\nslightest retaliation, this effort for self-protection, allowed and\ncommended to others, is a crime for which he must pay a fearful\npenalty.--Again, the slave is stripped of the right to be exempted from\nall harm except for wrong doing. He is subjected to the lash, by those\nwhom he has never consented to serve, and whose claim to him as property\nwe have seen to be a usurpation; and this power of punishment, which, if\njustly claimed, should be exercised with a fearful care, is often\ndelegated to men in whose hands there is a moral certainty of its abuse.\n\nI will add but one more example of the violation of human rights by\nslavery. The slave virtually suffers the wrong of robbery, though with\nutter unconsciousness on the part of those who inflict it. It may,\nindeed, be generally thought, that, as he is suffered to own nothing, he\ncannot fall, at least, under this kind of violence. But it is not true\nthat he owns nothing. Whatever he may be denied by man, he holds from\nnature the most valuable property, and that from which all other is\nderived, I mean his strength. His labor is his own, by the gift of that\nGod who nerved his arm, and gave him intelligence and conscience to\ndirect the use of it for his own and others' happiness. No possession is\nso precious as a man's force of body and mind. The exertion of this in\nlabor is the great foundation and source of property in outward things.\nThe worth of articles of traffic is measured by the labor expended in\ntheir production. To the great mass of men, in all countries, their\nstrength or labor is their whole fortune. To seize on this would be to\nrob them of their all. In truth, no robbery is so great as that to which\nthe slave is habitually subjected. To take by force a man's whole\nestate, the fruit of years of toil, would by universal consent be\ndenounced as a great wrong; but what is this, compared with seizing the\nman himself, and appropriating to our use the limbs, faculties,\nstrength, and labor, by which all property is won and held fast? The\nright of property in outward things is as nothing, compared with our\nright to ourselves. Were the slave-holder stript of his fortune, he\nwould count the violence slight, compared with what he would suffer,\nwere his person seized and devoted as a chattel to another's use. Let it\nnot be said that the slave receives an equivalent, that he is fed and\nclothed, and is not, therefore, robbed. Suppose another to wrest from us\na valued possession, and to pay us his own price. Should we not think\nourselves robbed? Would not the laws pronounce the invader a robber? Is\nit consistent with the right of property, that a man should determine\nthe equivalent for what he takes from his neighbour? Especially is it to\nbe hoped, that the equivalent due to the laborer will be scrupulously\nweighed, when he himself is held as property, and all his earnings are\ndeclared to be his master's? So great an infraction of human right is\nslavery!\n\nIn reply to these remarks, it may be said that the theory and practice\nof slavery differ; that the rights of the slave are not as wantonly\nsported with as the claims of the master might lead us to infer; that\nsome of his possessions are sacred; that not a few slave-holders refuse\nto divorce husband and wife, to sever parent and child; and that in many\ncases the power of punishment is used so reluctantly, as to encourage\ninsolence and insubordination. All this I have no disposition to deny.\nIndeed it must be so. It is not in human nature to wink wholly out of\nsight the rights of a fellow-creature. Degrade him as we may, we cannot\naltogether forget his claims. In every slave-country, there are,\nundoubtedly, masters who desire and purpose to respect these, to the\nfull extent which the nature of the relation will allow. Still, human\nrights are denied. They lie wholly at another's mercy; and we must have\nstudied history in vain, if we need be told that they will be\ncontinually the prey of this absolute power.--The Evils involved in and\nflowing from the denial and infraction of the rights of the slave will\nform the subject of a subsequent chapter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nEXPLANATIONS.\n\n\nI have endeavoured to show in the preceding sections that slavery is a\nviolation of sacred rights, the infliction of a great wrong. And here a\nquestion arises. It may be asked, whether, by this language, I intend to\nfasten on the slave-holder the charge of peculiar guilt. On this point\ngreat explicitness is a duty. Sympathy with the slave has often\ndegenerated into injustice towards the master. I wish it, then, to be\nunderstood, that, in ranking slavery among the greatest wrongs, I speak\nof the injury endured by the slave, and not of the character of the\nmaster. These are distinct points. The former does not determine the\nlatter. The wrong is the same to the slave, from whatever motive or\nspirit it may be inflicted. But this motive or spirit determines wholly\nthe character of him who inflicts it. Because a great injury is done to\nanother, it does not follow that he who does it is a depraved man; for\nhe may do it unconsciously, and, still more, may do it in the belief\nthat he confers a good. We have learned little of moral science and of\nhuman nature, if we do not know that guilt is to be measured, not by the\noutward act, but by unfaithfulness to conscience; and that the\nconsciences of men are often darkened by education, and other\ninauspicious influences. All men have partial consciences, or want\ncomprehension of some duties. All partake, in a measure, of the errors\nof the community in which they live. Some are betrayed into moral\nmistakes by the very force with which conscience acts in regard to some\nparticular duty. As the intellect, in grasping one truth, often loses\nits hold of others, and by giving itself up to one idea, falls into\nexaggeration; so the moral sense, in seizing on a particular exercise of\nphilanthropy, forgets other duties, and will even violate many important\nprecepts in its passionate eagerness to carry one to perfection.\nInnumerable illustrations may be given of the liableness of men to moral\nerror. The practice, which strikes one man with horror, may seem to\nanother, who was born and brought up in the midst of it, not only\ninnocent, but meritorious. We must judge others, not by our light, but\nby their own. We must take their place, and consider what allowance we\nin their position might justly expect. Our ancestors at the North were\nconcerned in the slave-trade. Some of us can recollect individuals of\nthe colored race, who were torn from Africa, and grew old under our\nparental roofs. Our ancestors committed a deed now branded as piracy.\nWere they, therefore, the offscouring of the earth? Were not some of\nthem among the best of their times? The administration of religion in\nalmost all past ages has been a violation of the sacred rights of\nconscience. How many sects have persecuted and shed blood! Were their\nmembers, therefore, monsters of depravity? The history of our race is\nmade up of wrongs, many of which were committed without a suspicion of\ntheir true character, and many from an urgent sense of duty. A man born\namong slaves, accustomed to this relation from his birth, taught its\nnecessity by venerated parents, associating it with all whom he reveres,\nand too familiar with its evils to see and feel their magnitude, can\nhardly he expected to look on slavery as it appears to more impartial\nand distant observers? Let it not be said that when new light is offered\nhim he is criminal in rejecting it. Are we all willing to receive new\nlight? Can we wonder that such a man should be slow to be convinced of\nthe criminality of an abuse sanctioned by prescription, and which has so\ninterwoven itself with all the habits, employments, and economy of life,\nthat he can hardly conceive of the existence of society without this\nall-pervading element? May he not be true to his convictions of duty in\nother relations, though he grievously err in this? If, indeed, through\ncupidity and selfishness, he stifle the monitions of conscience, warp\nhis judgment, and repel the light, he incurs great guilt. If he want\nvirtue to resolve on doing right, though at the loss of every slave, he\nincurs great guilt. But who of us can look into his heart? To whom are\nthe secret workings there revealed?\n\nStill more. There are masters who have thrown off the natural prejudices\nof their position, who see slavery as it is, and who hold the slave\nchiefly, if not wholly, from disinterested considerations; and these\ndeserve great praise. They deplore and abhor the institution; but\nbelieving that partial emancipation, in the present condition of\nsociety, would bring unmixed evil on bond and free, they think\nthemselves bound to continue the relation, until it shall be dissolved\nby comprehensive and systematic measures of the state. There are many of\nthem who would shudder as much as we at reducing a freeman to bondage,\nbut who are appalled by what seem to them the perils and difficulties of\nliberating multitudes, born and brought up to that condition. There are\nmany, who, nominally holding the slave as property, still hold him for\nhis own good and for the public order, and would blush to retain him on\nother grounds. Are such men to be set down among the unprincipled? Am I\ntold that by these remarks I extenuate slavery? I reply, slavery is\nstill a heavy yoke, and strips man of his dearest rights, be the\nmaster's character what it may. Slavery is not less a curse, because\nlong use may have blinded most, who support it, to its evils. Its\ninfluence is still blighting, though conscientiously upheld. Absolute\nmonarchy is still a scourge, though among despots there have been good\nmen. It is possible to abhor and oppose bad institutions, and yet to\nabstain from indiscriminate condemnation of those who cling to them, and\neven to see in their ranks greater virtue than in ourselves. It is true,\nand ought to be cheerfully acknowledged, that in the slave-holding\nStates may be found some of the greatest names of our history, and, what\nis still more important, bright examples of private virtue and Christian\nlove.\n\nThere is, however, there must be, in slaveholding communities a large\nclass which cannot be too severely condemned. There are many, we fear,\nvery many, who hold their fellow-creatures in bondage, from selfish,\nbase motives. They hold the slave for gain, whether justly or unjustly\nthey neither ask nor care. They cling to him as property, and have no\nfaith in the principles which will diminish a man's wealth. They hold\nhim, not for his own good or the safety of the state, but with precisely\nthe same views with which they hold a laboring horse, that is, for the\nprofit which they can wring from him. They will not hear a word of his\nwrongs; for, wronged or not, they will not let him go. He is their\nproperty, and they mean not to be poor for righteousness' sake. Such a\nclass there undoubtedly is among slaveholders; how large their own\nconsciences must determine. We are sure of it; for under such\ncircumstances human nature will and must come to this mournful result.\nNow, to men of this spirit, the explanations we have made do in no\ndegree apply. Such men ought to tremble before the rebukes of outraged\nhumanity and indignant virtue. Slavery, upheld for gain, is a great\ncrime. He, who has nothing to urge against emancipation, but that it\nwill make him poorer, is bound to Immediate Emancipation. He has no\nexcuse for wresting from his brethren their rights. The plea of benefit\nto the slave and the state avails him nothing. He extorts, by the lash,\nthat labor to which he has no claim, through a base selfishness. Every\nmorsel of food, thus forced from the injured, ought to be bitterer than\ngall. His gold is cankered. The sweat of the slave taints the luxuries\nfor which it streams. Better were it for the selfish wrong doer of whom\nI speak, to live as the slave, to clothe himself in the slave's raiment,\nto eat the slave's coarse food, to till his fields with his own hands,\nthan to pamper himself by day, and pillow his head on down at night, at\nthe cost of a wantonly injured fellow-creature. No fellow-creature can\nbe so injured without taking terrible vengeance. He is terribly avenged\neven now. The blight which falls on the soul of the wrong doer, the\ndesolation of his moral nature, is a more terrible calamity than he\ninflicts. In deadening his moral feelings, he dies to the proper\nhappiness of a man. In hardening his heart against his fellow-creatures,\nhe sears it to all true joy. In shutting his ear against the voice of\njustice, he shuts out all the harmonies of the universe, and turns the\nvoice of God within him into rebuke. He may prosper, indeed, and hold\nfaster the slave by whom he prospers; but he rivets heavier and more\nignominious chains on his own soul than he lays on others. No punishment\nis so terrible as prosperous guilt. No fiend, exhausting on us all his\npower of torture, is so terrible as an oppressed fellow-creature. The\ncry of the oppressed, unheard on earth, is heard in heaven. God is just,\nand if justice reign, then the unjust must terribly suffer. Then no\nbeing can profit by evil doing. Then all the laws of the universe are\nordinances against guilt. Then every enjoyment, gained by wrong doing,\nwill be turned into a curse. No laws of nature are so irrepealable as\nthat law which binds guilt and misery. God is just. Then all the\ndefences, which the oppressor rears against the consequences of wrong\ndoing, are vain, as vain as would be his strivings to arrest by his\nsingle arm the ocean or whirlwind. He may disarm the slave. Can he\ndisarm that slave's Creator? He can crush the spirit of insurrection in\na fellow-being. Can he crush the awful spirit of justice and retribution\nin the Almighty? He can still the murmur of discontent in his victim.\nCan he silence that voice which speaks in thunder, and is to break the\nsleep of the grave? Can he always still the reproving, avenging voice in\nhis own breast?\n\nI know it will be said, \"You would make us poor.\" Be poor, then, and\nthank God for your honest poverty. Better be poor than unjust. Better\nbeg than steal. Better live in an almshouse, better die, than trample on\na fellow-creature and reduce him to a brute, for selfish gratification.\nWhat! Have we yet to learn that \"it profits us nothing to gain the whole\nworld, and lose our souls?\"\n\nLet it not be replied, in scorn, that we of the North, notorious for\nlove of money, and given to selfish calculations, are not the people to\ncall others to resign their wealth. I have no desire to shield the\nNorth. We have, without doubt, a great multitude, who, were they\nslave-holders, would sooner die than relax their iron grasp, than yield\ntheir property in men to justice and the commands of God. We have those\nwho would fight against abolition, if by this measure the profit of\ntheir intercourse with the South should be materially impaired. The\npresent excitement among us is, in part, the working of mercenary\nprinciples. But because the North joins hands with the South, shall\niniquity go unpunished or unrebuked? Can the league of the wicked, the\nrevolt of worlds, repeal the everlasting law of heaven and earth? Has\nGod's throne fallen before Mammon's? Must duty find no voice, no organ,\nbecause corruption is universally diffused? Is not this a fresh motive\nto solemn warning, that, every where, Northward and Southward, the\nrights of human beings are held so cheap, in comparison with worldly\ngain?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE EVILS OF SLAVERY.\n\n\nThe subject of this section is painful and repulsive. We must not,\nhowever, turn away from the contemplation of human sufferings and guilt.\nEvil is permitted by the Creator, that we should strive against it in\nfaith, and hope, and charity. We must never quail before it because of\nits extent and duration, never feel as if its power were greater than\nthat of goodness. It is meant to call forth deep sympathy with human\nnature, and unwearied sacrifices for human redemption. One great part of\nthe mission of every man on earth is to contend with evil in some of its\nforms; and there are some evils so dependent on opinion, that every man,\nin judging and reproving them faithfully, does something towards their\nremoval. Let us not, then, shrink from the contemplation of human\nsufferings. Even sympathy, if we have nothing more to offer, is a\ntribute acceptable to the Universal Father.--On this topic exaggeration\nshould be conscientiously shunned; and, at the same time, humanity\nrequires that the whole truth should be honestly spoken.\n\nIn treating of the evils of slavery, I, of course, speak of its general,\nnot universal effects, of its natural tendencies, not unfailing results.\nThere are the same natural differences among the bond as the free, and\nthere is a great diversity in the circumstances in which they are\nplaced. The house-slave, selected for ability and faithfulness, placed\namidst the habits, accommodations, and improvements of civilized life,\nadmitted to a degree of confidence and familiarity, and requiting these\nprivileges with attachment, is almost necessarily more enlightened and\nrespectable than the field-slave, who is confined to monotonous toils,\nand to the society and influences of beings as degraded as himself. The\nmechanics in this class are sensibly benefited by occupations which give\na higher action to the mind. Among the bond, as the free, will be found\nthose to whom nature seems partial, and who are carried almost\ninstinctively towards what is good. I speak of the natural, general\ninfluences of slavery. Here, as every where else, there are exceptions\nto the rule, and exceptions which multiply with the moral improvements\nof the community in which the slave is found. But these do not determine\nthe general character of the institution. It has general tendencies\nfounded in its very nature, and which predominate vastly wherever it\nexists. These tendencies it is my present purpose to unfold.\n\n\n1. The first rank among the evils of slavery must be given to its Moral\ninfluence. This is throughout debasing. Common language teaches this. We\ncan say nothing more insulting of another, than that he is Slavish. To\npossess the spirit of a slave is to have sunk to the lowest depths. We\ncan apply to slavery no worse name than its own. Men have always shrunk\ninstinctively from this state, as the most degraded. No punishment, save\ndeath, has been more dreaded, and to avoid it death has often been\nendured.\n\nIn expressing the moral influence of slavery the first and most obvious\nremark is, that it destroys the proper consciousness and spirit of a\nMan. The slave regarded and treated as property, bought and sold like a\nbrute, denied the rights of humanity, unprotected against insult, made a\ntool, and systematically subdued, that lie may be a manageable, useful\ntool, how can he help regarding himself as fallen below his race? How\nmust his spirit be crushed! How can he respect himself? He becomes bound\nto Servility. This word, borrowed from his condition, expresses the ruin\nwrought by slavery within him. The idea, that he was made for his own\nvirtue and happiness, scarcely dawns on his mind. To be an instrument of\nthe physical, material good of another, whose will is his highest law,\nhe is taught to regard as the great purpose of his being. Here lies the\nevil of slavery. Its whips, imprisonments, and even the horrors of the\nmiddle passage from Africa to America, these are not to be named, in\ncomparison with this extinction of the proper consciousness of a human\nbeing, with the degradation of a man into a brute.