b'\nQass \n\nBook^ \n\n\n\nSLAVERY \n\n\n\nDISCUSSED IN \n\n\n\nOCCASIOIAL ESSAYS, \n\n\n\nFROM 1833 TO 1846 \n\n\n\nLEONARD BACON, \n\nPASTOR OF THE FIHST CHUIiOH IN NEW HAVEN, \n\n\n\nON>-^VofCo. \n\n\n\n"^o^Washlr.^^^" \n\n\n\nNEW YORK: \nBAKER AND SCRIBNER, \n\n145 Nassau Street and 36 Park Row. \n\n\n\n18 4*6 \n\n/ \n\n\n\nEntered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1846, by \n\nLEONARD BACON, \n\nIn the Clerk\'s Office of the District Court for the DisUict of \nConnecticut. \n\n\n\nEDWARD O . J E .N K KN S , P R I .N T L ] \n\nHi Nassau street. \n\n\n\nPREFACE. \n\n\n\nSeveral years before the commencement of the \nAnti-Slavery agitation on this side of the Atlantic, \nit so happened that I was led to consider, with some\' \ncare, the condition and prospects of the enslavecj^ \nclass in the United States. From that time to \nthe present, no subject not immediately connected \nwith my official duties or my professional studies, \nhas occupied so much of my attention. When \nthe British Anti-Slavery Societies began their la- \nbors, in 1823, I entered into their views as then \nexhibited ; and I learned much from the reports of \nthose Societies, and from the pamphlets published by \nStephens, Clarkson, Wilberforce and others. When \nthe Rev. Joshua Leavitt, now so emineiit among \nAmerican abolitionists, made his first appearance \nas a writer on slavery, in 1825, I agreed generally \nwith his views, and was instructed by his arguments ; \nfor his views, at that time, were substantially the \nsame with those which the British abolitionists were \nthen urging upon Parliament. From him I learned \n\n\n\niv PREFACE. \n\nto make certain distinctions wliicli still seem to me \nessential to any just view of the subject, widely as \nhe and others have since departed from them.* \n\n* After the lapse of one and twenty years, it cannot seem indelicate \nto refer to Mr. Leavitt as the author of the articles above alluded to. \nThey were published in the Christian Spectator for 182.5, pp. 130-138, \n^39-246. I well remember the violent sensation which they produced \nin "Charleston, where the Christian Spectator was immediately put upon \nthe Indcx,^ librorum proldhitorum of his holiness Judge Lynch. Yet \nthose articles were far from containing the modern Anti-Slavery doc- \ntrine. Witness such passages as th-ese : \n\n" The right of personal liberty is not, in all circumstances, an abso- \nlute right. If it were so, slavery would have never been recognized \nin the Word of God. Yet it was permitted and regulated in the laws \ngiven by God himself Lev. xxv. 44, 45." *\' Neither has Christianity \ninterfered in this respect to abolish slavery. Paul has given directions \nfor the mutual deportment of masters and servants, or slaves, as they \nwere in those days." \xe2\x80\x94 p. 131. \n\n*\' Our own laws recognize involuntary servitude whenever the public \ngood and the interest of the individual require it. Such is substantially \nthe case of minors, of idiots, of spendthrifts, of drunkards. The right \nof personal liberty, therefore, is not one which may be lawfully vindi- \ncated \xc2\xabi o/^iarartZs. Salus 2^o2n\'.Ii, suprcma lex. l^ie public good, the \ninterest of all classes, both whites and blacks, is the supreme laiv. \nSlaves have no more an abstract absolute right to rise and kill their \nmasters, and involve the whole community in destruction, than the son \nor apprentice has to revolt from the control under which the laws have \nplaced him. The very idea is most preposterous, that a part of the \ncommunity have a right, which they may assert to the destruction of \nthe peace and happiness of the whole. The right of the master, there- \nfore, to the services of his slave, maj/ be as perfect as to the services \nof his apprentice. But this right depends, in either case, wholly on \nthe assumed fact, that in existing circumstances the pubUc good re- \nquires the existence of servitude. It is a mere creature of society, \nand depends entirely upon the laws."\xe2\x80\x94 pp. 131-132. \n\n\n\nPREFACE. y \n\nIn the year 1830, or soon after, a new doctrinej or \nwhat seemed such, began to be current. The Eng- \nlish Anti-Slavery Societies, in the heat of their con- \n\n*\'I have had three objects in view, in thus going into the nature of \nslavery as a legal institution. In the first place, I wish it to appear \nthat the relation between the master and slaves, is a proper subject of \nlegislation. It is a conventional right and depends entirely upon the \nlaws"\xe2\x80\x94 ibid. \n\n" The second object was to relieve slavehDlders from a charge, or \nan apprehension of criminality, where in fact there is no oflfehce. \nThere can be no palliation for the conduct of those who first brought \nthe curse of slavery upon poor i:\\frica, and America too. But the body \nof the present generation are not liable to this charge. Posterity are \nnot answerable for the sins of their fathers, unless they approve their \ndeeds. They found the negroes among them, in a degraded state, in- \ncapable either of appreciating or enjoying liberty. They have, there- \nfore, nothing to answer for on this score, because they have no other \nalternative, \xc2\xabf^;rcscnf, but to keep them in subjection. There is no- \nthing so destructiveto the moral sense, as to be forced, by our principles, \nto the acknowledgment of guilt, in that which we at the same time be- \nlieve to be absolutely unavoidable, and in which, therefore, it is impos- \nsible really to feel self-reproach." "A Christian J7^a^/ hold slaves, and \nexact their services, without any occasion to feel a pang of self- \nreproach merely on account of his holding slaves." \xe2\x80\x94 p. 133. \n\n" The third object aimed at, was to fasten the charge of criminality \non the very spot where such a charge will lie, and where it ought to be \nfelt; and where alone reformation is practicable. There are no duties \nwithout corresponding rights, and no rights without corresponding du- \nties. While it is the duty of the slave to submit himself to his own \nmaster so long as the laws of this country make him a slave, it is his \nright to be protected by the laws, in the enjoyment of life, health, chas- \ntity, good name, and every blessing which he can enjoy consistently \nwith the pubhc welfare." \n\n"Christianity enforces this dictate of sound reason. \' Thou shalt \nlove thy neighbor as thyself,\' is as much the law between master and \n1* \n\n\n\nYJ PREFACE. \n\ntlict with the ^^ West India interest," being most rea- \nsonably disgusted with the resistance of the colonial \nauthorities to every measure that had any tendency \ntowards freedom, had begun to renounce all further \ndependence upon such measures, and to demand of \nParliament the immediate abolition of slavery. \'^ Im- \nmediate abolition " had become the popular doctrine \namong philanthropists; and \'^ gradualism " or the \nnotion of a process of abolition, was scouted as an \nobsolete idea. Accordingly the doctrine of immedi- \nate abolition began to be current here ; but here it \nwas necessarily, to some extent at least, another thing \nfrom what it was m Great Britain. There it was a \ndemand that a new constitution of society, a new \nbody of lav/s, a new system of relations between \ncapital and labor, and between the landholder and \nthe peasant, should be imposed upon dependent and \nvassal colonies by the omnipotence of the Imperial \nParliament. Here it became the doctrine of "\xe2\x80\xa2 imme- \n\nslave, as between any other members of the human family. This is so \nobvious as to appear ahnost Ukc a truism. And yet this is the very \nthing that has always been lost sight of among slaveholders. It has \nbeen wholly disregarded in our own nation.\'-\' ** We do not answer \nto this indictment unless we either plead guilty, or show that our laws, \nour customs, our modes of thinking and acting, recognize the human- \nity of the negroes."\xe2\x80\x94 pp. 133, 134. \n\nSome of these statements are no doubt unguarded. Cut the leading \nprinciples and distinctions carried conviction to my mind at the time ; \nand it still seems to me that there can be no just reasoning on the sub- \nject without them. \n\n\n\nniEFACE. ^,- \n\ndiatc emancipation \'^ by individual masters, \'\' at all \nhazards," and without regard to consequences; the \ndoctrine that slavery is a sin on the part of the mas- \nter, always and in all circumstances, and that he \nmust immediately renounce his authority without \nasking what is expedient for the commonwealth, or \nwhat for the welfare of the slave. All who re- \nfused to receive that doctrine and its corollaries, \nwere denounced as \'\' pro-s]avery," and as sacrificing \nduty to expediency. \n\nSuch was the occasion on which I felt myself called \nto publish the first of the following essays. A criti- \ncal examination of the subject in the light of the Scrip- \ntures, seemed to be necessary at that time ; and I did \nwhat I could. The two or three years that followed, \nwere years of great excitement in respect to slavery. \nThe most extravagant views were presented on both \nsides. On the one hand, the Anti-Slavery party, \nincluding the no-government element from which it \nhas now in some measure disengaged itself, seemed \nto aim at irritating public opinion into phrenzy. \nOn the other hand, the southern people were demand- \ning that the discussion of slavery in the free States \nshould be put down by mobs ; and there were found \nnortliern men base enough to lend themselves to \nsuch a demand. The dates of several of these es- \nsays, will show that they were written during that \nperiod of excitement. \n\n\n\nVUl \n\n\n\nPREFACE. \n\n\n\nTen years ago, I thought that I had done all that \nit was my duty to do in this way. But within a few \nmonths past, a sort of necessity seems to he laid \nupon me. The suhject came up, last summer, \nin the General Association of the Congregational \nPastors of Connecticut. And there, as I have al- \nways been wont to do wherever an opportunity \nhas arisen, I expressed very freely the same vieAVS \nwhich I had formerly uttered through the press. \nWhat I said, in the freedom of fraternal debate, was \nreported, not very accurately, in several newspapers; \nand some of those reports were commented upon \nwith severity in the \'\' Christian Observer," a Pres- \nbyterian newspaper, which, though published in \nPhiladelphia, seems to be designed chiefly for a \nsouthern circulation. Thus summoned before the \npublic, I could not well refuse to answer for myself. \nThen came the proceedings in tlie American Board \nof Foreign Missions ; and the extent to which I \nfound myself involved in that debate, and in the \nnewspaper discussions which followed, seemed tore- \nquire that I should not excuse myself from one more \nattempt to vindicnte what is manifest to my mind as \ntruth. \n\nNothing is more likely, than that some differences \nmay be discovered between the earlier essays and \nthe later, for the Author has intended to regard truth \nrather than his own consistency, and he will not \n\n\n\nPREFACE. [^ \n\nundertake to maintain that, in thirteen years he has \nlearned nothing-. The only changes made, besides \nthe removal of some verbal inaccuracies, incident to \nthe haste of writing for a periodical publication, are \nthe correction of one pas^sage which when first pub- \nlished, gave unintentional offence, and the omission \nof two or three allusions, in the earlier essays, to the \ncontroversy which the Anti-Slavery Society was then \nmaintaining v/ith the friends of African colonization. \nThat conU\'oversy, since our Anti-Slavery friends \nhave done so much at colonization in Canada, seems \nto be at rest ; and I have no wish to revive it. \n\nSome of my friends have expected that I w^ould \nreply to the address issued against the American \nBoard of Missions, by a convention lately held at \nSyracuse. That address, I doubt not, is capable of \nmost abundant refutation, but I do not conceive that \nit devolves on me to reply to it. In the details of \nsuch a reply, and the numberless questions of fact \nwhich it would be necessary to consider, the original \nquestion of principle, the question of the relations of \nChristianity to slavery, the question whether a mas- \nter of slaves may in any instance be recognized as a \nChristian, w^ould be quite forgotten. \n\nIt is no part of the object, in any of these essays, to \nprove that the slavery which exists in these American \nStates is wrong. To me it seems that the man who \nneeds argument on that point, cannot be argued with. \n\n\n\nX PREFACE. \n\nWhat elementary idea of right and wrong can that \nman have ? If that form of government, that system \nof social order is not wrong \xe2\x80\x94 if those laws of the \nsouthern states, by virtue of which slavery exists \nthere, and is what it is, are not wrong \xe2\x80\x94 nothing is \nwrong. Such a book as Wheeler\'s " Law of Sla- \nvery," leaves no room for any argument to prove \nthat our southern slavery is wrong, if only the reader \nis gifted with a moral sense. It is, therefore, taken \nfor granted in these essays, from first to last, that \nevery man has rights, and that our American slavery \n\xe2\x80\x94 which denies all rights to some two millions of \nhuman beings, and decrees that they shall always \nbe held at the lowest point of degradation \xe2\x80\x94 is too \npalpably wrong to be argued about. The wrong of \nthat slavery, however, is one thing, and the way to \nrectify that wrong, is another thing. The wrongful- \nness of that entire body of laws, opinions and prac- \ntices is one thing ; and the criminality of the indivi- \ndual master, who tries to do right, is another thing. \nThese essays, therefore, treat chiefly of the way in \nwhich the wrong can be set right. \n\nNew Haven, April 24th, 1846. \n\n\n\nCONTENTS. \n\n\n\nPage \nSlavery, [Quarterly Christian Spectator, 1S35.] . . 13 \n\nThe Abolition of Slavery, [Quarterly Christian Spectator, \n1S34.] 57 \n\nPresent State of the Slavery Question, [Quarterly \nChristian Spectator, 1S36.] SO \n\nSlavery in Maryland, [Quarterly Christian Spectator, \n1&36.] 107 \n\nLetter to the Editor of the Philadelphia Christian \nObserver, 1S45, [New York Observer, 1S45.] . . 123 \n\nThe Collision between the Anti-Slavery Society and \nthe American Board, [New York Evangelist, 1846.] . 13i \n\nNo. I. \xe2\x80\x94 The Question Stated, 131 \n\nNo. II. \xe2\x80\x94 The Action of the Board, .... 144 \n\nNo. III. \xe2\x80\x94 What has Church Government to do \nwith Slavery ? What is Slavery in the United \nStates.? 1G3 \n\nNo. IV. \xe2\x80\x94 What has Church Government to do with \nSlavery ? 173 \n\nNo. V. \xe2\x80\x94 Shall we follow the Apostles in their Ad- \n:aiiNisTRATioN of Church Government or shall \n\nWE TRY TO DO BETTER ? ISS \n\nNo. VI. \xe2\x80\x94 Christianity and the Church counter- \nacting Slavery. How ? 204 \n\nNo. VII. \xe2\x80\x94 Duty of the Churches in the Free \nStates, ......... 217 \n\nNo, VIII.\xe2\x80\x94 Explanations, 236 \n\n\n\nOCCASIONAL ESSAYS \n\n\n\nSLAVERY.