\n\nIt may be said, that the slave is used to his yoke; that his\nsensibilities are blunted; that he receives, without a pang or a\nthought, the treatment which would sting other men to madness. And to\nwhat does this apology amount? It virtually declares, that slavery has\ndone its perfect work, has quenched the spirit of humanity, that the Man\nis dead within the Slave. Is slavery, therefore, no wrong? It is not,\nhowever, true, that this work of debasement is ever so effectually done\nas to extinguish all feeling. Man is too great a creature to be wholly\nruined by man. When he seems dead he only sleeps. There are occasionally\nsome sullen murmurs in the calm of slavery, showing that life still\nbeats in the soul, that the idea of Rights cannot be wholly effaced from\nthe human being.\n\nIt would be too painful, and it is not needed, to detail the processes\nby which the spirit is broken in slavery. I refer to one only, the\nselling of slaves. The practice of exposing fellow-creatures for sale,\nof having markets for men as for cattle, of examining the limbs and\nmuscles of a man and a woman as of a brute, of putting human beings\nunder the hammer of an auctioneer, and delivering them, like any other\narticles of merchandise, to the highest bidder, all this is such an\ninsult to our common nature, and so infinitely degrading to the poor\nvictim, that it is hard to conceive of its existence, except in a\nbarbarous country.\n\nThat slavery should be most unpropitious to the slave as a moral being\nwill be farther apparent, if we consider that his condition is\nthroughout a Wrong, and that consequently it must tend to unsettle all\nhis notions of duty. The violation of his own rights, to which he is\ninured from birth, must throw confusion over his ideas of all human\nrights. He cannot comprehend them; or, if he does, how can he respect\nthem, seeing them, as he does, perpetually trampled on in his own\nperson? The injury to the character from living in an atmosphere of\nwrong, we can all understand. To live in a state of society, of which\ninjustice is the chief and all-pervading element, is too severe a trial\nfor human nature, especially when no means are used to counteract its\ninfluence.\n\nAccordingly the most common distinctions of morality are faintly\napprehended by the slave. Respect for property, that fundamental law of\ncivil society, can hardly be instilled into him. His dishonesty is\nproverbial. Theft from his master passes with him for no crime. A system\nof force is generally found to drive to fraud. How necessarily will this\nbe the result of a relation, in which force is used to extort from a man\nhis labor, his natural property, without an attempt to win his consent!\nCan we wonder that the uneducated conscience of the man who is daily\nwronged should allow him in reprisals to the extent of his power? Thus\nthe primary social virtue, justice, is undermined in the slave.\n\nThat the slave should yield himself to intemperance, licentiousness,\nand, in general, to sensual excess, we must also expect. Doomed to live\nfor the physical indulgences of others, unused to any pleasures but\nthose of sense, stripped of self-respect, and having nothing to gain in\nlife, how can he be expected to govern himself? How naturally, I had\nalmost said necessarily, does he become the creature of sensation, of\npassion, of the present moment! What aid does the future give him in\nwithstanding desire? That better condition, for which other men postpone\nthe cravings of appetite, never opens before him. The sense of\ncharacter, the power of opinion, another restraint on the free, can do\nlittle or nothing to rescue so abject a class from excess and\ndebasement. In truth, power over himself is the last virtue we should\nexpect in the slave, when we think of him as subjected to absolute\npower, and made to move passively from the impulse of a foreign will. He\nis trained to cowardice, and cowardice links itself naturally with low\nvices. Idleness to his apprehension is paradise, for he works without\nhope of reward. Thus slavery robs him of moral force, and prepares him\nto fall a prey to appetite and passion.\n\nThat the slave finds in his condition little nutriment for the social\nvirtues we shall easily understand, if we consider that his chief\nrelations are to an absolute master, and to the companions of his\ndegrading bondage, that is, to a being who wrongs him, and to associates\nwhom he cannot honor, whom he sees debased. His dependence on his owner\nloosens his ties to all other beings. He has no country to love, no\nfamily to call his own, no objects of public utility to espouse, no\nimpulse to generous exertion. The relations, dependencies, and\nresponsibilities, by which Providence forms the soul to a deep,\ndisinterested love, are almost struck out of his lot. An arbitrary rule,\na foreign, irresistible will, taking him out of his own hands, and\nplacing him beyond the natural influences of society, extinguishes in a\ngreat degree the sense of what is due to himself, and to the human\nfamily around him.\n\nThe effects of slavery on the character are so various, that this part\nof the discussion might be greatly extended; but I will touch only on\none topic. Let us turn, for a moment, to the great Motive by which the\nslave is made to labor. Labor, in one form or another, is appointed by\nGod for man's improvement and happiness, and absorbs the chief part of\nhuman life, so that the Motive which excites to it has immense influence\non character. It determines very much, whether life shall serve or fail\nof its end. The man, who works from honorable motives, from domestic\naffections, from desire of a condition which will open to him greater\nhappiness and usefulness, finds in labor an exercise and invigoration of\nvirtue. The day-laborer, who earns, with horny hand and the sweat of his\nface, coarse food for a wife and children whom he loves, is raised, by\nthis generous motive, to true dignity; and, though wanting the\nrefinements of life, is a nobler being than those who think themselves\nabsolved by wealth from serving others. Now the slave's labor brings no\ndignity, is an exercise of no virtue, but throughout a degradation; so\nthat one of God's chief provisions for human improvement becomes a\ncurse. The motive from which he acts debases him. It is the Whip. It is\ncorporal punishment. It is physical pain inflicted by a fellow-creature.\nUndoubtedly labor is mitigated to the slave, as to all men, by habit.\nBut this is not the motive. Take away the Whip, and he would be idle.\nHis labor brings no new comforts to wife or child. The motive which\nspurs him is one by which it is base to be swayed. Stripes are, indeed,\nresorted to by civil government, when no other consideration will deter\nfrom crime; but he, who is deterred from wrong doing by the\nwhipping-post, is among the most fallen of his race. To work in sight of\nthe whip, under menace of blows, is to be exposed to perpetual insult\nand degrading influences. Every motion of the limbs, which such a menace\nurges is a wound to the soul. How hard must it be for a man who lives\nunder the lash to respect himself! When this motive is substituted for\nall the nobler ones which God ordains, is it not almost necessarily\ndeath to the better and higher sentiments of our nature? It is the part\nof a man to despise pain, in comparison with disgrace, to meet it\nfearlessly in well doing, to perform the work of life from other\nimpulses. It is the part of a brute to be governed by the whip. Even the\nbrute is seen to act from more generous incitements. The horse of a\nnoble breed will not endure the lash. Shall we sink man below the horse?\n\nLet it not be said that blows are seldom inflicted. Be it so. We are\nglad to know it. But this is not the point. The complaint now urged is\nnot of the amount of the pain inflicted, but of its influence on the\ncharacter when made the great motive to human labor. It is not the\nendurance, but the dread of the whip, it is the substitution of this for\nnatural and honorable motives to action, which we abhor and condemn. It\nmatters not whether few or many are whipped. A blow given to a single\nslave is a stripe on the souls of all who see or hear it. It makes all\nabject, servile. It is not of the wound given to the flesh of which we\nnow complain. Scar the back, and you have done nothing, compared with\nthe wrong done to the soul. You have either stung that soul with\ninfernal passions, with thirst for revenge; or, what perhaps is more\ndiscouraging, you have broken and brutalized it. The human spirit has\nperished under your hands, as far as it can be destroyed by human force.\n\nI know it is sometimes said, in reply to these remarks, that all men, as\nwell as slaves, act from necessity; that we have masters in hunger and\nthirst; that no man loves labor for itself; that the pains, which are\ninflicted on us by the laws of nature, the elements, and seasons, are so\nmany lashes driving us to our daily task. Be it so. Still the two cases\nare essentially different. The necessity laid on us by natural wants is\nmost kindly in its purpose. It is meant to awaken all our faculties, to\ngive a full play to body and mind, and thus to give us a new\nconsciousness of the powers derived to us from God. We are, indeed,\nsubjected to a stern nature; we are placed amidst warring elements,\nscorching heat, withering cold, storms, blights, sickness, death. And\nwhat is the design? To call forth our powers, to lay on us great duties,\nto make us nobler beings. We are placed in the midst of a warring\nnature, not to yield to it, not to be its slaves, but to conquer it, to\nmake it the monument of our skill and strength, to arm ourselves with\nits elements, its heat, winds, vapors, and mineral treasures, to find,\nin its painful changes, occasions and incitements to invention, courage,\nendurance, mutual and endearing dependencies, and religious trust. The\ndevelopment of human nature, in all its powers and affections, is the\nend of that hard necessity which is laid on us by nature. Is this one\nand the same thing with the whip laid on the slave? Still more; it is\nthe design of nature that by energy, skill, and self-denial we should so\nfar anticipate our wants or accumulate supplies, as to be able to\ndiminish the toil of the hands, and to mix with it more intellectual and\nliberal occupations. Nature does not lay on us an unchangeable task, but\none which we may all lighten by honest, self-denying industry. Thus she\ninvites us to throw off her yoke, and to make her our servant. Is this\nthe invitation which the master gives his slaves? Is it his aim to\nawaken the powers of those on whom he lays his burdens, and to give them\nincreasing mastery over himself? Is it not his aim to curb their will,\nbreak their spirits, and shut them up for ever in the same narrow and\ndegrading work? Oh, let not nature be profaned, let not her parental\nrule be blasphemed, by comparing with her the slaveholder!\n\n\n2. Having considered the moral influence of slavery, I proceed to\nconsider its Intellectual influence, another great topic. God gave us\nintellectual power, that it should be cultivated; and a system which\ndegrades it, and can only be upheld by its depression, opposes one of\nhis most benevolent designs. Reason is God's image in man, and the\ncapacity of acquiring truth is among his best inspirations. To call\nforth the intellect is a principal purpose of the circumstances in which\nwe are placed, of the child's connexion with the parent, and of the\nnecessity laid on him in maturer life to provide for himself and others.\nThe education of the intellect is not confined to youth; but the various\nexperience of later years does vastly more than books and colleges to\nripen and invigorate the faculties.\n\nNow, the whole lot of the slave is fitted to keep his mind in childhood\nand bondage. Though living in a land of light, few beams find their way\nto his benighted understanding. No parent feels the duty of instructing\nhim. No teacher is provided for him, but the Driver, who breaks him,\nalmost in childhood, to the servile tasks which are to fill up his life.\nNo book is opened to his youthful curiosity. As he advances in years, no\nnew excitements supply the place of teachers. He is not cast on himself,\nmade to depend on his own energies. No stirring prizes in life awaken\nhis dormant faculties. Fed and clothed by others like a child, directed\nin every step, doomed for life to a monotonous round of labor, he lives\nand dies without a spring to his powers, often brutally unconscious of\nhis spiritual nature. Nor is this all. When benevolence would approach\nhim with instruction, it is repelled. He is not allowed to be taught.\nThe light is jealously barred out. The voice, which would speak to him\nas a man, is put to silence. He must not even be enabled to read the\nWord of God. His immortal spirit is systematically crushed.\n\nIt is said, I know, that the ignorance of the slave is necessary to the\nsecurity of the master, and the quiet of the state; and this is said\ntruly. Slavery and knowledge cannot live together. To enlighten the\nslave is to break his chain. To make him harmless, he must be kept\nblind. He cannot be left to read in an enlightened age, without\nendangering his master; for what can he read which will not give, at\nleast, some hint of his wrongs? Should his eye chance to fall on \"the\nDeclaration of Independence,\" how would the truth glare on him, \"that\nall men are born free and equal\"! All knowledge furnishes arguments\nagainst slavery. From every subject light would break forth to reveal\nhis inalienable and outraged rights. The very exercise of his intellect\nwould give him the consciousness of being made for something more than a\nslave. I agree to the necessity laid on his master to keep him in\ndarkness. And what stronger argument against slavery can be conceived?\nIt compels the master to degrade, systematically, the mind of the slave;\nto war against human intelligence; to resist that improvement which is\nthe end of the Creator. \"Wo to him that taketh away the key of\nknowledge!\" To kill the body is a great crime. The Spirit we cannot\nkill, but we can bury it in deathlike lethargy; and is this a light\ncrime in the sight of its Maker?\n\nLet it not be said, that almost every where the laboring classes are\ndoomed to ignorance, deprived of the means of instruction. The\nintellectual advantages of the laboring freeman, who is entrusted with\nthe care of himself, raise him far above the slave; and, accordingly,\nsuperior minds are constantly seen to issue from the less educated\nclasses. Besides, in free communities, philanthropy is not forbidden to\nlabor for the improvement of the ignorant. The obligation of the\nprosperous and instructed to elevate their less favored brethren is\ntaught, and not taught in vain. Benevolence is making perpetual\nencroachments on the domain of ignorance and crime. In communities, on\nthe other hand, cursed with slavery, half the population, sometimes\nmore, are given up, intentionally and systematically, to hopeless\nignorance. To raise this mass to intelligence and self-government is a\ncrime. The sentence of perpetual degradation is passed on a large\nportion of the human race. In this view, how great the ill desert of\nslavery!\n\n\n3. I proceed, now, to the Domestic influences of slavery; and here we\nmust look for a dark picture. Slavery virtually dissolves the domestic\nrelations. It ruptures the most sacred ties on earth. It violates home.\nIt lacerates the best affections. The domestic relations precede, and,\nin our present existence, are worth more than all our other social ties.\nThey give the first throb to the heart, and unseal the deep fountains of\nits love. Home is the chief school of human virtue. Its\nresponsibilities, joys, sorrows, smiles, tears, hopes, and solicitudes,\nform the chief interests of human life. Go where a man may, home is the\ncentre to which his heart turns. The thought of his home nerves his arm\nand lightens his toil. For that his heart yearns, when he is far off.\nThere he garners up his best treasures. God has ordained for all men\nalike the highest earthly happiness, in providing for all the sanctuary\nof home. But the slave's home does not merit the name. To him it is no\nsanctuary. It is open to violation, insult, outrage. His children belong\nto another, are provided for by another, are disposed of by another. The\nmost precious burden with which the heart can be charged, the happiness\nof his child, he must not bear. He lives not for his family, but for a\nstranger. He cannot improve their lot. His wife and daughter he cannot\nshield from insult. They may be torn from him at another's pleasure,\nsold as beasts of burden, sent he knows not whither, sent where he\ncannot reach them, or even interchange inquiries and messages of love.\nTo the slave marriage has no sanctity. It may be dissolved in a moment\nat another's will. His wife, son, and daughter may be lashed before his\neyes, and not a finger must be lifted in their defence. He sees the scar\nof the lash on his wife and child. Thus the slave's home is desecrated.\nThus the tenderest relations, intended by God equally for all, and\nintended to be the chief springs of happiness and virtue, are sported\nwith wantonly and cruelly. What outrage so great as to enter a man's\nhouse, and tear from his side the beings whom God has bound to him by\nthe holiest ties? Every man can make the case his own. Every mother can\nbring it home to her own heart.\n\nAnd let it not be said that the slave has not the sensibilities of other\nmen. Nature is too strong even for slavery to conquer. Even the brute\nhas the yearnings of parental love. But suppose that the conjugal and\nparental ties of the slave may be severed without a pang. What a curse\nmust be slavery, if it can so blight the heart with more than brutal\ninsensibility, if it can sink the human mother below the polar she-bear,\nwhich \"howls and dies for her sundered cub!\" But it does not and cannot\nturn the slave to stone. It leaves, at least, feeling enough to make\nthese domestic wrongs occasions of frequent and deep suffering. Still it\nmust do much to quench the natural affections. Can the wife, who has\nbeen brought under influences most unfriendly to female purity and\nhonor, who is exposed to the whip, who may be torn away at her master's\nwill, and whose support and protection are not committed to a husband's\nfaithfulness, can such a wife, if the name may be given her, be loved\nand honored as a woman should be? Or can the love, which should bind\ntogether man and his offspring, be expected, under an institution, which\nsubverts, in a great degree, filial dependence and parental authority\nand care? Slavery withers the affections and happiness of home at their\nvery root, by tainting female purity. Woman, brought up in degradation,\nplaced under another's power and at another's disposal, and never taught\nto look forward to the happiness of an inviolate, honorable marriage,\ncan hardly possess the feelings and virtues of her sex. A blight falls\non her in her early years. Those who have daughters can comprehend her\nlot. In truth, licentiousness among bond and free is the natural issue\nof all-polluting slavery. Domestic happiness perishes under its touch,\nboth among bond and free.