* \n\n[quarterly christian spectator, 1S33.] \n\nThe author of this book is an intelligent and able \nminister of the gospel, in the Presbyterian Church. \nA few years ago, he was pastor of a congregation in \nPrince Edward County, Virginia. Born and edu- \ncated in that State, and having spent more than \nforty years there, in the midst of a slaveholding \npopulation, he entertained those views of slavery, \nwhich, we believe, are common to pious and reflect- \ning men in all parts of the country; he believed in \n" the moral evil of slavery, and the duty of Chris- \ntians to let no selfish interest prolong the sin and \ninjustice, but, in the fear of God, to do all they can, \nin consistency with duty, to fit for and restore to \nfreedom those in bondage." This view led him to \nfavor the Colonization Society, to take up contribu- \ntions for that object, and to attempt founding an \n\n\n\n* Letters on Slavery : Addressed to the Cumberland Congregation^ \nVirginia. By J. D, Paxton, their former Pastor. Lexington, Ky., \n1833. 12mo. pp. 207. \n\n2 \n\n\n\n14 SLAVERY. \n\nauxiliary society among- his people. Occasionally \nhe made some little reference to the subject in his \npublic preaching ; but, as there were usually slaves \nin the congregation, and as he knew how readily \nsome persons might take offence, his allusions to the \n\'\' delicate subject," as the Southrons call it, were \nfew and slight. By marriage he had become the \nmaster of one or two families of slaves. He felt it \nto be his duty \xe2\x80\x94 and his wife\'s views were entirely \ncoincident with his \xe2\x80\x94 to make those persons free, as \nsoon as it could be done wnth a fair prospect of im- \nproving their condition. Accordingly, he says, \' \' we \nwatched the progress of the Colony at Liberia for \nseveral years; and, in the mean time, used means \nto prepare our slaves for freedom. As soon as we \nwere satisfied that they had better prospects there of \ndoing well for themselves, than they could have \nwith us, we encouraged them to go ; gave them such \nan outfit as our means afforded, and sent them to the \nColony.\'^ These slaves, eleven in number, sailed \nfrom Norfolk, on board the Indian Chief, in Febru- \nary, 1826 ; and were among the first of the slaves \nmanumitted for the purpose of sending them to Af- \nrica. \n\nNot long after the going forth of these freed-men, \nand while the excitement, naturally produced in the \nneighborhood by such an event, had not yet entirely \nsubsided, our author commenced a series of essays \non slavery, in the Family Visitor, a religious paper, \nwhich had some circulation among the families of \nhis charge. The tliird number of this series con- \ntained an energetic exposition of the inconsistency \nbetween slavery, as constituted by the statutes of \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. J5 \n\nVirginia, and the requisitions of the law of love. It \ngave great offence to those members of the congre- \ngation, who had been previously dissatisfied with \ntheir pastor\'s liberating his own slaves ; and as Mr. \nPaxton was well understood to be the author, great \nefforts were made to create a general disaffection to- \nwards him. Immediately on receiving official in- \nformation that an opposition had been organized \nagainst him, he resigned his charge, " leaving the \nCumberland congregation to obtain a pastor whose \nopinions might agree with their own.\'\' \n\nSuch was the occasion of the letters before us. \nThey were written soon after the author\'s resigna- \ntion of his pastoral charge, but have remained un- \npublished these six years, because the author, unwil- \nling to do anything rashly, yielded to the advice of \ncertain friends, who thought ^\' that on account of \nexisting excitement, some little time should be al- \nlowed to pass before they were given to the public." \nWe confess that our judgment differs from that of \nMr. Paxton\'s cautious friends. To us it seems that \nthis little book could have done no great harm, and \nmight have done great good in the six years during \nwhich it has been shut up in the author\'s deslc. To \nus it seems, too, that the excitement of the occasion \nwould have caused the book to be read with interest \nby many who now may never read it at all. \n\nThe first of these letters contains a narrative of \nfacts, relating to the occasion on which the book \nwas written. The second treats of ministerial pru- \ndence, and exposes the folly of supposing, that when- \never offence is taken at a minister\'s preaching or \nconduct, he is of course to be regarded as having \n\n\n\n16 \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. \n\n\n\nacted imprudently. The third refutes the notion, so \ncommon at the South, that all discussion on such a \nsubject is to be avoided as dangerous, and shows that \nthe danger of slavery itself is such as cannot be aug- \nmented by temperate and candid discussion. The \nfourth exhibits the origin and nature of negro slavery \nin the United States, and compares it with the sla- \nvery which formerly existed in England. The fifth \nshows how slavery violates the principles on which \nall our boasted political institutions are founded ; \nand inquires what sentence is pronounced upon \nit by the law of nature. The five following are an \ninvestigation of the teachings of Scripture in respect \nto the morality of slavery. The eleventh and twelfth \nexhibit some of the evil tendencies of slavery ; and \nargue very strongly that no Christian, of enlightened \nviews, can lend the sanction of his example to a \nsystem fraught with such tendencies. The thirteenth \nrefutes some of the arguments most commonly of- \nfered in vindication of slavery. The fourteenth and \nfifteenth are devoted to the inquiry, \'\' What must \nwe do with our slaves ?\'\' Our author\'s own exam- \nple has shown the favorable opinion with which he \nregards the efforts of the Colonization Society ; yet, \nhe is far from thinking, as some seem to think, that \nnothing ought to be done except as the emancipated \nare carried to Liberia. He proposes several plans \nfor the removal of the colored population, and obvi- \nously regards tlie separation of the two races as im- \nportant to the well-being of both ; yet he doubts \nwhether the removal of all is practicable, and brings \narguments to show that the emancipated slaves \nmight become, in time, even in the midst of the \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. I\'j \n\ncountry which they now occupy, industrious and \nhappy free laborers. He shows, with much clear- \nness, what can be done by individual slaveholders \nto promote the general abolition of the system ; and, \nin the sixteenth letter, concludes with an eloquent \narray of " motives to immediate effort," drawn from \nthe doctrine of God\'s retributive dispensations, and \nfrom the certainty that dreadful judgments must fall \nupon a country so laden as ours with the guilt of \nslavery, unless they are averted by a speedy repent- \nance. \n\nThis book is a fair specimen of that sort of dis- \ncussion on the subject of slavery, which we wish to \nsee more of. The author does not bluster, like some \neminent philanthropists in our part of the country ; \nhe does not attempt to mystify and madden the minds \nof inflammable readers, with the stereotype talk about \n\'^ immediate abolition ;" he writes like a man who \nknows whereof he affirms, and who knows precisely \nwhat prejudices and errors he has undertaken to \ncombat ; he aims directly at the instruction and con- \nviction of those slaveholders who imagine that there \nis no w^rong in slavery, and that nothing is to be done \nbut to hand down the system, just as it is, to other \ngenerations ; \xe2\x80\x94 and such is the coolness and clearness, \nand at the same time the pungency, of his statements \nand arguments, that slaveholders, meeting with the \nbook, cannot refuse to read, and reading, cannot \neasily avoid being convinced. We hope the book \nmay have a wide circulation in that part of the \ncountry for which it was especially designed. We \nhope it may be replied to ; and that the author may \nthus have occasion to come out again, with his \n\n\n\n23 SLAVERY. \n\nStrong appeals to undeniable facts and self-evident \nprinciples. \n\nIn saying all this, however, we do not make our- \nselves responsible for everything which the author \nhas said. Here and there, if it were worth our \nwhile, we might find fault with a position or an \nargument; but those slips and errors \xe2\x80\x94 if they are \nsuch \xe2\x80\x94 do not affect the great conclusions to which \nhe wishes to conduct his readers. For example : we \nhave our doubts whether the exegesis by which he \nwould get rid of some passages of Scripture often ad- \nduced in defence of slavery, is in every instance cor- \nrect. Yet the general position, that the Bible does \nnot justify or authorize slavery, he defends success- \nfully ; for he brings forward the great principles of \nChristian morality, and applies them to the question \nin such a manner as leaves no doubt on the mind of \nthe unbiased reader, that, whatever difficulties there \nmay be with the exegesis of particular passages, the \nBible is irreconcilably at war with such a constitution \nof society. \n\nTaking leave, now, of Mr. Paxton and his book, \nbut not of the subject, we propose to occupy a few \npages with a scriptural inquiry respecting the moral- \nity of slavery. \n\nTo many who will read these pages, the question \nis one of direct practical importance. We have \nreaders, not a few, who are the hereditary masters \nof bondmen, or who live in tlie midst of a slavehold- \ning community. And besides these, many of our \nreaders in our own part of the country, will probably \nbe living, by and by, where the laws establish slavery, \nand where every man, whose circumstances permit \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. 19 \n\nhim to employ a servant, is called upon to decide for \nhimself, whether he will be a slaveholder or not. \nThousands of the natives of the north \xe2\x80\x94 young men, \nand men more advanced \xe2\x80\x94 men in every business \nand profession \xe2\x80\x94 are continually becoming citizens \nof the south, and there find that the question of the \nmorality of slavery is to them a question personally \nand immediately practical. \n\nThe subject is important to us all, in another as- \npect. We at the north, are fellow-citizens with \nslaveholders ; and between us and them, as fellow- \ncitizens, there is, and must be, a constant intercourse. \nWe and they not only meet by our representatives \nin the national legislature, but meet personally, both \nin our part of the country and in theirs. Many slave- \nmasters are associated with us, in our various benevo- \nlent and Christian enterprises. Often individuals from \namong them, brought hither by business, or in pursuit \nof health, come and worship with us in our temples, \nor as members of sister churches, sit down with us \nat the table of the Lord. Not less often, one and \nanother from among us, finds himself carried by his \nbusiness, or is driven by disease, into those parts of \nthe country where slavery prevails ; and there slave- \nholders not only offer him the civilities of ordinary \nhospitality, but, if he is a professor of religion, invite \nhim to worship with them in their families and in \ntheir temples, and to commune with them in all re- \nligious ordinances. Thus, it is an important ques- \ntion to all, how ought we to regard these fellow- \ncitizens 1 And this is only another form of the ques- \ntion respecting the morality of slavery. On the one \nhand, we are urged to believe that they are without \n\n\n\n20 SLAVERY. \n\nany responsibility, in relation to tlie existence and \ncontinuance of slavery among them. On the other \nliandj we are visited by traveling lecturers on slaver}^, \nand inundated with pamphlets and papers, urging \nus to believe that every slave-master is, as such, a \ncriminal of tlic deepest die, a \'\'felon in heart and \ndeed," whose crime is only inferior \'\'to intentional \nand malignant murder," a " thief," a " robber," a \n" tyrant," who deserves to be regarded as the common \nenemy of the human race. These circumstances \ncertainly give great importance to the inquiry respect- \ning the morality of slavery. \n\nFirst of all, in this inquiry, it is necessary to \ndefine distinctly the subject in debate. What is \nslavery ? \n\nBefore attempting a direct answer to this question, \nit is to be remarked, that there are many varieties \nof slavery ; that the laws of different countries and \nages limit and modify the relation of master and \nslave, in many different degrees ; and that, there- \nfore, the answer ought to include slavery in all its \nforms. There may be slavery, where the master \nhas, by the law, an absolute irresponsible power over \nthe persons and lives of his slaves ; and there may \nbe slavery, where the master has no powder to put \nhis slave to death, and if he inflicts an}^ punishment \nbeyond a certain measure of severit}^, he must be \ncalled to account at a public tribunal. There may \nbe slavery, where the slave is by the law incapal)le \nof acquiring property, incapable of marriage, inca- \npable of testifying in a coinl of justice, incapable of \ncomplaining to a magistrate against the cruelty of \nhis master or of any other person ; and there may \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. 21 \n\nbe slavery, where the slave is invested with all \nthese rights, and protected in them. There may be \nslavery, where the slave is allowed to be sold like a \nhorse, at the pleasure or necessity of his master, and \nto be torn away by force from all the objects of his \nnatural affection ; and there may be slavery, where \nthe slave cannot be transferred from one proprietor \nto another, except with his own consent. There may \nbe hereditary slavery, entailed upon unborn genera- \ntions ; and there may be slaves, whose children are \nfree-born. There may be a slavery for life ; and \nthere may be a slaver}^ limited to a term of years. \nWe say, therefore, the definition of slavery ought to \ninclude all the varieties of servitude which the word \nslavery properly denotes, and ought to exclude \neverything else. \n\nShall it be said, then, as is often said by those who \ntalk most on this subject, that, for a man to have \nproperty in his fellow-men, is slavery? How are \nw^e to understand this definition ? Has not the mas- \nter a property in his apprentice \xe2\x80\x94 the father in his \nchildren \xe2\x80\x94 not to say the husband in his wife, and \nthe wife in her husband ? Is all the property which \none human being may have in another, slavery 7 \nWho is he that would abolish slavery, by proclaim- \ning it as an axiom, that it is a crime for one human \nbeing to claim property in another 1 Let him preach \nthat doctrine, if he will be consistent, to his ap- \nprentices, or to the apprentices of his neighbor, and \nexhort them to make the application for themselves. \nWill it be said, that the master cannot sell his ap- \nprentice as the slaveholder can sell his slave 1 We \nask in reply, Is there no slavery where the slave \n2* \n\n\n\n22 SLAVERY. \n\ncannot be transferred from one master lo another^ \nwithout his own consent ? Suppose a law to be en- \nacted, forbidding the master to sell his slave, except \nwith the slave\'s consent, and making the slave\'s \nvoluntary signature in the presence of