\n\nHow wonderful is it, that in civilized countries men can be so steeled\nby habit as to invade without remorse the peace, purity, and sacred\nrelations of domestic life, as to put asunder those whom God has joined\ntogether, as to break up households by processes more painful than\ndeath! And this is done for pecuniary profit! What! Can men, having\nhuman feeling, grow rich by the desolation of families? We hear of some\nof the Southern States enriching themselves by breeding slaves for sale.\nOf all the licensed occupations of society this is the most detestable.\nWhat! Grow men, like cattle! Rear human families, like herds of swine,\nand then scatter them to the four winds for gain! Among the imprecations\nuttered by man on man, is there one more fearful, more ominous, than the\nsighing of the mother bereft of her child by unfeeling cupidity? If\nblood cry to God, surely that sigh will be heard in heaven.\n\nLet it not be said that members of families are often separated in all\nconditions of life. Yes, but separated under the influence of love. The\nhusband leaves wife and children, that he may provide for their support,\nand carries them with him in his heart and hopes. The sailor, in his\nlonely night-watch, looks homeward, and well known voices come to him\namidst the roar of the waves. The parent sends away his children, but\nsends them to prosper, and to press them again to his heart with a joy\nenhanced by separation. Are such the separations which slavery makes?\nAnd can he, who has scattered other families, ask God to bless his own?\n\n\n4. I proceed to another important view of the evils of slavery. Slavery\nproduces and gives license to Cruelty. By this it is not meant that\ncruelty is the universal, habitual, unfailing result. Thanks to God,\nChristianity has not entered the world in vain. Where it has not cast\ndown, it has mitigated bad institutions. Slavery in this country differs\nwidely from that of ancient times, and from that which the Spaniards\nimposed on the aboriginals of South America. There is here an increasing\ndisposition to multiply the comforts of the slaves, and in this let us\nrejoice. At the same time, we must remember, that, under the light of\nthe present day, and in a country where Christianity and the rights of\nmen are understood, a diminished severity may contain more guilt than\nthe ferocity of darker ages. Cruelty in its lighter forms is now a\ngreater crime than the atrocious usages of antiquity at which we\nshudder. \"The times of that ignorance God winked at, but _now_ he\ncalleth men every where to repent.\" It should also be considered that\nthe slightest cruelty to the slave is an aggravated wrong, because he is\nunjustly held in bondage, unjustly held as property. We condemn the man\nwho enforces harshly a righteous claim. What, then, ought we to think of\nlashing and scarring fellow-creatures, for the purpose of upholding an\nunrighteous, usurped power, of extorting labor which is not our due?\n\nI have said that cruelty is not the habit of the slave States of this\ncountry. Still, that it is frequent we cannot doubt. Reports, which\nharrow up our souls, come to us from that quarter; and we know that they\nmust be essentially correct, because it is impossible that a large part,\nperhaps the majority, of the population of a country can be broken to\npassive, unlimited submission, without examples of terrible severity.\n\nLet it not be said, as is sometimes done, that cruel deeds are\nperpetrated every where else, as well as in slave-countries. Be it so;\nbut in all civilized nations unscourged by slavery, a principal object\nof legislation is to protect every man from cruelty, and to bring every\nman to punishment, who wantonly tortures or wounds another; whilst\nslavery plucks off restraint from the ferocious, or leaves them to\nsatiate their rage with impunity.--Let it not be said that these\nbarbarities are regarded no where with more horror than at the South. Be\nit so. They are abhorred, but allowed. The power of individuals to\nlacerate their fellow-creatures is given to them by the community. The\ncommunity abhors the abuse, but confers the power which will certainly\nbe abused, and thus strips itself of all defence before the bar of\nAlmighty Justice. It must answer for the crimes which are shielded by\nits laws.--Let it not be said, that these cruelties are checked by the\nprivate interest of the slaveholder. Does regard to private interest\nsave from brutal treatment the draught-horse in our streets? And may not\na vast amount of suffering be inflicted, which will not put in peril the\nlife or strength of the slave?\n\nTo substantiate the charge of cruelty, I shall not, as I have said, have\nrecourse to current reports, however well established. I am willing to\ndismiss them all as false. I stand on other ground. Reports may lie, but\nour daily experience of human nature cannot lie. I summon no witnesses,\nor rather I appeal to a witness every where present, a witness in every\nheart. Who that has watched his own heart, or observed others, does not\nfeel that man is not fit to be trusted with absolute, irresponsible\npower over men? It must be abused. The selfish passions and pride of our\nnature will as surely abuse it, as the storm will ravage, or the ocean\nswell and roar under the whirlwind. A being, so ignorant, so headstrong,\nso passionate, as man, ought not to be trusted with this terrible\ndominion. He ought not to desire it. He ought to dread it. He ought to\ncast it from him, as most perilous to himself and others.\n\nAbsolute power was not meant for man. There is, indeed, an exception to\nthis rule. There is one case, in which God puts a human being wholly\ndefenceless into another's hands. I refer to the child, who is wholly\nsubjected to the parent's will. But observe how carefully, I might\nalmost say anxiously, God has provided against the abuse of this power.\nHe has raised up in the heart of the parent a friend, a guardian, whom\nthe mightiest on earth cannot resist. He has fitted the parent for this\ntrust, by teaching him to love his child better than himself. No\neloquence on earth is so subduing as the moaning of the infant when in\npain. No reward is sweeter than that infant's smile. We say, God has put\nthe infant into the parent's hands. Might we not more truly say, that he\nhas put the parent into the child's power? That little being sends\nforth his father to toil, and makes the mother watch over him by day,\nand fix on him her sleepless eyes by night. No tyrant lays such a yoke.\nThus God has fenced and secured from abuse the power of the parent; and\nyet even the parent has been known, in a moment of passion, to be cruel\nto his child. Is man, then, to be trusted with absolute power over a\nfellow-creature, who, instead of being commended by nature to his\ntenderest love, belongs to a despised race, is regarded as property, is\nmade the passive instrument of his gratification and gain? I ask no\ndocuments to prove the abuses of this power, nor do I care what is said\nto disprove them. Millions may rise up and tell me that the slave\nsuffers little from cruelty. I know too much of human nature, human\nhistory, human passion to believe them. I acquit slaveholders of all\npeculiar depravity. I judge them by myself. I say, that absolute power\nalways corrupts human nature more or less. I say, that extraordinary,\nalmost miraculous self-control is necessary to secure the slaveholder\nfrom provocation and passion; and is self-control the virtue which above\nall others grows up amidst the possession of irresponsible dominion?\nEven when the slaveholder honestly acquits himself of cruelty, he may be\ncriminal. His own consciousness is to be distrusted. Having begun with\nwronging the slave, with wresting from him sacred rights, he may be\nexpected to multiply wrongs, without thought. The degraded state of the\nslave may induce in the master a mode of treatment essentially inhuman\nand insulting, but which he never dreams to be cruel. The influence of\nslavery in indurating the moral feeling and blinding men to wrongs is\none of its worst evils.\n\nBut suppose the master to be ever so humane. Still, he is not always\nwatching over his slave. He has his pleasures to attend to. He is often\nabsent. His terrible power must be delegated. And to whom is it\ndelegated? To men prepared to govern others, by having learned to govern\nthemselves? To men having a deep interest in the slaves? To wise men,\ninstructed in human nature? To Christians, trained to purity and love?\nWho does not know, that the office of Overseer is among the last, which\nan enlightened, philanthropic, self-respecting man would choose? Who\ndoes not know, how often the overseer pollutes the plantation by his\nlicentiousness, as well as scourges it by his severity? In the hands of\nsuch a man the lash is placed. To such a man is committed the most\nfearful trust on earth! For his cruelties the master must answer, as\ntruly as if they were his own. Nor is this all. The master does more\nthan delegate his power to the overseer. How often does he part with it\nwholly to the slave-dealer! And has he weighed the responsibility of\nsuch a transfer? Does he not know, that, in selling his slaves into\nmerciless hands, he is merciless himself, and must give an account to\nGod for every barbarity of which they become the victims? The notorious\ncruelty of the slave-dealers can be no false report, for it belongs to\ntheir vocation. These are the men, who throng and defile our Seat of\nGovernment, whose slave-markets and slave-dungeons turn to mockery the\nlanguage of freedom in the halls of Congress, and who make us justly the\nby-word and the scorn of the nations. Is there no cruelty in putting\nslaves under the bloody lash of the slave-dealer, to be driven like\nherds of cattle to distant regions, and there to pass into the hands of\nstrangers, without a pledge of their finding justice or mercy? What\nheart, not seared by custom, would not recoil from such barbarity?\n\nIt has been seen that I do not ground my argument at all on cases of\nexcessive cruelty. I should attach less importance to these than do most\npersons, even were they more frequent. They form a very, very small\namount of suffering, compared with what is inflicted by abuses of power\ntoo minute for notice. Blows, insults, privations, which make no noise,\nand leave no scar, are incomparably more destructive of happiness than a\nfew brutal violences which move general indignation. A weak, despised\nbeing, having no means of defence or redress, living in a community\narmed against his rights, regarded as property, and as bound to entire,\nunresisting compliance with another's will, if not subjected to\ninflictions of ferocious cruelty, is yet exposed to less striking and\nshocking forms of cruelty, the amount of which must be a fearful mass of\nsuffering.\n\nBut could it be proved that there are no cruelties in slave-countries,\nwe ought not then to be more reconciled to slavery than we now are. For\nwhat would this show? That cruelty is not needed. And why not needed?\nBecause the slave is entirely subdued to his lot. No man will be wholly\nunresisting in bondage, but he who is thoroughly imbued with the spirit\nof a slave. If the colored race never need punishment, it is because the\nfeelings of men are dead within them, because they have no consciousness\nof rights, because they are cowards, without respect for themselves, and\nwithout confidence in the sharers of their degraded lot. The quiet of\nslavery is like that which the Roman legions left in ancient Britain,\nthe stillness of death. Why were the Romans accustomed to work their\nslaves in chains by day, and confine them in dungeons by night? Not\nbecause they loved cruelty for its own sake; but because their slaves\nwere stung with a consciousness of degradation, because they brought\nfrom the forests of Dacia some rude ideas of human dignity, or from\ncivilized countries some experience of social improvements, which\nnaturally issued in violence and exasperation. They needed cruelty, for\ntheir own wills were not broken to another's, and the spirit of freemen\nwas not wholly gone. The slave _must_ meet cruel treatment either\ninwardly or outwardly. Either the soul or the body must receive the\nblow. Either the flesh must be tortured or the spirit be struck down.\nDreadful alternative to which slavery is reduced!\n\n\n5. I proceed to one more view of the evils of slavery. I refer to its\ninfluence on the Master. This topic cannot, perhaps, be so handled as to\navoid giving offence; but without it an imperfect view of the subject\nwould be given. I will pass over many views. I will say nothing of the\ntendency of slavery to unsettle the ideas of Right in the slaveholder,\nto impair his convictions of Justice and Benevolence; or of its tendency\nto associate with labor ideas of degradation, and to recommend idleness\nas an honorable exemption. I will confine myself to two considerations.\n\nThe first is, that slavery, above all other influences, nourishes the\npassion for power and its kindred vices. There is no passion which needs\na stronger curb. Men's worst crimes have sprung from the desire of being\nmasters, of bending others to their yoke. And the natural tendency of\nbringing others into subjection to our absolute will is to quicken into\nfearful activity the imperious, haughty, proud, self-seeking\npropensities of our nature. Man cannot, without imminent peril to his\nvirtue, own a fellow-creature, or use the word of absolute command to\nhis brethren. God never delegated this power. It is an usurpation of the\nDivine dominion, and its natural influence is to produce a spirit of\nsuperiority to divine as well as to human laws.\n\nUndoubtedly this tendency is in a measure counteracted by the spirit of\nthe age and the genius of Christianity, and in conscientious individuals\nit may be wholly overcome; but we see its fruits in the corruptions of\nmoral sentiment which prevail among slaveholders. A quick resentment of\nwhatever is thought to encroach on personal dignity, a trembling\njealousy of reputation, vehemence of the vindictive passions, and\ncontempt of all laws, human and divine, in retaliating injury,--these\ntake rank among the virtues of men whose self-estimation has been fed by\nthe possession of absolute power.\n\nOf consequence the direct tendency of slavery is to annihilate the\ncontrol of Christianity. Humility is by eminence the spirit of\nChristianity. No vice was so severely rebuked by our Lord, as the\npassion for ruling over others. A deference towards all human beings as\nour brethren, a benevolence which disposes us to serve rather than to\nreign, to concede our own rather than to encroach on others' rights, to\nforgive, not avenge wrongs, to govern our own spirits instead of\nbreaking the spirit of an inferior or foe,--this is Christianity; a\nreligion too high and pure to be understood and obeyed any where as it\nshould be, but which meets singular hostility in the habits of mind\ngenerated by slavery.\n\nThe slaveholder, indeed, values himself on his loftiness of spirit. He\nhas a consciousness of dignity, which imposes on himself and others. But\ntruth cannot stoop to this lofty mien. Truth, moral, Christian truth,\ncondemns it, and condemns those who bow to it. Self-respect, founded on\na consciousness of our moral nature and immortal destiny, is, indeed, a\nnoble principle; but this sentiment includes, as a part of itself,\nrespect for all who partake our nature. A consciousness of dignity,\nfounded on the subjection of others to our absolute will, is inhuman and\nunjust. It is time that the teachings of Christ were understood. In\nproportion as a man acquires a lofty bearing from the habit of command\nover wronged and depressed fellow-creatures, so far he casts away true\nhonor, so far he has fallen in the sight of God and Virtue.\n\nI approach a more delicate subject, and one on which I shall not\nenlarge. To own the persons of others, to hold females in slavery, is\nnecessarily fatal to the purity of a people. That unprotected females,\nstripped by their degraded condition of woman's self-respect, should be\nused to minister to other passions in men than the love of gain, is next\nto inevitable. Accordingly, in such a community the reins are given to\nyouthful licentiousness. Youth, every where in perils, is in these\ncircumstances urged to vice with a terrible power. And the evil cannot\nstop at youth. Early licentiousness is fruitful of crime in mature life.\nHow far the obligation to conjugal fidelity, the sacredness of domestic\nties, will be revered amidst such habits, such temptations, such\nfacilities to vice, as are involved in slavery, needs no exposition. So\nterrible is the connexion of crimes! They, who invade the domestic\nrights of others, suffer in their own homes. The household of the slave\nmay be broken up arbitrarily by the master; but he finds his revenge, if\nrevenge he asks, in the blight which the master's unfaithfulness sheds\nover his own domestic joys. A slave-country reeks with licentiousness.\nIt is tainted with a deadlier pestilence than the plague.\n\nBut the worst is not told. As a consequence of criminal connexions, many\na master has children born into slavery. Of these, most, I presume,\nreceive protection, perhaps indulgence, during the life of the fathers;\nbut at their death not a few are left to the chances of a cruel bondage.\nThese cases must have increased, since the difficulties of emancipation\nhave even multiplied. Still more, it is to be feared, that there are\ncases, in which the master puts his own children under the whip of the\noverseer, or else sells them to undergo the miseries of bondage among\nstrangers. I should rejoice to learn that my impressions on this point\nare false. If they be true, then our own country, calling itself\nenlightened and Christian, is defiled with one of the greatest\nenormities on earth. We send missionaries to heathen lands. Among the\npollutions of heathenism I know nothing worse than this. The heathen,\nwho feasts on his country's foe, may hold up his head by the side of the\nChristian who sells his child for gain, sells him to be a slave. God\nforbid that I should charge this crime on a people! But however rarely\nit may occur, it is a fruit of slavery, an exercise of power belonging\nto slavery, and no laws restrain or punish it. Such are the evils which\nspring naturally from the licentiousness generated by slavery.\n\n\nI have now placed before the reader the chief evils of slavery. We are\ntold, however, that these are not without mitigation, that slavery has\nadvantages which do much to counterbalance its wrongs and pains. Not a\nfew are partially reconciled to the institution by the language of\nconfidence in which its benefits are sometimes announced. I shall\ntherefore close this chapter with a very brief consideration of what are\nthought to be the advantages of slavery.\n\nIt is often said, that the slave does less work than the free laborer.\nHe bears a lighter burden than liberty would lay on him. Perhaps this is\ngenerally true; yet when circumstances promise profit to the master from\nthe imposition of excessive labor, the slave is not spared. In the West\nIndies, the terrible waste of life among the overworked cultivators\nrequired large supplies from Africa to keep up the failing population.\nIn this country it is probably true that the slave works less than the\nfree laborer; but it does not therefore follow that his work is lighter.\nFor what is it that lightens toil? It is Hope; it is Love; it is Strong\nMotive. That labor is light, which we do from the heart; to which a\ngreat good quickens us; which is to better our lot. That labor is light,\nwhich is to comfort, adorn, and cheer our homes, to give instruction to\nour children, to solace the declining years of a parent, to give to our\ngrateful and generous sentiments the means of exertion. Great effort\nfrom great motives is the best definition of a happy life. The easiest\nlabor is a burden to him who has no motive for performing it. How\nwearisome is the task imposed by another, and wrongfully imposed? The\nslave cannot easily be made to do a freeman's work; and why? because he\nwants a freeman's spirit, because the spring of labor is impaired within\nhim, because he works as a machine, not a free agent. The compulsion,\nunder which he toils for another, takes from labor its sweetness, makes\nthe daily round of life arid and dull, makes escape from toil the chief\ninterest of life.\n\nWe are farther told that the slave is freed from all care, that he is\nsure of future support, that when old he is not dismissed to the\npoor-house, but fed and sheltered in his own hut. This is true; but it\nis also true that nothing can be gained by violating the great laws and\nessential rights of our nature. The slave, we are told, has no care, his\nfuture is provided for. Yet God created him to provide for the future,\nto take care of his own happiness; and he cannot be freed from this care\nwithout injury to his moral and intellectual life. Why has God given\nforesight and power over the future, but to be used? Is it a blessing to\na rational creature, to be placed in a condition which chains his\nfaculties to the present moment, which leaves nothing before him to\nrouse the intellect or touch the heart? Be it also remembered, that the\nsame provision, which relieves the slave from anxiety, cuts him off from\nhope. The future is not, indeed, haunted by spectres of poverty, nor is\nit brightened by images of joy. It stretches before him sterile,\nmonotonous, expanding into no refreshing verdure, and sending no\ncheering whisper of a better lot.\n\nIt is true that the free laborer may become a pauper; and so may the\nfree rich man, both of the North and the South. Still, our capitalists\nnever dream of flying to slavery as a security against the almshouse.\nFreedom undoubtedly has its perils. It offers nothing to the slothful\nand dissolute. Among a people left to seek their own good in their own\nway, some of all classes fail from vice, some from incapacity, some from\nmisfortune. All classes will furnish members to the body of the poor.\nBut in this country the number is small, and ought constantly to\ndecrease. The evil, however lamentable, is not so remediless and\nspreading as to furnish a motive for reducing half the population to\nchains. Benevolence does much to mitigate it. The best minds are\ninquiring how it may be prevented, diminished, removed. It is giving\nexcitement to a philanthropy which creates out of misfortune new bonds\nof union between man and man.\n\nOur slave-holding brethren, who tell us that the condition of the slave\nis better than that of the free laborer at the North, talk ignorantly\nand rashly. They do not, cannot know, what to us is matter of daily\nobservation, that from the families of our farmers and mechanics have\nsprung our most distinguished men, men who have done most for science,\narts, letters, religion, and freedom; and that the noblest spirits among\nus would have been lost to their country and mankind, had the laboring\nclass here been doomed to slavery. They do not know, what we rejoice to\ntell them, that this class partakes largely of the impulse given to the\nwhole community; that the means of intellectual improvement are\nmultiplying to the laborious as fast as to the opulent; that our most\ndistinguished citizens meet them as brethren, and communicate to them in\npublic discourses their own most important acquisitions. Undoubtedly,\nthe Christian, republican spirit is not working, even here, as it\nshould. The more improved and prosperous classes have not yet learned\nthat it is their great mission to elevate morally and intellectually the\nless advanced classes of the community; but the great truth is more and\nmore recognised, and accordingly a new era may be said to be opening on\nsociety.\n\nIt is said, however, that the slave, if not to be compared to the free\nlaborer at the North, is in a happier condition than the Irish\npeasantry. Let this be granted. Let the security of the peasant's\ndomestic relations, let his church, and his schoolhouse, and his faint\nhope of a better lot pass for nothing. Because Ireland is suffering from\nthe misgovernment and oppression of ages, does it follow that a less\ngrinding oppression is a good? Besides, are not the wrongs of Ireland\nacknowledged? Is not British legislation laboring to restore her\nprosperity? Is it not true, that, whilst the slave's lot admits no\nimportant change, the most enlightened minds are at work to confer on\nthe Irish peasant the blessings of education, of equal laws, of new\nsprings to exertion, of new sources of wealth? Other men, however\nfallen, may be lifted up. An immovable weight presses on the slave.\n\nBut still we are told the slave is gay. He is not as wretched as our\ntheories teach. After his toil, he sings, he dances, he gives no signs\nof an exhausted frame or gloomy spirit. The slave happy! Why, then,\ncontend for Rights? Why follow with beating hearts the struggles of the\npatriot for freedom? Why canonize the martyr to freedom? The slave\nhappy! Then happiness is to be found in giving up the distinctive\nattributes of a man; in darkening intellect and conscience; in quenching\ngenerous sentiments; in servility of spirit; in living under a whip; in\nhaving neither property nor rights; in holding wife and child at\nanother's pleasure; in toiling without hope; in living without an end!\nThe slave, indeed, has his pleasures. His animal nature survives the\ninjury to his rational and moral powers; and every animal has its\nenjoyments. The kindness of Providence allows no human being to be\nwholly divorced from good. The lamb frolics; the dog leaps for joy; the\nbird fills the air with cheerful harmony; and the slave spends his\nholiday in laughter and the dance. Thanks to Him who never leaves\nhimself without witness; who cheers even the desert with spots of\nverdure; and opens a fountain of joy in the most withered heart! It is\nnot possible, however, to contemplate the occasional gayety of the slave\nwithout some mixture of painful thought. He is gay, because he has not\nlearned to think; because he is too fallen to feel his wrongs; because\nhe wants just self-respect. We are grieved by the gayety of the insane.\nThere is a sadness in the gayety of him, whose lightness of heart would\nbe turned to bitterness and indignation, were one ray of light to awaken\nin him the spirit of a man.\n\nThat there are those among the free, who are more wretched than slaves,\nis undoubtedly true; just as there is incomparably greater misery among\nmen than among brutes. The brute never knew the agony of a human spirit\ntorn by remorse or wounded in its love. But would we cease to be human,\nbecause our capacity for suffering increases with the elevation of our\nnature? All blessings may be perverted, and the greatest perverted most.\nWere we to visit a slave-country, undoubtedly the most miserable human\nbeings would be found among the free; for among them the passions have\nwider sweep, and the power they possess may be used to their own ruin.\nLiberty is not a necessity of happiness. It is only a means of good. It\nis a trust which may be abused. Are all such trusts to be cast away? Are\nthey not the greatest gifts of Heaven?\n\nBut the slave, we are told, often manifests affection to his master,\ngrieves at his departure, and welcomes his return. I will not endeavour\nto explain this, by saying that the master's absence places the slave\nunder the overseer. Nor will I object, that the slave's propensity to\nsteal from his master, his need of the whip to urge him to toil, and the\ndread of insurrection which he inspires, are signs of any thing but\nlove. There is, undoubtedly, much more affection in this relation than\ncould be expected. Of all races of men, the African is the mildest and\nmost susceptible of attachment. He loves, where the European would hate.\nHe watches the life of a master, whom the North-American Indian, in like\ncircumstances, would stab to the heart. The African is affectionate. Is\nthis a reason for holding him in chains? We cannot, however, think of\nthis most interesting feature of slavery with unmixed pleasure. It is\nthe curse of slavery, that it can touch nothing which it does not\ndebase. Even love, that sentiment given us by God to be the germ of a\ndivine virtue, becomes in the slave a weakness, almost a degradation.\nHis affections lose much of their beauty and dignity. He ought, indeed,\nto feel benevolence towards his master; but to attach himself to a man\nwho keeps him in the dust and denies him the rights of a man; to be\ngrateful and devoted to one who extorts his toil and debases him into a\nchattel; this has a taint of servility, which makes us grieve whilst we\nadmire. However, we would not diminish the attachment of the slave. He\nis the happier for his generosity. Let him love his master, and let the\nmaster win love by kindness. We only say, let not this manifestation of\na generous nature in the slave be turned against him. Let it not be made\nan answer to an exposition of his wrongs. Let it not be used as a weapon\nfor his perpetual degradation.\n\nBut the slave, we are told, is taught Religion. This is the most\ncheering sound which comes to us from the land of bondage. We are\nrejoiced to learn that any portion of the slaves are instructed in that\ntruth, which gives inward freedom. They hear at least one voice of deep,\ngenuine love, the voice of Christ; and read in his cross what all other\nthings hide from them, the unutterable worth of their spiritual nature.\nThis portion, however, is small. The greater part are still buried in\nheathen ignorance. Besides, Religion, though a great good, can hardly\nexert its full power on the slave. Will it not be taught to make him\nobedient to his master, rather than to raise him to the dignity of a\nman? Is slavery, which tends so proverbially to debase the mind, the\npreparation for spiritual truth? Can the slave comprehend the principle\nof Love, the essential principle of Christianity, when he hears it from\nthe lips of those whose relations to him express injustice and\nselfishness? But suppose him to receive Christianity in its purity, and\nto feel all its power. Is this to reconcile us to slavery? Is a being,\nwho can understand the sublimest truth which has ever entered the human\nmind, who can love and adore God, who can conform himself to the\ncelestial virtue of the Saviour, for whom that Saviour died, to whom\nheaven is opened, whose repentance now gives joy in heaven,--is such a\nbeing to be held as property, driven by force as the brute, and denied\nthe rights of man by a fellow-creature, by a professed disciple of the\njust and merciful Saviour? Has he a religious nature, and dares any one\nhold him as a slave?\n\n\nI have now completed my views of the evils of slavery, and have shown\nhow little they are mitigated by what are thought its advantages. In\nthis whole discussion I have cautiously avoided quoting particular\nexamples of its baneful influences. I have not brought together\naccounts of horrible cruelty which come to us from the South. I have\nconfined myself to the natural tendencies of slavery, to evils bound up\nin its very nature, which, as long as man is man, cannot be separated\nfrom it. That these evils are unmixed or universal, I do not say. There\nare and must be exceptions to them, and more or less of good may often\nbe found in connexion with them. No institution, be it what it may, can\nmake the life of a human being wholly evil, or cut off every means of\nimprovement. God's benevolence triumphs over all the perverseness and\nfolly of man's devices. He sends a cheering beam into the darkest abode.\nThe slave has his hours of exhilaration. His hut occasionally rings with\nthoughtless mirth. Among this class, too, there are and must be,\noccasionally, higher pleasures. God is no respecter of persons; and in\nsome slaves there is a happy nature which no condition can destroy, just\nas among children we find some whom the worst education cannot spoil.\nThe African is so affectionate, imitative, and docile, that in favorable\ncircumstances he catches much that is good; and accordingly the\ninfluence of a wise and kind master will be seen in the very countenance\nand bearing of his slaves. Among this degraded people, there are,\noccasionally, examples of superior intelligence and virtue, showing the\ngroundlessness of the opinion that they are incapable of filling a\nhigher rank than slavery, and showing that human nature is too generous\nand hardy to be wholly destroyed in the most unpropitious state. We also\nwitness in this class, and very often, a superior physical development,\na grace of form and motion, which almost extorts a feeling approaching\nrespect. I mean not to affirm that slavery excludes all good, for human\nlife cannot long endure under the privation of every thing happy and\nimproving. I have spoken of its natural tendencies and results. These\nare wholly and only evil.\n\nI am aware that it will be replied to the views now given of slavery,\nthat persons living at a distance from it cannot comprehend it, that its\ntrue character can be learned only from those, who, know it practically,\nand are familiar with its operations. To this I will not reply, that I\nhave seen it near at hand. It is sufficient to reply, that men may lose\nthe power of seeing an object fairly, by being too near as well as by\nbeing too remote. The slaveholder is too familiar with slavery to\nunderstand it. To be educated in injustice, is almost necessarily to be\nblinded by it more or less. To exercise usurped power from birth, is the\nsurest way to look upon it as a right and a good. The slaveholder tells\nus that he only can instruct us about slavery. But suppose that we\nwished to learn the true character of despotism; should we go to the\npalace and take the despot as our teacher? Should we pay much heed to\nhis assurance, that he alone could understand the character of absolute\npower, and that we in a republic could know nothing of the condition of\nmen subjected to irresponsible will? The sad influence of slavery, in\ndarkening the mind which is perpetually conversant with it, is disclosed\nto us in the recent attempts made at the South to represent this\ninstitution as a good. Freemen, who would sooner die than resign their\nrights, talk of the happiness of those from whom every right is wrested.\nThey talk of the slave as \"property,\" with the same confidence as if\nthis were the holiest claim. This is one of the mournful effects of\nslavery. It darkens the moral sense of the master. And can men, whose\nposition is so unfavorable to just, impartial judgment, expect us to\nacquiesce in their views?\n\nThere is another reply. If the slave-holding States expect us to admit\ntheir views of this institution, they must allow it to be freely\ndiscussed among themselves. Of what avail is their testimony in favor of\nslavery, when not a tongue is allowed to say a word in its condemnation?\nOf what use is the press, when it can publish only on one side? In the\nslave-holding States freedom of speech is at an end. Whoever should\nexpress among them the sentiments respecting slavery which are\nuniversally adopted through the civilized world, would put his life in\njeopardy, would probably be flayed or hung. On this great subject, which\naffects vitally their peace and prosperity, their moral and political\ninterests, no philanthropist, who has come to the truth, can speak his\nmind. Even the minister of religion, who feels the hostility between\nslavery and Christianity, dares not speak. His calling might not save\nhim from popular rage. Thus slavery avenges itself. It brings the\nmasters under despotism. It takes away that liberty which a freeman\nprizes as life,--liberty of speech. All this, we are told, is necessary,\nand so it may be; but an institution imposing such a necessity cannot be\na good; and one thing is plain; the testimony of men placed under such\nrestraints cannot be too cautiously received. We have better sources of\nknowledge. We have the testimony of ages, and the testimony of the\nunchangeable principles of human nature. These assure us that slavery is\n\"evil, and evil continually.\"\n\nI ought not to close this head, without acknowledging, (what I\ncheerfully do,) that in many cases the kindness of masters does much for\nthe mitigation of slavery. Could it be rendered harmless, the efforts of\nmany would not be spared to make it so. It is evil, not through any\nsingular corruption in the slaveholder, but from its own nature, and in\nspite of all efforts to make it a good. It is evil, not because it\nexists on this or that spot. Were it planted at the North, it would\nbecome a greater curse, more hardening and depraving, than it now proves\nunder a milder sky. It is not of the particular form of slavery in this\ncountry that I complain. I am willing to allow that it is here\ncomparatively mild; that on many plantations no abuses exist but such as\nare inseparable from its very nature. The mischief lies in its very\nnature. \"Men do not gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles.\" An\ninstitution so founded in wrong, so imbued with injustice, cannot be\nmade a good. It cannot like other institutions be perpetuated by being\nimproved. To improve it, is to prepare the way for its subversion. Every\nmelioration of the slave's lot is a step toward freedom. Slavery is thus\nradically, essentially evil. Every good man should earnestly pray and\nuse every virtuous influence, that an institution so blighting to human\nnature may be brought to an end.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nSCRIPTURE.\n\n\nAttempts are often made to support slavery by the authority of\nRevelation. \"Slavery,\" it is said, \"is allowed in the Old Testament, and\nnot condemned in the New. Paul commands slaves to obey. He commands\nmasters, not to release their slaves, but to treat them justly.\nTherefore slavery is right, is sanctified by God's Word.\" In this age of\nthe world, and amidst the light which has been thrown on the true\ninterpretation of the Scriptures, such reasoning hardly deserves notice.\nA few words only will be offered in reply.\n\nThis reasoning proves too much. If usages sanctioned in the Old\nTestament and not forbidden in the New are right, then our moral code\nwill undergo a sad deterioration. Polygamy was allowed to the\nIsraelites, was the practice of the holiest men, and was common and\nlicensed in the age of the Apostles. But the Apostles no where condemn\nit, nor was the renunciation of it made an essential condition of\nadmission into the Christian church. It is true that in one passage\nChrist has condemned it by implication. But is not slavery condemned by\nstronger implication in the many passages, which make the new religion\nto consist in serving one another, and in doing to others what we would\nthat they should do to ourselves? Why may not Scripture be used to stock\nour houses with wives as well as with slaves?