a magistrate \nessential to the validity of the transfer : \xe2\x80\x94 is that the \nimmediate, unconditional, and unqualified abolition \nof slavery ? Is it said that the master has no pro- \nperty in the person of his apprentice, but only a \nproperty in his time and labor, a title to his services 1 \nWe ask in reply. Is it necessary to the existence of \nslavery, that the slaveholder shall have any other \nkind of property in his slave than what the master \nmechanic has in his indented apprentice 1 Suppose \nit to be declared by legislation, or by some judicial \ndecision, that the master\'s property in his slave is \nsimply a property in his time and labor, and not in \nhis blood and bones, and that the slave is only a \n\'^ person held to service or labor" for his lifetime, \nand transmitting the same condition to his chil- \ndren : \xe2\x80\x94 would that be the immediate and complete \nabolition of slavery ? \n\nShall it be said, then, that slavery consists in the \nobligation to work without wages ? But is not the \napprentice bound to work without wages? The \napprentice has indeed a compensation for his labor; \nhe does not work for nothing; he receives, ordina- \nrily, his food and clothing, and he receives instruc- \ntion in his trade. And so the slave may have a \ncompensation. It is not essential to his condition \nthat he shall work for nothing ; it may be that he \nhas his daily food, his cabin and his clothing ; it is \nnot impossible to imagine that he has food and cloth- \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. 23 \n\ning for his children, and even a shelter and the \ncomforts of animal existence for his aged and dis- \nabled parents ; nay more, he may be provided with \nmedical attendance in sickness, and with religious \ninstruction on the Sabbath ; and the master may re- \ngard all this as due to him in consideration of his \nservices ; while yet his service is the service of a \nslave. Will it be said that his compensation is in- \nadequate 1 We admit it; but are all men slaves \nwho work for an inadequate compensation ? In \nhow many parts of the world may men be hired, by \nthousands, to work for no other compensation than \nbare shelter and support 1 \n\nShall we adopt Paley\'s definition, that \'\' slavery \nis an obligation to labor for the benefit of the mas- \nter, without the contract or consent of the servant V^ \nBut may not a man sell himself into slavery 1 Did \nnot the Hebrew servant, who, at the end of his sixth \nyear of servitude declined the privilege of becoming \nfree, consent and contract to be a slave forever ? \n\nWe know not how to define slavery more ac- \ncurately than by saying. It is that artificial relation, \nor civil constitutiojiy by which one man is invested with \na property in the labor of another, to whom, by virtue \nof that relation, he owes the duties of protection, sup- \nport, and government, and who owes him, in return, \nobedience and suhmission. The right which a father \nhas in his children, is a natural right ; the relation \nwhich involves it, is a relation instituted by the \nAuthor of nature. The right which the master has \nin his apprentice, is the right of the father trans- \nferred, within certain limits, and for the convenience \nand by the consent of the parties, to another person. \n\n\n\n24 SLAVERY. \n\nBut the relation of master and slave has no founda- \ntion in nature ; it is altogether the work of human \nlegislation. It is a relation entirely artificial ; it is \nan unnatural constitution of society, arbitrarily in- \nvesting one party with authority and property, and \nbinding the other party to obedient and submissive \nlabor. \n\nNow there are those, Ave have reason to believe, \nwho think they find in the Scriptures a full justifica- \ntion of slavery ; and who bring proof texts to quiet \ntheir consciences w^hile they hold their fello^v-men, \nand are resolved to hold them always, in a most de- \ngrading bondage. On the other hand, there are men \nwho profess to regard it as one of the plainest points \nof revelation, that no man can exercise the owner- \nship and government of a slave, in any circumstances \nfor a single hour, without the most atrocious \nand horrible guilt. The inquiry before us has been \nundertaken with reference to both these opinions. \nIn pursuing it, then, we are to examine chiefly what \nlight the Scriptures throw on the subject. \n\nA full investigation of the Scriptures in relation to \nthis matter, naturally divides itself into two branches ; \nfirst, the Mosaic legislation and religion, and secondly, \nthe principles and conduct of Christ and his apostles. \n\nThe first point, then, to be examined, is the le- \ngislation of Moses on the subject of slavery. Did the \ngreat lawgiver of Israel, legislating by Divine inspi- \nration, approve and sanction slavery 1 If not, did \nhe forbid and abolish it on the plan of immediate \nabolition\'? The following positions, we think, will \nbe found too plain to need much illustration, and too \nwell supported to be denied. \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. \n\n\n\n26 \n\n\n\n1. Moses did not introduce slavery among the Jews. \nIt was even in his time, as it has been ever since, in \nall the countries of the east, an ancient and estab- \nlished institution, incorporated with all the habits of \nthe people, and with the entire structure of society. \nAs long ago as when Abram and Lot departed out \nof Haran, about four centuries after the flood, they \ntook with them, not only \'^ the substance which they \nhad gathered," but " the souls which they had got- \nten in Haran."* The patriarch, sojourning and \nwandering in the land of promise, was not a solitary \ntraveler ; he was respected as the master and propri- \netor of a body of servants, of whom ^\' three hundred \nand eighteen " were able to bear arms.f And as to \nthe nature of the servitude of the souls which he had \ngotten, and the tenure by which they were held, \nthe story of Hagar, the \'^ bondwoman," seems to be \na sufficiently palpable illustration.]: The w^ealth of \nIsaac consisted not only in flocks and herds, but in \n" great store of servants. "\xc2\xa7 When Jacob returned \nfrom Padanaram, his wealth was \'\' oxen and asses, \nflocks, and men-servants, and women-servants. "|| \nWhether the servants of those days were bought and \nsold as merchandise, and at what price, let those \njudge who have read of the sale of Joseph to a \ncaravan of Arab traders \xe2\x80\x94 a transaction exactly like \nwhat now takes place in Africa, not to say in this \ncountry, every day. Such were the ideas and habits \nof the Hebrews, when Moses undertook to give them \nlaws. \n\n* Genesis xii. 5. t Genesis xiv. 14. \n\nt Genesis xvi. 1-9; xxi. 9-11. \xc2\xa7 Genesis xxvi. 14. \n\nII Genesis xxxii. 5. \n\n\n\n25 SLAVEltY. \n\n2. In these circumstances did the inspired legis- \nlator peremptorily prohibit slavery? No. He ex- \npected that the people for whom he was legislating \nwould continue to hold bond-servants as property; \nand he framed his laws accordingly. Indeed, we \nmay say, that slavery is as important a title in his \nlaws, as it is in the statute-book of any State in this \nUnion. He defines several modes in which persons \nmight become slaves. (1.) The man convicted of \ntheft, and unable to make a double or fourfold or \nfivefold restoration of the property stolen, was to be \nsold to make out the compensation.