\n\nAgain. Paul is said to sanction slavery. Let us now ask. What was\nslavery in the age of Paul? It was the slavery, not so much of black as\nof white men, not merely of barbarians but of Greeks, not merely of the\nignorant and debased, but of the virtuous, educated, and refined. Piracy\nand conquest were the chief means of supplying the slave-market, and\nthey heeded neither character nor condition. Sometimes the greater part\nof the population of a captured city was sold into bondage, sometimes\nthe whole, as in the case of Jerusalem. Noble and royal families, the\nrich and great, the learned and powerful, the philosopher and poet, the\nwisest and best men, were condemned to the chain. Such was ancient\nslavery. And this we are told is allowed and confirmed by the Word of\nGod! Had Napoleon, on capturing Berlin or Vienna, doomed most or the\nwhole of their inhabitants to bondage; had he seized on venerable\nmatrons, the mothers of illustrious men, who were reposing after\nvirtuous lives in the bosom of grateful families; had he seized on the\ndelicate, refined, beautiful young woman, whose education had prepared\nher to grace the sphere in which God had placed her, whose plighted love\nhad opened before her visions of bliss, and over all whose prospects the\nfreshest hopes and most glowing imaginations of early life were\nbreathed; had he seized on the minister of religion, the man of science,\nthe man of genius, the sage, the guides of the world; had he scattered\nthese through the slave-markets of the world, and transferred them to\nthe highest bidders at public auction, the men to be converted into\ninstruments of slavish toil, the women into instruments of lust, and\nboth to endure whatever indignities and tortures absolute power can\ninflict; we should then have had a picture in the present age of slavery\nas it existed in the time of Paul. Such slavery we are told was\nsanctioned by the Apostle! Such we are told he pronounced to be morally\nright! Had Napoleon sent some cargoes of these victims to these shores,\nwe might have bought them, and degraded the noblest beings to our lowest\nuses, and might have cited Paul to testify to our innocence! Were an\ninfidel to bring this charge against the Apostle, we should say that he\nwas laboring in his vocation; but that a professed Christian should so\ninsult this sainted philanthropist, this martyr to truth and\nbenevolence, is a sad proof of the power of slavery to blind its\nsupporters to the plainest truth.\n\nSlavery, in the age of the Apostle, had so penetrated society, was so\nintimately interwoven with it, and the materials of servile war were so\nabundant, that a religion, preaching freedom to its victims, would have\nshaken the social fabric to its foundation, and would have armed against\nitself the whole power of the State. Of consequence Paul did not assail\nit. He satisfied himself with spreading principles, which, however\nslowly, could not but work its destruction. He commanded Philemon to\nreceive his fugitive slave, Onesimus, \"not as a slave, but above a\nslave, as a brother beloved;\" and he commanded masters to give to their\nslaves that which was \"_just_ and _equal_;\" thus asserting for the slave\nthe rights of a Christian and a Man; and how, in his circumstances, he\ncould have done more for the subversion of slavery, I do not see.\n\nLet me offer another remark. The perversion of Scripture to the support\nof slavery is singularly inexcusable in this country. Paul not only\ncommanded slaves to obey their masters. He delivered these precepts:\n\"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power\nbut of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever,\ntherefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they\nthat resist shall receive to themselves damnation.\" This passage was\nwritten in the time of Nero. It teaches passive obedience to despotism\nmore strongly than any text teaches the lawfulness of slavery.\nAccordingly, it has been quoted for ages by the supporters of arbitrary\npower, and made the stronghold of tyranny. Did our fathers acquiesce in\nthe most obvious interpretation of this text? Because the first\nChristians were taught to obey despotic rule, did our fathers feel as if\nChristianity had stript men of their rights? Did they argue that tyranny\nwas to be excused, because forcible opposition to it is in most cases\nwrong? Did they argue that absolute power ceases to be unjust, because,\nas a general rule, it is the duty of subjects to obey? Did they infer\nthat bad institutions ought to be perpetual, because the subversion of\nthem by force will almost always inflict greater evil than it removes?\nNo; they were wiser interpreters of God's Word. They believed that\ndespotism was a wrong, notwithstanding the general obligation upon its\nsubjects to obey; and that whenever a whole people should so feel the\nwrong as to demand its removal, the time for removing it had fully come.\nSuch is the school in which we here have been brought up. To us, it is\nno mean proof of the divine original of Christianity, that it teaches\nhuman brotherhood and favors human rights; and yet, on the ground of two\nor three passages, which admit different constructions, we make\nChristianity the minister of slavery, the forger of chains for those\nwhom it came to make free.\n\nIt is a plain rule of scriptural criticism, that particular texts\nshould be interpreted according to the general tenor and spirit of\nChristianity. And what is the general, the perpetual teaching of\nChristianity in regard to social duty? \"All things whatsoever ye would\nthat men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law\nand the prophets.\" Now does not every man feel that nothing, nothing,\ncould induce him to consent to be a slave? Does he not feel, that, if\nreduced to this abject lot, his whole nature, his reason, conscience,\naffections, would cry out against it as the greatest of calamities and\nwrongs? Can he pretend, then, that in holding others in bondage he does\nto his neighbour what he would that his neighbour should do to him? Of\nwhat avail are a few texts, which were designed for local and temporary\nuse, when urged against the vital, essential spirit, and the plainest\nprecepts of our religion?\n\nI close this section with a few extracts from a recent work of one of\nour most distinguished writers; not that I think additional arguments\nnecessary, but because the authority of Scripture is more successfully\nused than any thing else to reconcile good minds to slavery.\n\n\"The very course, which the Gospel takes on this subject, seems to have\nbeen the only one that could have been taken in order to effect the\nuniversal abolition of slavery. The gospel was designed, not for one\nrace or for one time, but for all men and for all times. It looked not\nat the abolition of this form of evil for that age alone, but for its\nuniversal abolition. Hence the important object of its author was to\ngain it a lodgment in every part of the known world; so that, by its\nuniversal diffusion among all classes of society, it might quietly and\npeacefully modify and subdue the evil passions of men; and thus, without\nviolence work a revolution in the whole mass of mankind. In this manner\nalone could its object, a universal moral revolution, have been\naccomplished. For if it had forbidden the _evil_ instead of subverting\nthe _principle_, if it had proclaimed the unlawfulness of slavery, and\ntaught slaves to _resist_ the oppression of their masters, it would\ninstantly have arrayed the two parties in deadly hostility throughout\nthe civilized world; its announcement would have been the signal of\nservile war; and the very name of the Christian religion would have been\nforgotten amidst the agitations of universal bloodshed. The fact, under\nthese circumstances, that the Gospel does not forbid slavery, affords no\nreason to suppose that it does not mean to prohibit it; much less does\nit afford ground for belief that Jesus Christ intended to authorize it.\"\n\n\"It is important to remember that two grounds of moral obligation are\ndistinctly recognised in the Gospel. The first is our duty to man as\nman; that is, on the ground of the relation which men sustain to each\nother; the second is our duty to man as a creature of God; that is, on\nthe relation which we all sustain to God.--Now, it is to be observed,\nthat it is precisely upon this latter ground that the slave is commanded\nto obey his master. It is never urged like the duty to obedience to\nparents, because it is right, but because the cultivation of meekness\nand forbearance under injury will be well pleasing unto God.--The manner\nin which the duty of servants or slaves is inculcated, therefore,\naffords no ground for the assertion that the Gospel authorizes one man\nto hold another in bondage, any more than the command to honor the king,\nwhen that king was Nero, authorized the tyranny of the emperor; or than\nthe command to turn the other cheek, when one is smitten, justifies the\ninfliction of violence by an injurious man.\"[1]\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[1] Wayland's Elements of Moral Science, pages 225-6. The\ndiscussion of Slavery, in the chapter from which these extracts are\nmade, is well worthy attention.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nMEANS OF REMOVING SLAVERY.\n\n\nHow slavery shall be removed, is a question for the slaveholder, and one\nwhich he alone can fully answer. He alone has an intimate knowledge of\nthe character and habits of the slaves, to which the means of\nemancipation should be carefully adapted. General views and principles\nmay and should be suggested at a distance; but the mode of applying them\ncan be understood only by those who dwell on the spot where the evil\nexists. To the slaveholder belongs the duty of settling and employing\nthe best methods of liberation, and to no other. We have no right of\ninterference, nor do we desire it. We hold that the dangers of\nemancipation, if such there are, would be indefinitely increased, were\nthe boon to come to the slave from a foreign hand, were he to see it\nforced on the master by a foreign power. It is of the highest\nimportance, that slavery should be succeeded by a friendly relation\nbetween master and slave; and to produce this, the latter must see in\nthe former his benefactor and deliverer. His liberty must seem to him\nan expression of benevolence and regard for his rights. He must put\nconfidence in his superiors, and look to them cheerfully and gratefully\nfor counsel and aid. Let him feel, that liberty has been wrung from an\nunwilling master, who would willingly replace the chain, and jealousy,\nvindictiveness, and hatred would spring up, to blight the innocence and\nhappiness of his new freedom, and to make it a peril to himself and all\naround him. I believe, indeed, that emancipation, though so bestowed,\nwould be better than everlasting bondage; but the responsibility of so\nconferring it is one that none of us are anxious to assume.\n\nWe cannot but fear much from the experiment now in progress in the West\nIndies, on account of its being the work of a foreign hand. The\nplanters, especially of Jamaica, have opposed the mother-country with a\npertinaciousness bordering on insanity; have done much to exasperate the\nslaves, whose freedom they could not prevent; have done nothing to\nprepare them for liberty; have met them with gloom on their\ncountenances, and with evil auguries on their lips; have taught them to\nlook abroad for relief, and to see in their masters only obstructions to\nthe amelioration of their lot. It is possible that under all these\nobstacles emancipation may succeed. God grant it success! If it fail,\nthe planter will have brought the ruin very much on himself. Policy, as\nwell as duty, so plainly taught him to take into his own hands the work\nwhich a superior power had begun, to spare no effort, no expense, for\nbinding to him by new ties those who were to throw off their former\nchains, that we know not how to account for his conduct, but by\nsupposing that his unhappy position as a slaveholder had robbed him of\nhis reason, as well as blunted his moral sense.\n\nIn this country no power but that of the slaveholding States can remove\nthe evil, and none of us are anxious to take the office from their\nhands. They alone can do it safely. They alone can determine and apply\nthe true and sure means of emancipation. That such means exist I cannot\ndoubt; for emancipation has already been carried through successfully in\nother countries; and even were there no precedent, I should be sure,\nthat, under God's benevolent and righteous government, there could not\nbe a necessity for holding human beings in perpetual bondage. This\nfaith, however, is not universal. Many, when they hear of the evils of\nslavery, say, \"It is bad, but remediless. There are no means of relief.\"\nThey say, in a despairing tone, \"Give us your plan;\" and justify their\nindifference to emancipation, by what they call its hopelessness. This\nstate of mind has induced me to offer a few remarks on the means of\nremoving slavery; not that I suppose, that an individual so distant can\ndo the work to which the whole intellect and benevolence of the South\nshould be summoned, but that I may suggest a few principles, which I\nthink would insure a happy result to the benevolent enterprise, and that\nI may remove the incredulity of which I have complained.\n\nWhat, then, is to be done for the removal of slavery? In the first\nplace, the slaveholders should solemnly disclaim the right of property\nin human beings. The great principle, that man cannot belong to man,\nshould be distinctly, solemnly recognised. The slave should be\nacknowledged as a partaker of a common nature, as having the essential\nrights of humanity. This great truth lies at the foundation of every\nwise plan for his relief. The cordial admission of it would give a\nconsciousness of dignity, of grandeur, to efforts for emancipation.\nThere is, indeed, a grandeur in the idea of raising more than two\nmillions of human beings to the enjoyment of human rights, to the\nblessings of Christian civilization, to the means of indefinite\nimprovement. The slaveholding States are called to a nobler work of\nbenevolence than is committed to any other communities. They should\ncomprehend its dignity. This they cannot do, till the slave is truly,\nsincerely, with the mind and heart, recognised as a Man, till be ceases\nto be regarded as Property.\n\nIt may be asked, whether, in calling the slaveholding States to abolish\nproperty in the slave, I intend that he should be immediately set free\nfrom all his present restraints. By no means. Nothing is farther from my\nthoughts. The slave cannot rightfully and should not be owned by the\nIndividual. But, like every other citizen, he belongs to the Community,\nhe is subject to the community, and the community has a right and is\nbound to continue all such restraints, as its own safety and the\nwell-being of the slave demand. It would be cruelty, not kindness, to\nthe latter to give him a freedom, which he is unprepared to understand\nor enjoy. It would be cruelty to strike the fetters from a man, whose\nfirst steps would infallibly lead him to a precipice. The slave should\nnot have an owner, but he should have a guardian. He needs authority, to\nsupply the lack of that discretion which he has not yet attained; but it\nshould be the authority of a friend; an official authority, conferred by\nthe state, and for which there should be responsibleness to the state,\nan authority especially designed to prepare its subjects for personal\nfreedom. The slave should not, in the first instance, be allowed to\nwander at his will beyond the plantation on which he toils; and if he\ncannot be induced to work by rational and natural motives, he should be\nobliged to labor; on the same principles on which the vagrant in other\ncommunities is confined and compelled to earn his bread. The gift of\nliberty would be a mere name, and worse than nominal, were he to be let\nloose on society under circumstances driving him to crimes, for which he\nwould be condemned to severer bondage than he had escaped. Many\nrestraints must be continued; but continued, not because the colored\nrace are property, not because they are bound to live and toil for an\nowner, but solely and wholly because their own innocence, security, and\neducation, and the public order and peace, require them, during the\npresent incapacity, to be restrained. It should be remembered, that this\nincapacity is not their fault, but their misfortune; that not they, but\nthe community, are responsible for it; and that the community cannot\nwithout crime profit by its own wrong. If the government should make any\ndistinctions among the citizens, it should be in behalf of the injured.\nInstead of urging the past existence of slavery, and the incapacity\nwhich it has induced, as apologies or reasons for continuing the yoke,\nthe community should find in these very circumstances new obligations to\neffort for the wronged.\n\nThere is but one weighty argument against immediate emancipation,\nnamely, that the slave would not support himself and his children by\nhonest industry; that, having always worked on compulsion, he will not\nwork without it; that, having always labored from another's will, he\nwill not labor from his own; that there is no spring of exertion in his\nown mind; that he is unused to forethought, providence, and self-denial,\nand the responsibilities of domestic life; that freedom would produce\nidleness; idleness, want; want, crime; and that crime, when it should\nbecome the habit of numbers, would bring misery, perhaps ruin, not only\non the offenders, but the state. Here lies the strength of the argument\nfor continuing present restraint. Give the slaves disposition and power\nto support themselves and their families by honest industry, and\ncomplete emancipation should not be delayed one hour.\n\nThe great step, then, towards the removal of slavery is to prepare the\nslaves for self-support. And this work seems attended with no peculiar\ndifficulty. The colored man is not a savage, to whom toil is torture,\nwho has centred every idea of happiness and dignity in a wild freedom,\nwho must exchange the boundless forest for a narrow plantation, and bend\nhis proud neck to an unknown yoke. Labor was his first lesson, and he\nhas been repeating it all his life. Can it be a hard task to teach him\nto labor for himself, to work from impulses in his own breast?\n\nMuch may be done at once to throw the slave on himself, to accustom him\nto work for his own and his family's support, to awaken forethought, and\nstrengthen the habit of providing for the future. On every plantation\nthere are slaves, who would do more for wages than from fear of\npunishment. There are those, who, if entrusted with a piece of ground,\nwould support themselves and pay a rent in kind. There are those, who,\nif moderate task-work were given them, would gain their whole\nsubsistence in their own time. Now every such man ought to be committed\nvery much to himself. It is a crime to subject to the whip a man who can\nbe made to toil from rational and honorable motives. This partial\nintroduction of freedom would form a superior class among the slaves,\nwhose example would have immense moral power on those who needed\ncompulsion. The industrious and thriving would give an impulse to the\nwhole race. It is important that the property, thus earned by the slave,\nshould be made as sacred as that of any other member of the community,\nand for this end he should be enabled to obtain redress of wrongs. In\ncase of being injured by his master in this or in any respect, he should\neither be set free, or, if unprepared for liberty, should be transferred\nto another guardian.