* (2.) Some- \ntimes a man through poverty sold himself or his \nchildren, or perhaps, was sold, with his family, for \nthe payment of his debts ; a wiser method, surely, \nthan our Gothic practice of imprisoning the debtor. \nThis mode of enforcing the payment of debts, was \nprobably an ancient custom. The legislator takes \nit for granted that this will be done, and makes pro- \nvision for it.f (3.) Captives in war, especially \\vo- \nmen and children, were held as slaves. J (4.) In \nconnection with a law protecting the Israelite, who \nthrough poverty had sold himself, against the rigor- \nous treatment to which slaves Avere ordinarily sub- \nject, and providing for his emancipation at a fixed \nperiod, it is said, " Both th)^ bondmen and thy bond- \nmaids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen \nthat are round about you; of them shall ye buy \nbondmen and bondmaids : moreover, of the children \n\n\n\n* Exodus xxii. 1-4. \n\nt Levit. XXV. 39, 47 ; Exod. xxi. 7 ; Nehem. v. 4. 5. See Michaelis \non the laws of Moses, vol. ii. pp. 160-163, 306-308. \nt Deut. XX. 14 \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. 27 \n\nof the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them \nshall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, \nwhich they begat in your land ; and they shall be \nyour possession ; and ye shall take them as an in- \nheritance for your children after you, to inherit them \nfor a possession."* Such legislation as this, proves \nbeyond debate that Moses did not peremptorily pro- \nhibit slavery as a crime. Other particulars are equal- \nly remarkable. It is enacted, that if a master should \nso strike a slave with a rod, as to cause his immediate \ndeath, the crime should be punished as murder; but \nthe exception is added \xe2\x80\x94 strange, not to say shocking, \nto our sensibilities \xe2\x80\x94 that if the slave survive the in- \njury a day or two, the master\'s pecuniary loss shall \nbe considered punishment enough, \'\' for he is his \nmoney."! The law \xe2\x80\x94 of late made so familiar to \nhalf the population of this country, by an ingenious \ntemperance tract. \xe2\x80\x94 which held the owner of a dan- \ngerous ox responsible with his life, if through his \nneglect the ox should cause the death of a man or \nwoman, contains a similar exception. If the ox \n" has killed ii man or a woman," \xe2\x80\x94 \'^ if he have gored \na son or daughter," the owner is to be put to death \nunless his life be redeemed by a sum of money, at \nthe discretion, doubtless, of the magistrate. But, \n^\' if the ox shall push a man-servant or maid -servant, \nhe (the owner) shall give to their master thirty \nshekels of silver. "| Such a distinction between a \n\n\n\n* Levit. XXV. 44-46. t Exod. xxi. 20, 21. \n\nX Exod. xxi. 28, 32. See Michaelis on the laws of Moses, vol. iv. \np. 260. \n\n\n\n28 SLAVERY. \n\nfreeman and a slave, seems to have been necessary \nin making laws for the stiff-necked Israelites; but \nour feelings revolt at it. \n\n3. Did Moses sanction slavery 1 Not at all. He \ndealt with it as he dealt with polygamy, with arbi- \ntrary divorce, with the levirate law, and with the \nold bloody law of the goel or blood-avenger. Legis- \nlating for a people, in many respects barbarous, and \nnever remarkably tractable, he wisely considered \nwhat was practicable in such a case, rather than \nwhat was simply desirable. Many were the pro- \nvisions of the Jewish law, of which Christ might \nhave said, as he said of that which permitted arbi- \ntrary divorces, \'\'Because of the hardness of your \nhearts, Moses wrote you this precept." The pro- \nfessed Christian, then, who would set up a justifica- \ntion for slavery, on the ground that the civil laws \nof Moses did not peremptorily forbid it, ought to \nremember, that, b}^ the same reasoning, he may \njustify polygamy, and concubinage, and the divorce \nof a wife at the pleasure of her husband. By the \nsame reasoning, he may make it the duty of the \nbrother of a deceased husband, to receive as his own \nwife the childless widow, for the sake of perpetuat- \ning the family and name of the deceased. By the \nsame reasoning, he may prove that in every case of \nhomicide, from the most malicious to the most acci- \ndental, the nearest relative of the person slain, may \npursue the slayer, guilty or innocent, and may smite \nhim to death wherever he finds him. The only \nquestion on this point is \xe2\x80\x94 Did Moses, with the au- \nthority of an inspired legislator, sanction as right, \neverything which his code did not prohibit and pun- \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. 29 \n\nish as criminal ? And among Christians, surely, \nthat is no question at all. \n\n4. The Mosaic statutes respecting the relation of \nmaster and slave, are obviously modifications and \namendments of a previously existing jus consiLetudi- \nnariuviy^ or common law, and are designed to \nmeliorate the condition of the slave, to ^^rotect him \nfrom oppression, and to promote the gradual disuse \nand abolition of slavery. Here, for the benefit of \nsuch as have never given their attention distinctly \nto this point, we will state a few particulars. \n\n(1.) No Hebrew could continue a slave, except \nby his own free consent, for a longer period than \nsix years ; and while he continued such, he was to \nbe treated only as a hireling, whose wages for the \nsix years had been paid in advance. In the year of \njubilee, too, every Hebrew who had fallen into \npoverty, was to regain his hereditary lands, and \nwas, of course, to go free, that he might take pos- \nsession of them. t \n\n\n\n* Michaelis on the laws of Moses, vol. i. pp. 9-15. \n\nt Exod. xxi. 2-6; Deut. xv. 12-18; Levit. xxv. 39-55 ; Mr. Pax- \nton, pp. 79\xe2\x80\x9484, labors hard to make it out, that these provisions \napplied to all the slaves which the Israelites were permitted to hold. \nHis aigument, in brief, is, that all their slaves were to be circumcised ; \nand that, by being circumcised, they became naturalized in Israel, and \nwere placed on a level with the descendants of Jacob. But was a cir- \ncumcised slave, therefore, a naturalized Israelite 1 We answer. No ; \nfor Moses has given a particular law of naturalization, Deut. xxni.3-9. \nBy that law, it was granted to Edomites and Egyptians, as a peculiar \nfavor, that the grandchildren of such as should settle in Palestine, might \n" enter into the congregation of the Lord ;" and in regard to the Am- \nmonites and Moabites, it is declared, that to the tenth generation, and \nforever, they should be incapable of becoming Israelites. Yet the \nEdomites, not to say the Egyptians, were circumcised ; and it would \nseem, that any stranger who desired to eat the passover, might do so \n\n\n\n30 SLAVERY. \n\n(2.) The master, who in correcting his slave, \neven with a proper instrument of correction, should \ncause his immediate or speedy death, was to be \npunished, as guilty of homicide. Such a law, \nphrased as it is, cannot easily be understood as any- \nthing else than a limitation of the previously allowed \npower of masters over the persons and lives of their \nservants.