\n\nAs another means of raising the slave and fitting him to act from higher\nmotives than compulsion, a system of bounties and rewards should be\nintroduced. New privileges, increased indulgences, honorable\ndistinctions, expressions of respect, should be awarded to the honest\nand industrious. No people are more alive to commendation and honorable\ndistinction than the colored race. Prizes for good conduct, adapted to\ntheir tastes and character, might in a good degree supersede the lash.\nTheir love of ornament might be turned to a good account. The object is\nto bring the slave to labor from other motives than brutal compulsion.\nSuch motives may easily be found, if the end be conscientiously\nproposed.\n\nOne of the great means of elevating the slave, and calling forth his\nenergies, is to place his domestic relations on new ground. This is\nessential. We wish him to labor for his family. Then he must have a\nfamily to labor for. Then his wife and children must be truly his own.\nThen his home must be inviolate. Then the responsibilities of a husband\nand father must be laid on him. It is agreed that he will be fit for\nfreedom, as soon as the support of his family shall become his habit and\nhis happiness; and how can he be brought to this condition, as long as\nhe shall see no sanctity in the marriage-bond, as long as he shall see\nhis wife and his children exposed to indignity and to sale, as long as\ntheir support shall not be entrusted to his care? No measure for\npreparing the slave for liberty can be so effectual as the improvement\nof his domestic lot. The whole power of religion should be employed to\nimpress him with the sacredness and duties of marriage. The chaste and\nthe faithful in this connexion should receive open and strong marks of\nrespect. They should be treated as at the head of their race. The\nhusband and wife, who prove false to each other, and who will not labor\nfor their children, should be visited with the severest rebuke. To\ncreate a sense of domestic obligation, to awaken domestic affections, to\ngive the means of domestic happiness, to fix deeply a conviction of the\nindissolubleness of marriage, and of the solemnity of the parental\nrelation, these are the essential means of raising the slave to a\nvirtuous and happy freedom. All other men labor for their families; and\nso will the slave, if the sentiments of a man be cherished in his\nbreast. We keep him in bondage, because, if free, he will leave his wife\nand children to want; and this bondage break down all the feelings and\nhabits which would incite him to toil for their support. Not a step will\nbe taken towards the preparation of the slave for voluntary labor, till\nhis domestic rights be respected. The violation of these cries to God,\nmore than any other evil of his lot.\n\nTo carry this and all other means of improvement into effect, it is\nessential that the slave should no longer be bought and sold. As long as\nhe is made an article of merchandise, he cannot be fitted for the\noffices of a man. He will have little motive to accumulate comforts and\nornaments in his hut, if at any moment he may be torn from it. While\ntreated as property, he will have little encouragement to accumulate\nproperty, for it cannot be secure. While his wife and children may be\nexposed at auction, and carried, he knows not where, can he be expected\nto feel and act as a husband and father? It is time, that this Christian\nand civilized country should no longer be dishonored by one of the worst\nusages of barbarism. Break up the slave-market, and one of the chief\nobstructions to emancipation will be removed.\n\nLet me only add, that religious instruction should go hand in hand with\nall other means for preparing the slave for freedom. The colored race\nare said to be peculiarly susceptible of the religious sentiment. If\nthis be addressed wisely and powerfully, if the slave be brought to feel\nhis relation and accountableness to God, and to comprehend the spirit of\nChristianity, he is fit for freedom. To accomplish this work, perhaps\npreaching should not be the only or chief instrument. Were the whole\ncolored population to be assembled into Sunday-schools, and were the\nwhites to become their teachers, a new and interesting relation would be\nformed between the races, and an influence be exerted which would do\nmuch to insure safety to the gift of freedom.\n\nIn these remarks I have not intended to say that emancipation is an easy\nwork, the work of a day, a good to be accomplished without sacrifices\nand toil. The colored man is, indeed, singularly susceptible of\nimprovement, in consequence of the strength of his propensities to\nimitation and sympathy. But all great changes in society have their\ndifficulties and inconveniences, and demand patient labor. I ask for no\nprecipitate measures, no violent changes. I ask only that the\nslaveholding States would resolve conscientiously and in good faith to\nremove this greatest of moral evils and wrongs, and would bring\nimmediately to the work all their intelligence, virtue, and power. That\nits difficulties would yield before such energies, who can doubt? Our\nweakness for holy enterprises lies generally in our own reluctant wills.\nBreathe into men a fervent purpose, and you awaken powers before\nunknown. How soon would slavery disappear, were the obligation to remove\nit thoroughly understood and deeply felt! We are told that the\nslaveholding States have recently prospered beyond all precedent. This\naccession to their wealth should be consecrated to the work of\nliberating their fellow-creatures. Not one indulgence should be added to\ntheir modes of life, until the cry of the oppressed has ceased from\ntheir fields, until the rights of every human being are restored.\nGovernment should devote itself to this as its great object.\nLegislatures should meet to free the slave. The church should rest not,\nday or night, till this stain be wiped away. Let the deliberation of\nthe wise, the energies of the active, the wealth of the prosperous, the\nprayers and toils of the good, have Emancipation for their great end.\nLet this be discussed habitually in the family circle, in the conference\nof Christians, in the halls of legislation. Let it mingle with the first\nthoughts of the slaveholder in the morning and the last at night. Who\ncan doubt that to such a spirit God would reveal the means of wise and\npowerful action? There is but one obstacle to emancipation, and that is,\nthe want of that spirit in which Christians and freemen should resolve\nto exterminate slavery.\n\nI have said nothing of colonization among the means of removing slavery,\nbecause I believe that to rely on it for this object would be equivalent\nto a resolution to perpetuate the evil without end. Whatever good it may\ndo abroad, and I trust it will do much, it promises little at home. If\nthe slaveholding States, however, should engage in colonization, with a\nfirm faith in its practicableness, with an energy proportionate to its\ngreatness, and with a sincere regard to the welfare of the colored race,\nI am confident it will not fail from want of sympathy and aid on the\npart of the other States. In truth, these States will not withhold their\nhearts or hands from any well considered plan for the removal of\nslavery.\n\nI have said nothing of the inconveniences and sufferings, which, it is\nurged, will follow emancipation, be it ever so safe; for these, if real,\nweigh nothing against the claims of justice. The most common objection\nis, that a mixture of the two races will be the result. Can this\nobjection be urged in good faith? Can this mixture go on faster or more\ncriminally than at the present moment? Can the slaveholder use the word\n\"amalgamation\" without a blush? Nothing, nothing, can arrest this evil\nbut the raising of the colored woman to a new sense of character, to a\nnew self-respect; and this she cannot gain but by being made free. That\nemancipation will have its evils we know; for all great changes, however\nbeneficial, in the social condition of a people, must interfere with\nsome interests, must bring loss or hardship to one class or another; but\nthe evils of slavery exceed beyond measure the greatest which can attend\nits removal. Let the slaveholder desire earnestly, and in the spirit of\nself-sacrifice, to restore freedom, to secure the rights and the\nhappiness of the slave, and a new light will break upon his path. \"Every\nmountain of difficulty will be brought low, and the rough places be made\nsmooth;\" the means of duty will become clear. But without this spirit,\nno eloquence of man or angel can persuade the slaveholder of the safety\nof emancipation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nABOLITIONISM.\n\n\nThe word ABOLITIONIST in its true meaning comprehends every man who\nfeels himself bound to exert his influence for removing slavery. It is a\nname of honorable import, and was worn, not long ago, by such men as\nFranklin and Jay. Events, however, continually modify terms; and, of\nlate, the word ABOLITIONIST has been narrowed from its original import,\nand restricted to the members of associations formed among us to promote\nImmediate Emancipation. It is not without reluctance that I give up to a\nsmall body a name which every good man ought to bear. But to make myself\nintelligible and to avoid circumlocution, I shall use the word in what\nis now its common acceptation.\n\nI approach this subject unwillingly, because it will be my duty to\ncensure those whom at this moment I would on no account hold up to\npublic displeasure. The persecutions, which the abolitionists have\nsuffered and still suffer, awaken only my grief and indignation, and\nincline me to defend them to the full extent which truth and justice\nwill admit. To the persecuted of whatever name my sympathies are\npledged, and especially to those who are persecuted in a cause\nsubstantially good. I would not for worlds utter a word to justify the\nviolence recently offered to a party, composed very much of men\nblameless in life, and holding the doctrine of nonresistance to\ninjuries; and of women, exemplary in their various relations, and\nacting, however mistakenly, from benevolent and pious impulses.\n\nOf the abolitionists I know very few; but I am bound to say of these,\nthat I honor them for their strength of principle, their sympathy with\ntheir fellow-creatures, and their active goodness. As a party, they are\nsingularly free from political and religious sectarianism, and have been\ndistinguished by the absence of management, calculation, and worldly\nwisdom. That they have ever proposed or desired insurrection or violence\namong the slaves there is no reason to believe. All their principles\nrepel the supposition. It is a remarkable fact, that, though the South\nand the North have been leagued to crush them, though they have been\nwatched by a million of eyes, and though prejudice has been prepared to\ndetect the slightest sign of corrupt communication with the slave, yet\nthis crime has not been fastened on a single member of this body. A few\nindividuals at the South have, indeed, been tortured or murdered by\nenraged multitudes, on the charge of stirring up revolt; but their guilt\nand their connexion with the abolitionists were not, and from the\ncircumstances and the nature of the case could not be, established by\nthose deliberate and regular modes of investigation, which are necessary\nto an impartial judgment. Crimes, detected and hastily punished by the\nmultitude in a moment of feverish suspicion and wild alarm, are\ngenerally creatures of fear and passion. The act which caused the\npresent explosion of popular feeling was the sending of pamphlets by the\nAbolitionists into the slave-holding States. In so doing, they acted\nweakly and without decorum; but they must have been insane, had they\nintended to stir up a servile war; for the pamphlets were sent, not by\nstealth, but by the public mail; and not to the slaves, but to the\nmasters; to men in public life, to men of the greatest influence and\ndistinction. Strange incendiaries these! They flourished their\nfirebrands about at noon-day; and, still more, put them into the hands\nof the very men whom it is said they wished to destroy. They are\naccused, indeed, of having sent some of the pamphlets to the free\ncolored people, and if so, they acted with great and culpable rashness.\nBut the publicity of the whole transaction absolves them of corrupt\ndesign.\n\nThe charge of corrupt design, so vehemently brought against the\nabolitionists, is groundless. The charge of fanaticism I have no desire\nto repel. But in the present age it will not do to deal harshly with the\ncharacters of fanatics. They form the mass of the people. Religion and\nPolitics, Philanthropy and Temperance, Nullification and Antimasonry,\nthe Levelling Spirit of the working man, and the Speculating Spirit of\nthe man of business, all run into fanaticism. This is the type of all\nour epidemics. A sober man who can find? The abolitionists have but\ncaught the fever of the day. That they should have escaped it would have\nbeen a moral miracle.--I offer these remarks simply from a sense of\njustice. Had not a persecution, without parallel in our country, broken\nforth against this society, I should not have spoken a word in their\ndefence. But whilst I have power I owe it to the Persecuted. If they\nhave laid themselves open to the laws, let them suffer. For all their\nerrors and sins let the tribunal of public opinion inflict the full\nmeasure of rebuke which they deserve. I ask no favor for them. But they\nshall not be stripped of the rights of man, of rights guaranteed by the\nlaws and Constitution, without one voice, at least, being raised in\ntheir defence.\n\nThe abolitionists have done wrong, I believe; nor is their wrong to be\nwinked at, because done fanatically or with good intention; for how\nmuch mischief may be wrought with good design! They have fallen into the\ncommon error of enthusiasts, that of exaggerating their object, of\nfeeling as if no evil existed but that which they opposed, and as if no\nguilt could be compared with that of countenancing or upholding it. The\ntone of their newspapers, as far as I have seen them, has often been\nfierce, bitter, and abusive. Their imaginations have fed on pictures of\nthe cruelty to which the slave is exposed, till they have seemed to\nthink that his abode was perpetually resounding with the lash, and\nringing with shrieks of agony; and accordingly, the slaveholder has been\nheld up to execration, as a monster of cruelty. I know that many of\ntheir publications have been calm, well considered, and abounding in\nstrong reasoning. But those, which have been most widely scattered and\nare most adapted to act on the common mind, have had a tone unfriendly\nboth to manners and to the spirit of our religion. I doubt not that the\nmajority of the abolitionists condemn the coarseness and violence of\nwhich I complain. But in this, as in most associations, the many are\nrepresented and controlled by the few, and are made to sanction and\nbecome responsible for what they disapprove.\n\nOne of their errors has been the adoption of \"Immediate Emancipation\" as\ntheir motto. To this they owe not a little of their unpopularity. This\nphrase has contributed much to spread far and wide the belief, that they\nwished immediately to free the slave from all his restraints. They made\nexplanations; but thousands heard the motto who never saw the\nexplanation; and it is certainly unwise for a party to choose a\nwatchword, which can be rescued from misapprehension only by labored\nexplication. It may also be doubted, whether they ever removed the\nobjection which their language so universally raised, whether they have\nnot always recommended a precipitate action, inconsistent with the\nwell-being of the slave and the order of the state.\n\nAnother objection to their movements is, that they have sought to\naccomplish their objects by a system of Agitation; that is, by a system\nof affiliated societies, gathered, and held together, and extended, by\npassionate eloquence. This, in truth, is the common mode by which all\nprojects are now accomplished. The age of individual action is gone.\nTruth cannot be heard unless shouted by a crowd. The weightiest argument\nfor a doctrine is the number which adopts it. Accordingly, to gather and\norganize multitudes is the first care of him who would remove an abuse\nor spread a reform. That the expedient is in some cases useful is not\ndenied. But generally it is a showy, noisy mode of action, appealing to\nthe passions, and driving men into exaggeration; and there are special\nreasons why such a mode should not be employed in regard to slavery; for\nslavery is so to be opposed as not to exasperate the slave, or endanger\nthe community in which he lives. The abolitionists might have formed an\nassociation; but it should have been an elective one. Men of strong\nprinciples, judiciousness, sobriety, should have been carefully sought\nas members. Much good might have been accomplished by the co\u221a\u2202peration of\nsuch philanthropists. Instead of this, the abolitionists sent forth\ntheir orators, some of them transported with fiery zeal, to sound the\nalarm against slavery through the land, to gather together young and\nold, pupils from schools, females hardly arrived at years of discretion,\nthe ignorant, the excitable, the impetuous, and to organize these into\nassociations for the battle against oppression. Very unhappily they\npreached their doctrine to the colored people, and collected these into\ntheir societies. To this mixed and excitable multitude, minute,\nheartrending descriptions of slavery were given in the piercing tones of\npassion; and slaveholders were held up as monsters of cruelty and crime.\nNow to this procedure I must object as unwise, as unfriendly to the\nspirit of Christianity, and as increasing, in a degree, the perils of\nthe slaveholding States. Among the unenlightened, whom they so\npowerfully addressed, was there not reason to fear that some might feel\nthemselves called to subvert this system of wrong, by whatever means?\nFrom the free colored people this danger was particularly to be\napprehended. It is easy for us to place ourselves in their situation.\nSuppose that millions of white men were enslaved, robbed of all their\nrights, in a neighbouring country, and enslaved by a black race, who had\ntorn their ancestors from the shores on which our fathers had lived. How\ndeeply should we feel their wrongs! And would it be wonderful, if, in a\nmoment of passionate excitement, some enthusiast should think it his\nduty to use his communication with his injured brethren for stirring\nthem up to revolt?\n\nSuch is the danger from abolitionism to the slaveholding States. I know\nno other. It is but justice to add, that the principle of nonresistance,\nwhich the abolitionists have connected with their passionate appeals,\nseems to have counteracted the peril. I know not a case in which a\nmember of an anti-slavery society has been proved by legal investigation\nto have tampered with the slaves; and after the strongly pronounced and\nunanimous opinion of the free States on the subject, this danger may be\nconsidered as having passed away. Still a mode of action, requiring\nthese checks, is open to strong objections, and ought to be abandoned.\nHappy will it be, if the disapprobation of friends, as well as of foes,\nshould give to abolitionists a caution and moderation, which would\nsecure the acquiescence of the judicious, and the sympathies of the\nfriends of mankind! Let not a good cause find its chief obstruction in\nits defenders. Let the truth, and the whole truth, be spoken without\npaltering or fear; but so spoken as to convince, not inflame, as to give\nno alarm to the wise, and no needless exasperation to the selfish and\npassionate.