* \n\n(3.) A slave, maimed by his master, was to be- \ncome free. The language of the law, indeed, in- \ncludes expressly only two cases of maiming : \'\' If \na man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his \nmaid, that it perish, he shall let him go free for his \neye\'s sake ; and if he smite out his man-servant\'s \ntooth, or his maid-servant\'s tooth, he shall let him \ngo free for his tooth\'s sake."t But, as Michaelis \nhas remarked, the lawgiver, by naming the noblest \nof our organs on the one hand, and on the other, \none of those organs that can most easily be dispensed \nwith, and that are naturally lost as old age ap- \nproaches, plainly intimates that all the other organs \nare to be considered as included. It is not unfre- \nquently the case in the laws of Moses, that a general \nprinciple, instead of being abstractly announced, is \ninculcated by being involved in two or three par- \nticulars. \n\nafter being circumcised, Exod, xii. 48. So tiiat it is, at least, doubtful \nwhether the circumcision of a slave, and his eating of the passover- \nfeast, was designed to make him a Hebrew, in the sense of the law \nnow in question. \n\nMr. P. also argues that, at any rate, the foreign slave went out free \nin the year of jubilee. But the law of the jubilee, which is found in \nLeviticus XXV., makes a distinction between the foreign servant and \nthe Hebrew, expressly in that particular.\xe2\x80\x94 See verses 39-46. \n\n* Exod. xxi 20. t Exod. xxi. 26, 27. \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. 31 \n\n(4.) A female slave, in certain cases, became en- \ntitled to the privileges of a wife, or in default of \nthese, to her freedom.* The laws here referred to, \ntended in part to protect the chastity of female ser- \nvants, and, in part, to increase the number of free- \nborn children. No master who became a father by \nhis female slave, increased, in that way, the number \nof persons doomed to bondage. \n\n(5.) The religious institutions of the Jewish na- \ntion were, in many respects, calculated to afford re- \nlief and privileges to the slave. Being circumcised, he \nwas no longer regarded as a heathen, but was bound \nto the worship of the God of Israel. The weekly \nrest of the Sabbath was for him no less than for his \nmaster ; and the master was expressly enjoined, in \nreference to this privilege of his servants, to remem- \nber the toilsome bondage of Israel in Egypt.f In \nall the sacred festivals, \'\' the servant and the hand- \nmaid " were to partake, no less than \'\' the son and \nthe daughter," and Israel was to remember, \'\' thou \nwast a bondman."! The tendency of all these \nthings was to create sympathy and kind affection \nbetween the master and his servants, and to prepare \nthe latter for the privileges and honors of freemen. \n\n(6.) Kidnapping, or the stealing of men to make \nthem slaves, was punished with death. \xc2\xa7 If laws \naffect public sentiment, then such a law against the \ncrime of reducing men to slavery, was calculated, \nnot only to prevent that particular crime, but also \nto inspire a horror against slavery itself. \n\n\n\n* Exod. xxi. 8-11 ; Deut. xxi. 10-14. t Deut. v. 14, 15. \n\nt Deut. xvi. 11, 12. \xc2\xa7 Exod. xxi. 16. \n\n\n\n32 SLAVERY. \n\n(7.) Runaway slaves from a foreign country \nwere not to be given up to their masters, but were \nto be allowed to dwell in the land, wherever they \ncould find a home.* One effect of this law would \nbe, reciprocal, or rather retaliatory, laws, among \nthe neighboring nations, in regard to fugitive slaves \nfrom Palestine ; so that, whenever the slave of an \nIsraelite master should find his condition intolerable, \na flight of one or two days would almost always \ncarry him to some country from which he could not \nbe reclaimed. Another effect of this law would be \nto impress strongly on the popular mind, that great \ntruth on which the law is founded, namely, the \ntruth that every man ought to he a freeman. \n\nTo all these considerations it is to be added, that \nthe religious teachings and ethical maxims of Moses \nand the prophets were, in principle and tendency, \nif not in terms, opposed to slaver)\'. Let it be re- \nmembered, that the law of love is the basis of Mo- \nsaic, no less than of Christian morality ; that it was \nexpressly enjoined on the Hebrews, as a religious \nduty, to treat strangers and foreigners with kindness;! \nthat God, in his revelations, made himself known to \nthem, especially as the protector of the poor, and \nthe avenger of the oppressed ;| and that, among the \nduties most forcibly urged by indignant prophets, in \ntimes of sin and judgment, was the duty of letting \nthe oppressed go free, and breaking every yoke ;\xc2\xa7 \nand it cannot be doubted, that among the Jews the \ninfluence of their religion conspired with the influ- \n\n\n\n* Deut. xxiii. 15, 16. f Deut. x. 17-19; Exod. xxli. 21. \n\ni Eccle. V. 8 ; Exod. ii. 23 ] iii. 9. \xc2\xa7 Isaiah, Iviii. 6. \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. 33 \n\nence of their laws, to mitigate the character of sla- \nvery, and to promote its gradual extinction. \n\nBut, after all, we have exhibited only in part, the \ntendency of the Mosaic institutions, as it respects \nslavery. These institutions ought to be considered \nas a whole, in all their bearings on the increase of \na homogeneous Hebrew population ; on the industry, \nand social and moral habits of the people ; on their \nmode of agriculture ; on their intercourse with for- \neign nations ; on the augmentation of wealth among \nihem, and its distribution into small estates ; in a \nword, on all their character and condition as a peo- \nple. This most important branch of the inquiry we \ncan only hint at. He who can examine it in detail, \nwill find, we are sure, that, as these institutions were \ndesigned to civilize a rude pastoral people, to fix \nthem on the soil, and form them into a peaceful agri- \ncultural community, and gradually to extirpate from \namong them all those barbarous usages which could \nnot be abolished at a blow ; so, in particular, they \nwere fitted to fill the land of Israel with a popula- \ntion who would have no room for foreign slaves, \nand no use for that kind of \'^ machinery," and whose \nfeelings and habits w^ould be opposed to slavery. \n\nAccordingly, it is worthy of notice, that as Pales- \ntine became filled with an industrious and peaceful \nJewish population, the practice of employing bond- \nservants fell into comparative disuse. n the times \nof our Saviour, we find no very distincr. traces of the \nexistence of slavery among the Jews of the holy \nland. The only " servants " mentioned in the nar- \nratives of the four evangelists, except where the \nword occurs in Christ\'s parables, are the centurion\'s \n\n\n\n34 SLAVERY. \n\nservant miraculously healed,* who was most proba- \nbly a slave under the Roman law, and the servants \nof the high priest\'s palace,! who may have been \nhired servants, but more likely w^ere Jew^s engaged \nfor a six years\' term of service, according to the Mo- \nsaic statute. \n\nWhat then are the results of our inquiry respect- \ning the legislation of the great author of the Hebrew \npolity? Did Moses, legislating for Israel by Divine \nauthority, approve and sanctify slavery as an insti- \ntution, or slaveholding as a practice ? By no means. \nDid he peremptorily forbid and abolish it, on the \nplan of immediate abolition? We answ^er. No; if \nhe did the Bible is a book past all understanding. \n\nBefore proceeding to an examination of the prin- \nciples and conduct of the apostles in respect to this \nsubject, we pause, that we may ask our southern \nreaders to compare their code noir with the slave \nlaws of Moses. Is it not true, without any consi- \nderable exception that your laws on the subject \nare all designed for the advantage of the master ; \nto secure him from the loss of his property ; to \nguard him against insurrection ; to strengthen him \nin the exercise of a power so absolute, so odious, \nthat nature stands horror-struck at the bare descrip- \ntion ; and to fortify the system, as far as possi- \nble, against everything that tends to its abolition? \nIs not the only considerable limitation of the power \nof the master a limitation in the wrong direction \xe2\x80\x94 \na limitation against righteousness, against compas- \nsion, against religion ? Is not almost any cruelty \n\n* Matt. viii. 5-13. t Mark xiv. 65; Luke xxii. 50. \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. 