\n\nI know it is said, that nothing can be done but by excitement and\nvehemence; that the zeal which dares every thing is the only power to\noppose to long rooted abuses. But it is not true that God has committed\nthe great work of reforming the world to passion. Love is a minister of\ngood only when it gives energy to the intellect, and allies itself with\nwisdom. The abolitionists often speak of Luther's vehemence as a model\nto future reformers. But who, that has read history, does not know that\nLuther's reformation was accompanied by tremendous miseries and crimes,\nand that its progress was soon arrested? and is there not reason to\nfear, that the fierce, bitter, persecuting spirit, which he breathed\ninto the work, not only tarnished its glory, but limited its power? One\ngreat principle, which we should lay down as immovably true, is, that if\na good work cannot be carried on by the calm, self-controlled,\nbenevolent spirit of Christianity, then the time for doing it has not\ncome. God asks not the aid of our vices. He can overrule them for good,\nbut they are not the chosen instruments of human happiness.\n\nWe, indeed, need zeal, fervent zeal, such as will fear no man's power,\nand shrink before no man's frown, such as will sacrifice life to truth\nand freedom. But this energy of will ought to be joined with deliberate\nwisdom and universal charity. It ought to regard the whole, in its\nstrenuous efforts for a part. Above all, it ought to ask first, not what\nmeans are most effectual, but what means are sanctioned by the Moral Law\nand by Christian Love. We ought to think much more of walking in the\nright path than of reaching our end. We should desire virtue more than\nsuccess. If by one wrong deed we could accomplish the liberation of\nmillions, and in no other way, we ought to feel that this good, for\nwhich, perhaps, we had prayed with an agony of desire, was denied us by\nGod, was reserved for other times and other hands. The first object of a\ntrue zeal is, not that we may prosper, but that we may do right, that we\nmay keep ourselves unspotted from every evil thought, word, and deed.\nUnder the inspiration of such a zeal, we shall not find in the greatness\nof an enterprise an apology for intrigue or for violence. We shall not\nneed immediate success to spur us to exertion. We shall not distrust\nGod, because he does not yield to the cry of human impatience. We shall\nnot forsake a good work, because it does not advance with a rapid step.\nFaith in truth, virtue, and Almighty Goodness, will save us alike from\nrashness and despair.\n\nIn lamenting the adoption by the abolitionists of the system of\nagitation or extensive excitement, I do not mean to condemn this mode of\naction as only evil. There are cases to which it is adapted; and, in\ngeneral, the impulse which it gives is better than the selfish, sluggish\nindifference to good objects, into which the multitude so generally\nfall. But it must not supersede or be compared with Individual action.\nThe enthusiasm of the Individual in a good cause is a mighty power. The\nforced, artificially excited enthusiasm of a multitude, kept together by\nan organization which makes them the instruments of a few leading minds,\nworks superficially, and often injuriously. I fear that the native,\nnoble-minded enthusiast often loses that single-heartedness which is his\ngreatest power, when once he strives to avail himself of the machinery\nof associations. The true power of a Reformer lies in speaking truth\npurely from his own soul, without changing one tone for the purpose of\nmanaging or enlarging a party. Truth, to be powerful, must speak in her\nown words, and in no other's, must come forth with the authority and\nspontaneous energy of inspiration from the depths of the soul. It is the\nvoice of the Individual giving utterance to the irrepressible\nconviction of his own thoroughly moved spirit, and not the shout of a\ncrowd, which carries truth far into other souls, and insures it a stable\nempire on earth. For want of this, most which is now done is done\nsuperficially. The progress of society depends chiefly on the honest\ninquiry of the Individual into the particular work ordained him by God,\nand on his simplicity in following out his convictions. This moral\nindependence is mightier, as well as holier, than the practice of\ngetting warm in crowds, and of waiting for an impulse from multitudes.\nThe moment a man parts with moral independence; the moment he judges of\nduty, not from the inward voice, but from the interests and will of a\nparty; the moment he commits himself to a leader or a body, and winks at\nevil, because division would hurt the cause; the moment he shakes off\nhis particular responsibility, because he is but one of a thousand or\nmillion by whom the evil is done; that moment he parts with his moral\npower. He is shorn of the energy of singlehearted faith in the Right and\nthe True. He hopes from man's policy what nothing but loyalty to God can\naccomplish. He substitutes coarse weapons forged by man's wisdom for\ncelestial power.\n\nThe adoption of the common system of agitation by the abolitionists has\nproved signally unsuccessful. From the beginning it created alarm in the\nconsiderate, and strengthened the sympathies of the free States with\nthe slaveholder. It made converts of a few individuals, but alienated\nmultitudes. Its influence at the South has been evil without mixture. It\nhas stirred up bitter passions and a fierce fanaticism, which have shut\nevery ear and every heart against its arguments and persuasions. These\neffects are the more to be deplored, because the hope of freedom to the\nslave lies chiefly in the dispositions of his master. The abolitionist\nproposed, indeed, to convert the slaveholders; and for this end he\napproached them with vituperation, and exhausted on them the vocabulary\nof abuse! And he has reaped as he sowed. His vehement pleadings for the\nslaves have been answered by wilder ones from the slaveholder; and, what\nis worse, deliberate defences of slavery have been sent forth, in the\nspirit of the dark ages, and in defiance of the moral convictions and\nfeelings of the Christian and civilized world. Thus, with good purposes,\nnothing seems to have been gained. Perhaps (though I am anxious to repel\nthe thought) something has been lost to the cause of freedom and\nhumanity.\n\nI earnestly desire that abolitionism may lay aside the form of public\nagitation, and seek its end by wiser and milder means. I desire as\nearnestly, and more earnestly, that it may not be put down by lawless\nforce. There is a worse evil than abolitionism, and that is the\nsuppression of it by lawless force. No evil greater than this can exist\nin the State, and this is never needed. Be it granted, that it is the\ndesign, or direct, palpable, tendency of abolitionism, to stir up\ninsurrection at the South, and that no existing laws can meet the\nexigency. It is the solemn duty of the Chief Magistrate of the State to\nassemble immediately the legislative bodies, and their duty immediately\nto apply the remedy of Law. Let every friend of freedom, let every good\nman lift up his voice against mobs. Through these lies our road to\ntyranny. It is these which have spread the opinion, so common at the\nSouth, that the free States cannot long sustain republican institutions.\nNo man seems awake to their inconsistency with liberty. Our whole\nphraseology is in fault. Mobs call themselves, and are called, the\nPeople, when in truth they assail immediately the sovereignty of the\nPeople, involve the guilt of usurpation and rebellion against the\nPeople. It is the fundamental principle of our institutions, that the\nPeople is Sovereign. But by the People we mean not an individual here\nand there, not a knot of twenty or a hundred or a thousand individuals\nin this or that spot, but the Community formed into a body politic, and\nexpressing and executing its will through regularly appointed organs.\nThere is but one expression of the will or Sovereignty of the People,\nand this is Law. Law is the voice, the living act of the People. It has\nno other. When an individual suspends the operation of Law, resists its\nestablished ministers, and forcibly substitutes for it his own will, he\nis a usurper and rebel. The same guilt attaches to a combination of\nindividuals. These, whether many or few, in forcibly superseding public\nlaw and establishing their own, rise up against the People, as truly as\na single usurper. The People should assert its insulted majesty, its\nmenaced sovereignty, in one case as decidedly as in the other. The\ndifference between the mob and the individual is, that the usurpation of\nthe latter has a permanence not easily given to the tumultuary movements\nof the former. The distinction is a weighty one. Little importance is\ndue to sudden bursts of the populace, because they so soon pass away.\nBut when mobs are organized, as in the French Revolution, or when they\nare deliberately resolved on and systematically resorted to, as the\nmeans of putting down an odious party, they lose this apology. A\nconspiracy exists against the Sovereignty of the People, and ought to be\nsuppressed, as among the chief evils of the state.\n\nIn this part of the country our abhorrence of mobs is lessened by the\nfact, that they were thought to do good service in the beginning of the\nRevolution. They probably were useful then; and why? The work of that\nday was Revolution. To subvert a government was the fearful task to\nwhich our fathers thought themselves summoned. Their duty they believed\nwas Insurrection. In such a work mobs had their place. The government of\nthe State was in the hands of its foes. The People could not use the\nregular organs of administration, for these were held and employed by\nthe power which they wished to crush. Violent, irregular efforts\nbelonged to that day of convulsion. To resist and subvert institutions\nis the very work of mobs; and when these institutions are popular, when\ntheir sole end is to express and execute the will of the People, then\nmobs are rebellion against the People, and as such should be understood\nand suppressed. A people is never more insulted than when a mob takes\nits name. Abolition must not be put down by lawless force. The attempt\nso to destroy it ought to fail. Such attempts place abolitionism on a\nnew ground. They make it, not the cause of a few enthusiasts, but the\ncause of freedom. They identify it with all our rights and popular\ninstitutions. If the Constitution and the laws cannot put it down, it\nmust stand; and he who attempts its overthrow by lawless force is a\nrebel and usurper. The Supremacy of Law and the Sovereignty of the\nPeople are one and indivisible. To touch the one is to violate the\nother. This should be laid down as a first principle, an axiom, a\nfundamental article of faith which it must be heresy to question. A\nnewspaper, which openly or by inuendoes excites a mob, should be\nregarded as sounding the tocsin of insurrection. On this subject the\npublic mind slumbers, and needs to be awakened, lest it sleep the sleep\nof death.\n\nHow obvious is it, that pretexts for mobs will never be wanting, if this\ndisorganizing mode of redressing evils be in any case allowed! We all\nrecollect, that when a recent attempt was made on the life of the\nPresident of the United States, the cry broke forth from his friends,\n\"that the assassin was instigated by the continual abuse poured forth on\nthis distinguished man, and especially by the violent speeches uttered\ndaily in the Senate of the United States.\" Suppose, now, that his\nadherents, to save the Chief Magistrate from murder, and to guard his\nconstitutional advisers, had formed themselves into mobs, to scatter the\nmeetings of his opponents. And suppose that they had resolved to put to\nsilence the legislators, who, it was said, had abused their freedom of\nspeech to blacken the character and put in peril the life of the Chief\nMagistrate. Would they not have had a better pretext than mobs against\nabolition? Was not assassination attempted? Had not the President\nreceived letters threatening his life unless he would change his\nmeasures? Can a year or a month pass, which will not afford equally\ngrave reasons for insurrections of the populace? A system of mobs and a\nfree government cannot stand together. The men who incite the former,\nand especially those who organize them, are among the worst enemies of\nthe state. Of their motives I do not speak. They may think themselves\ndoing service to their country, for there is no limit to the delusions\nof the times. I speak only of the nature and tendency of their actions.\nThey should be suppressed at once by law, and by the moral sentiment of\nan insulted people.\n\nIn addition to all other reasons, the honor of our nation, and the cause\nof free institutions should plead with us to defend the laws from\ninsult, and social order from subversion. The moral influence and\nreputation of our country are fast declining abroad. A letter, recently\nreceived from one of the most distinguished men of the continent of\nEurope, expresses the universal feeling on the other side of the ocean.\nAfter speaking of the late encroachments on liberty in France, he says,\n\"On your side of the Atlantic, you contribute, also, to put in peril the\ncause of liberty. We did take pleasure in thinking that there was at\nleast in the New World a country, where liberty was well understood,\nwhere all rights were guarantied, where the people was proving itself\nwise and virtuous. For some time past, the news we receive from America\nis discouraging. In all your large cities we see mobs after mobs, and\nall directed to an odious purpose. When we speak of liberty, its enemies\nreply to us by _pointing to America_.\" The persecuted abolitionists have\nthe sympathies of the civilized world. The country which persecutes them\nis covering itself with disgrace, and filling the hearts of the friends\nof freedom with fear and gloom. Already despotism is beginning to\nrejoice in the fulfilment of its prophecies, in our prostrated laws and\ndying liberties. Liberty is, indeed, threatened with death in a country,\nwhere any class of men are stripped with impunity of their\nconstitutional rights. All rights feel the blow. A community, giving up\nany of its citizens to oppression and violence, invites the chains which\nit suffers others to wear.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nDUTIES.\n\n\nA few words remain to be spoken in relation to the duties of the Free\nStates. These need to feel the responsibilities and dangers of their\npresent position. The country is approaching a crisis on the greatest\nquestion which can be proposed to it, a question not of profit or loss,\nof tariffs or banks, or any temporary interests, but a question\ninvolving the First Principles of freedom, morals, and religion. Yet who\nseems to be awake to the solemnity of the present moment? Who seems to\nbe settling for himself the great fundamental truths, by which private\nefforts and public measures are to be determined?\n\nThe North has duties to perform towards the South and towards itself.\nLet it resolve to perform them faithfully, impartially; asking first for\nthe Right, and putting entire confidence in Well-doing. The North is\nbound to suppress all attempts of its citizens, should such be\nthreatened, to excite insurrection at the South, all attempts to tamper\nwith and to dispose to violence the minds of the slaves. The severest\nlaws which consist with civilization may justly be resorted to for this\nend, and they should be strictly enforced. I believe, indeed, that there\nis no special need for new legislation on the subject. I believe that\nthere was never a moment, when the slaveholding States had so little to\napprehend from the free, when the moral feeling of the community in\nregard to the crime of instigating revolt was so universal, thorough,\nand inflexible, as at the present moment. Still, if the South needs\nother demonstrations than it now has of the moral and friendly spirit\nwhich in this respect pervades the North, let them be given. Still more,\nit is the duty of the free States to act by opinion, where they cannot\nact by law, to discountenance a system of agitation, on the subject of\nslavery, to frown on passionate appeals to the ignorant, and on\nindiscriminate and inflammatory vituperation of the slaveholder. This\nobligation, also, has been and will be fulfilled. There was never a\nstronger feeling of responsibility in this particular than at the\npresent moment.\n\nThere are, however, other duties of the free States, to which they _may_\nprove false, and which they are too willing to forget. They are bound,\nnot in their public, but individual capacities, to use every virtuous\ninfluence for the abolition of slavery. They are bound to encourage that\nmanly, moral, religious discussion of it, through which strength will\nbe given to the continually increasing opinion of the civilized and\nChristian world in favor of personal freedom. They are bound to seek and\nhold the truth in regard to human rights, to be faithful to their\nprinciples in conversation and conduct, never, never to surrender them\nto private interest, convenience, flattery, or fear.\n\nThe duty of being true to our principles is not easily to be performed.\nAt this moment an immense pressure is driving the North from its true\nground. God save it from imbecility, from treachery to freedom and\nvirtue! I have certainly no feelings but those of good-will towards the\nSouth; but I speak the universal sentiment of this part of the country,\nwhen I say, that the tone which the South has often assumed towards the\nNorth has been that of a superior, a tone unconsciously borrowed from\nthe habit of command, to which it is unhappily accustomed by the form of\nits society. I must add, that this high bearing of the South has not\nalways been met by a just consciousness of equality, a just self-respect\nat the North. The causes I will not try to explain. The effect I fear is\nnot to be denied. It is said, that those, who have represented the North\nin Congress, have not always represented its dignity, its honor; that\nthey have not always stood erect before the lofty bearing of the South.\nHere lies our danger. The North will undoubtedly be just to the South.\nIt must also be just to itself. This is not the time for sycophancy, for\nservility, for compromise of principle, for forgetfulness of our rights.\nIt is the time to manifest the spirit of Men, a spirit which prizes,\nmore than life, the principles of liberty, of justice, of humanity, of\npure morals, of pure religion.\n\nLet it not be thought that I would recommend to the North, what in some\nparts of our country is called \"Chivalry,\" a spirit of which the\nduelling pistol is the best emblem, and which settles controversies with\nblood. A Christian and civilized man cannot but be struck with the\napproach to barbarism, with the insensibility to true greatness, with\nthe incapacity of comprehending the divine virtues of Jesus Christ,\nwhich mark what is called \"chivalry.\" I ask not the man of the North to\nborrow it from any part of the country. But I do ask him to stand in the\npresence of this \"chivalry\" with the dignity of moral courage and moral\nindependence. Let him, at the same moment, remember the courtesy and\ndeference due to the differing opinions of others, and the sincerity and\nfirmness due to his own. Let him understand the lofty position which he\nholds on the subject of slavery, and never descend from it for the\npurpose of soothing prejudice or disarming passion. Let him respect the\nsafety of the South, and still manifest his inflexible adherence to the\ncause of human rights and personal freedom.\n\nOn this point I must insist, because I see the North giving way to the\nvehemence of the South. In some, perhaps many, of our recent\n\"Resolutions,\" a spirit has been manifested, at which, if not we, our\nchildren will blush. Not long ago there were rumors, that some of our\ncitizens wished to suppress by law all discussion, all expression of\nopinion on slavery, and to send to the South such members of our\ncommunity as might be claimed as instigators of insurrection. Such\nencroachments on rights could not, of course, be endured. We are not yet\nso fallen. Some echoes of the old eloquence of liberty still come down\nto us from our fathers. Some inspirations of heroism and freedom still\nissue from the consecrated walls of Faneuil Hall. Were we to yield to\nsuch encroachments, would not the soil of New England, so long trodden\nby freemen, heave and quake under the steps of her degenerate sons? We\nare not prepared for these. But a weak, yielding tone, for which we seem\nto be prepared, may be the beginning of concessions which we shall one\nday bitterly rue.\n\nThe means used at the South to bring the North to compliance seem to\ndemand particular attention. I will not record the contemptuous language\nwhich has been thrown on the frugal and money-getting habits of New\nEngland, or the menaces which have been addressed to our cupidity, for\nthe purpose of putting us to silence on the subject of slavery. Such\nlanguage does in no degree move me. I only ask that we may give no\nground for its application. We can easily bear it, if we do not deserve\nit. Our mother-country has been called a nation of shopkeepers, and New\nEngland ought not to be provoked by the name. Only let us give no\nsanction to the opinion that our spirit is narrowed to our shops; that\nwe place the art of bargaining above all arts, all sciences,\naccomplishments, and virtues; that rather than lose the fruits of the\nslave's labor we would rivet his chains; that sooner than lose a market\nwe would make shipwreck of honor; that sooner than sacrifice present\ngain we would break our faith to our fathers and our children, to our\nprinciples and our God. To resent or retaliate reproaches would be\nunwise and unchristian. The only revenge worthy of a good man is, to\nturn reproaches into admonitions against baseness, into incitements to a\nmore generous virtue. New England has long suffered the imputation of a\nsordid, calculating spirit, of supreme devotion to gain. Let us show\nthat we have principles, compared with which the wealth of the world is\nlight as air. It is a common remark here, that there is not a community\nunder heaven, through which there is so general a diffusion of\nintelligence and healthful moral sentiment as in New England. Let not\nthe just influence of such a society be impaired by any act which would\ngive to prejudice the aspect of truth.\n\nThe free States, it is to be feared, must pass through a struggle. May\nthey sustain it as becomes their freedom! The present excitement at the\nSouth can hardly be expected to pass away, without attempts to wrest\nfrom them unworthy concessions. The tone in regard to slavery in that\npart of our country is changed. It is not only more vehement, but more\nfalse than formerly. Once slavery was acknowledged as an evil. Now it is\nproclaimed to be a good. We have even been told, not by a handful of\nenthusiasts in private life, but by men in the highest station and of\nwidest influence at the South, that slavery is the soil into which\npolitical freedom strikes its deepest roots, and that republican\ninstitutions are never so secure as when the laboring class is reduced\nto servitude. Certainly, no assertion of the wildest abolitionist could\ngive such a shock to the slaveholder, as this new doctrine is fitted to\ngive to the people of the North. Liberty, with a slave for her pedestal,\nand with a chain in her hand, differs so entirely from that lovely\nvision, that benignant Divinity, to which we, like our fathers, have\npaid homage, that we cannot endure that both should be called by the\nsame name. A doctrine, more wounding or insulting to the mechanics,\nfarmers, laborers of the North than this strange heresy, cannot well be\nconceived. A doctrine more irreverent, more fatal to republican\ninstitutions, was never fabricated in the councils of despotism. It does\nnot, however, provoke us. I recall it only to show the spirit in which\nslavery is upheld, and to remind the free States of the calm energy\nwhich they will need, to keep themselves true to their own principles of\nliberty.\n\nThere is a great dread in this part of the country, that the union of\nthe States may be dissolved by the conflict about slavery. To avert this\nevil, every sacrifice should be made but that of honor, freedom, and\nprinciple. No one prizes the Union more than myself. Perhaps I may be\nallowed to say, that I am attached to it by no common love. Most men\nvalue the Union as a Means; to me it is an End. Most would preserve it\nfor the prosperity of which it is the instrument; I love and would\npreserve it for its own sake. Some value it as favoring public\nimprovements, facilities of commercial exchange, &c.; I value these\nimprovements and exchanges chiefly as favoring union. I ask of the\nGeneral Government to unite us, to hold us together as brethren in\npeace; and I care little whether it does any thing else. So dear to me\nis union. It is our highest national interest. All the pecuniary\nsacrifices which it can possibly demand should be made for it. The\npoliticians in some parts of our country, who are calculating its value,\nand are willing to surrender it, because they may grow richer by\nseparation, seem to me bereft of reason. Still, if the Union can be\npreserved only by the imposition of chains on speech and the press, by\nprohibition of discussion on a subject involving the most sacred rights\nand dearest interests of humanity, then union would be bought at too\ndear a rate; then it would be changed from a virtuous bond into a league\nof crime and shame. Language cannot easily do justice to our attachment\nto the Union. We will yield every thing to it but Truth, Honor, and\nLiberty. These we can never yield.\n\nLet the free States be firm, but also patient, forbearing, and calm.\nFrom the slaveholder they cannot look for perfect self-control. From his\nposition he would be more than man, were he to observe the bounds of\nmoderation. The consciousness which tranquillizes the mind can hardly be\nhis. On this subject he has always been sensitive to excess. Much\nexasperation is to be expected. Much should be borne. Every thing may be\nsurrendered but our principles and our rights.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMy work is done. I ask and hope for it the Divine blessing, as far as it\nexpresses Truth, and breathes the spirit of Justice and Humanity. If I\nhave written any thing under the influence of prejudice, passion, or\nunkindness to any human being, I ask forgiveness of God and man. I have\nspoken strongly, not to offend or give pain, but to produce in others\ndeep convictions corresponding to my own. Nothing but a feeling, which I\ncould not escape, of the need of such a work at this very moment, has\ninduced me to fix my thoughts on so painful a subject. The few last\nmonths have increased my solicitude for the country. Public sentiment\nhas seemed to me to be losing its healthfulness and vigor. I have seen\nsymptoms of the decline of the old spirit of liberty. Servile opinions\nhave seemed to gain ground among us. The faith of our fathers in free\ninstitutions has waxed faint, and is giving place to despair of human\nimprovements. I have perceived a disposition to deride abstract rights,\nto speak of freedom as a dream, and of republican governments as built\non sand. I have perceived a faint-heartedness in the cause of human\nrights. The condemnation, which has been passed on abolitionists, has\nseemed to be settling into acquiescence in slavery. The sympathies of\nthe community have been turned from the slave to the master. The impious\ndoctrine, that human laws can repeal the Divine, can convert unjust and\noppressive power into a moral right, has more and more tinctured the\nstyle of conversation and the press. With these sad and solemn views of\nsociety, I could not be silent; and I thank God, amidst the\nconsciousness of great weakness and imperfection, that I have been able\nto offer this humble tribute, this sincere, though feeble, testimony,\nthis expression of heartfelt allegiance, to the cause of Freedom,\nJustice, and Humanity.\n\nHaving stated the circumstances which have moved me to write, I ought to\nsay, that they do not discourage me. Were darker omens to gather round\nus, I should not despair. With a faith like his, who came to prepare the\nway for the Great Deliverer, I feel and can say, \"The Kingdom of\nHeaven,\" the Reign of Justice and Disinterested Love, \"is at hand, and\nAll Flesh shall see the Salvation of God.\" I know, and rejoice to know,\nthat a power, mightier than the prejudices and oppression of ages, is\nworking on earth for the world's redemption, the power of Christian\nTruth and Goodness. It descended from Heaven in the person of Christ. It\nwas manifest in his life and death. From his cross it went forth\nconquering and to conquer. Its mission is \"to preach deliverance to the\ncaptive, and to set at liberty them that are bound.\" It has opened many\na prison-door. It is ordained to break every chain. I have faith in its\ntriumphs. I do not, cannot despair.\n\n\n\n\nNOTES.\n\n\nNOTE I.\n\nI wish to add a few statements to show how little reliance can be placed\non what seem to a superficial observer mitigations or advantages of\nslavery, and how much safer it is to argue from the experience of all\ntimes and from the principles of human nature, than from insulated\nfacts.\n\nI once passed a colored woman at work on a plantation, who was singing\napparently with animation, and whose general manners would have led me\nto set her down as the happiest of the gang. I said to her, \"Your work\nseems pleasant to you.\" She replied, \"No, Massa.\" Supposing that she\nreferred to something particularly disagreeable in her immediate\noccupation, I said to her, \"Tell me, then, what part of your work is\nmost pleasant.\" She answered, with much emphasis, \"_No part_ pleasant.\nWe _forced_ to do it.\" These few words let me into the heart of the\nslave. I saw under its apparent lightness a human heart.\n\nOn this plantation, the most favored woman, whose life was the easiest,\nearnestly besought a friend of mine to buy her and put her in the way to\nearn her freedom. A daughter of this woman, very young, had fallen a\nvictim to the manager of the estate. How far this cause influenced the\nexasperated mother, I did not learn.\n\nI heard of an estate managed by an individual who was considered as\nsingularly successful, and who was able to govern the slaves without the\nuse of the whip. I was anxious to see him, and trusted that some\ndiscovery had been made favorable to humanity. I asked him how he was\nable to dispense with corporal punishment. He replied to me, with a very\ndetermined look, \"The slaves know that the work _must_ be done, and that\nit is better to do it without punishment than with it.\" In other words,\nthe certainty and dread of chastisement were so impressed on them that\nthey never incurred it.\n\nI then found that the slaves on this well managed estate decreased in\nnumber. I asked the cause. He replied, with perfect frankness and ease,\n\"The gang is not large enough for the estate.\" In other words, they were\nnot equal to the work of the plantation and yet were made to do it,\nthough with the certainty of abridging life.\n\nOn this plantation the huts were uncommonly convenient. There was an\nunusual air of neatness. A superficial observer would have called the\nslaves happy. Yet they were living under a severe, subduing discipline,\nand were overworked to a degree that shortened life.\n\nI cannot forget my feelings on visiting a hospital belonging to the\nplantation of a gentleman highly esteemed for his virtues, and whose\nmanners and conversation expressed much benevolence and\nconscientiousness. When I entered with him the hospital, the first\nobject on which my eye fell was a young woman, very ill, probably\napproaching death. She was stretched on the floor. Her head rested on\nsomething like a pillow; but her body and limbs were extended on the\nhard boards. The owner, I doubt not, had, at least, as much kindness as\nmyself; but he was so used to see the slaves living without common\ncomforts, that the idea of unkindness in the present instance did not\nenter his mind.\n\nThe severest blow I ever saw given to a slave was inflicted by a colored\ndriver on a young girl, who, on removing a load of wood from a horse,\nhad let a stick fall against the animal's leg. I remonstrated with the\nman, as soon as an opportunity offered, against his inhumanity. He said,\n\"Massa, I have the care of the horse, and the manager _lick me_ if it\nget hurt.\" This answer explained to me the common remark, that the black\ndrivers are more cruel than the whites. I saw where the cruelty _began_.\n\nI once heard some slaves, who had been taken by law from their master,\nsinging a song of their own composition, and at the end of every stanza\nthey joined with a complaining tone in a chorus, of which the burden\nwas, \"We got no Massa.\" Here seemed a striking proof of attachment to\nthe master; but on inquiry into the rest of the song, I found it was an\nangry repetition of the severities which they were suffering from the\nnew superintendent. They wanted their master as an escape from cruelty.\n\nFacts of this kind, which make no noise, which escape or mislead a\ncasual observer, help to show the character of slavery more than\noccasional excesses of cruelty though these must be frequent. They show\nhow deceptive are the appearances of good connected with it; and how\nmuch may be suffered under the manifestation of much kindness. It is,\nin fact, next to impossible to estimate precisely the evils of slavery.\nThe slave writes no books, and the slaveholder is too inured to the\nsystem, and too much interested in it, to be able to comprehend it.\nPerhaps the Laws of the slave States are the most unexceptionable\nwitnesses which we can obtain from that quarter; and the barbarity of\nthese is decisive testimony against an institution which requires such\nmeans for its support.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNOTE II.\n\nI think it right to state, that my views of abolitionism have been\nfounded in part, perhaps chiefly, on the testimony of others. I have\nattended no abolition-meetings, and never heard an abolition-address.\nBut the strong, and next to universal impression, in regard to the\ntendency of the operations of this party to inflame common minds,\nconfirmed, as it is, by what I have seen of their newspapers, must be\nessentially true. The orator, who was chiefly employed in addressing\ntheir meetings and forming societies, was distinguished by his vehemence\nand passionate invectives. On one occasion, there is strong proof of his\nhaving given an opinion in favor of cruel vengeance on the part of the\nslaves. This seems to contradict what I have said of the steady\ninculcation of forbearance and non-resistance by the abolitionists. But\nthis case, if correctly reported, was an exception, an ebullition of\nuncontrollable passion in an individual, for which the rest were not\nresponsible. I have thought it my duty to state the kind of evidence on\nwhich my views of abolitionism are founded, that others may better\njudge what confidence is due to them. In times of great excitement, it\nis not easy to arrive at the precise truth.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNOTE III.\n\nIt was my purpose to address a chapter to the South, but the failure of\nstrength compelled me to pause; and when I considered, that the\ncirculation of my book in that part of the country might be a crime, I\nhad no encouragement to proceed. I beg, however, to say, that nothing\nwhich I have written can have proceeded from unkind feeling towards the\nSouth; for in no other part of the country have my writings found a more\ngratifying reception; from no other part have I received stronger\nexpressions of sympathy. To these I am certainly not insensible. My own\nfeelings, had I consulted them, would have led me to stifle every\nexpression, which could give pain to those from whom I have received\nnothing but good-will.\n\nI wished to suggest to the slaveholders, that the excitement now\nprevalent among themselves, was incomparably more perilous, more fitted\nto stir up insurrection, than all the efforts of abolitionists, allowing\nthese to be ever so corrupt. I also wished to remind the men of\nprinciple and influence in that part of the country, of the necessity of\nlaying a check on lawless procedures, in regard to the citizens of the\nNorth. We have heard of large subscriptions at the South for the\napprehension of some of the abolitionists in the free States, and for\nthe transportation of them to parts of the country where they would meet\nthe fate, which, it is said, they deserve. Undoubtedly the respectable\nportion of the slaveholding communities are not answerable for these\nmeasures. But does not policy, as well as principle, require such men\nsteadily to discountenance them? At present, the free States have\nstronger sympathies with the South than ever before. But can it be\nsupposed that they will suffer their citizens to be stolen, exposed to\nviolence, and murdered, by other States? Would not such an outrage rouse\nthem to feel and act as one man? Would it not identify the abolitionists\nwith our most sacred rights? One kidnapped, murdered abolitionist would\ndo more for the violent destruction of slavery than a thousand\nsocieties. His name would be sainted. The day of his death would be set\napart for solemn heart-stirring commemoration. His blood would cry\nthrough the land with a thrilling voice, would pierce every dwelling,\nand find a response in every heart. Do men, under the light of the\npresent day, need to be told, that enthusiasm is not a flame to be\nquenched with blood? On this point, good and wise men, and the friends\nof the country at the North and South, can hold but one opinion; and if\nthe press, which, I grieve to say, has kept an ominous silence amidst\nthe violations of law and rights, would but speak plainly and strongly,\nthe danger would be past.\n\nSince writing the preceding chapters, I have seen in a Newspaper some\nnotice of a meeting of ministers in one of the Southern States, in which\nslavery was spoken of as sinful. If the account was correct, the liberty\nof speech is not every where denied to the degree which I had supposed.\n\nI have only to add, that I alone am responsible for what I have now\nwritten. I represent no society, no body of men, no part of the\ncountry. I have written by no one's instigation, and with no one's\nencouragement, but solely from my own convictions. If offence is given,\nI alone ought to bear it.","title":"Slavery","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":39120}