35 \n\nin a slaveholder less offensive \xe2\x80\x94 we do not say to \npublic sentiment, but to the law \xe2\x80\x94 than the kind- \nness that would give them their freedom, or that \nwould even teach them to read the Word of God 1 \nHas not every new law, from year to year, pushed \nthe same line of policy a little farther \'? How con- \ntrary to all this were the statutes of the great He- \nbrew lawgiver ! His laws affecting the relation of \nmaster and slave are designed, not to afford the \nstrong new advantages and a more perfect impunity \nin oppression, but to relieve the helpless and pro- \ntect the defenceless ; not to construct new entrench- \nments around a barbarous system, at war with \nhuman happiness, but rather to cast down its bar- \nriers, and to lay it open to the entrance of improving \nand transforming influences. \n\nAt the same time, it may be remarked, that there \nis a lesson here for those extra-zealous abolitionists \nwho permit themselves to be led into denunciations \nagainst the constitution of the United States, and \nagainst the memory of all the framers of that august \ncompact, on the ground that it does not prohibit \nslavery, but allows to slaveholders the power of \nrepresenting their bondmen in the national legisla- \nture. Undesirable indeed it is, that slavery should \nexist under the banner of the great republic; \xe2\x80\x94 still \nmore undesirable that the representatives of slaves \nshould sit in the capitol ; but shall we, therefore, \ncurse the constitution, and curse the memory of the \nmen who framed it and consented to it \'? Is not the \nconstitution, as it is, the very best that could have \nbeen framed in those circumstances 1 Is it not far \n\n\n\n36 SLAVERY. \n\nbetter than any sane man could hope for, if the \nwork were now to be done over again? Were not \nthese undesirable concessions necessary, \'\' because \nof the hardness of the hearts" of the people for \nwhom the constitution was to be framed 1 It is \nwell known that tlie federal compact has been de- \nnounced, on this account, by certain agitators, in no \nmeasured terms ; and, unfortunately, certain habits \nof reasoning, prevalent in these days, are calculated \nto give effect to that sort of denunciation. No mat- \nter how much the peaceful and prosperous union of \nthese states has done for the cause of liberty and \nhuman happiness over all the earth \xe2\x80\x94 no matter \nwhat wars and implacable enmities would have \nraged perpetually between the rival powers of the \nnorth and south, the east and west, had the plan of \nunion under one government been permitted to \nfail \xe2\x80\x94 no matter, though all the blood of tlie revolu- \ntion had been in vain, and the enemies of liberal \ninstitutions had found, in the hopeless anarchy of \nthe American republics an irresistible argument \nagainst popular governments \xe2\x80\x94 no matter what des- \ntiny would have been entailed on us and our pos- \nterity, or what darkness would have settled on all \nthe hopes of oppressed and fainting nations, had the \nconvention of 1788 broken up without forming a \nconstitution, or had the constitution formed been re- \njected by the people \xe2\x80\x94 all these things are not even \nthe dust of the balance, in the estimation of the \nagitators ; all these things are mere matters of " ex- \npediency ;" notwithstanding all these things, the \nconstitution is to be execrated as a compromise with \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. 37 \n\nslaveholders, and an \'\' agreement to act in opposi- \ntion to the principles of justice."* Let these de- \nnouncers be consistent ; let them hold up, for the \nexecration of philanthropists, the concessions to a \nhard-hearted and stiff-necked people, which are in- \nterwoven with the law given to the Hebrews by the \ninspiration of the God of love. \n\nWe come nov/ to the second branch of the inves- \ntigation which we have undertaken. What was \nthe conduct of Christ and his apostles, in relation to \nslavery? Here, as before, we have a twofold in- \nquiry. Did the apostles, in any way, sanction or \njustify slavery ? If not, did they everywhere preach \nto slaveholders, as an essenti I point of religion, the \nduty of instant and unqualified emancipation] \n\nIn regard to the conduct of our Saviour, little \nneed be said ; for, as we have already intimated, it \ndoes not appear that he lived in a slaveholding \n\n* We are happy to see that some of the immediate abolitionists, as \nthey choose to be called, are beginning to take am.^v^ rational and more \nloyal view of the Federal Constitution. In the recently published " Ad- \ndress of the New York City Anti-Slavery Society"- a pamphlet which, \nthough written generally in a much better spirit than most of the pub- \nlications of that school, contains some statements quite too uncandid \nto be worthy of refutation\xe2\x80\x94 it is stated, with much truth, (1) That the \nclause in the Constitution, under which fugitive slaves are reclaimed \nfrom the free States, is necessary to reclaim a runaway apprentice, \nand will be indispensable after slavery shall have been abolished. \nAnd (2) that the provision allowing three-fifths of the slaves to be \nrepresented in Congress, is in fact a motive to tlie abolition of slavery, \ninasmuch as the slave States, by abolishing slavery, would be enabled \nto represent in Congress five-fifths, instead of three-fifihs of their ne- \ngroes. This is a motive which will one day have a powerful op\'^ra- \ntion. The abolition of slavery throughout the United States would \nenable the now slaveholding States to send into Congress, imme- \ndiately, fifteen or twenty additional representatives. \n\n3 \n\n\n\n38 SLAVERY. \n\ncountry, and there is nothing in his personal history \nthat can he considered as positively touching the \nsubject. If the centurion\'s servant, healed by \nChrist, was a slave, under the Roman law, as we \nsuppose him to have been ; and if the Saviour had \ndesigned to preach the modern doctrine of imme- \ndiate emancipation, surely we should find, in con- \nnection with the record of the miracle, something \non the subject of setting the servant at liberty. If \none of our modern abolitionists had been there, \namong the disciples, the centurion surely would \nnot have escaped without a hot rebuke. But, does \nall this prove that the Saviour of the world has \nsanctioned, and acknowledged as right, the practice \nof holding innocent men in bondage? Because he \ndid not interfere to dissolve the relation of master \nand servant, in that particular instance, does it fol- \nlow that he approved of the relation, and that his \ndisciples may buy and sell slaves without fear of \noffending him, or of dishonoring his gospell If it \nis said that this servant was not a slave ; we answer, \nthat is a possible case : but if we admit it to be a \nfact, the admission only removes the incident out of \nthe range of our present inquiry. \n\nIn relation to the apostles, the inquiry is not to \nbe so summarily disposed of. As soon as their mis- \nsion carried them out of Palestine, the moment they \nentered into any of the great cities of the empire, \nwhether in Syria or Asia, in Greece or Italy \xe2\x80\x94 they \nwere in the midst of slavery, rank and flourishing. \nIt is, of course, to be expected that many allusions \nto slavery will be found in their writings. It is to \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. 39 \n\nbe expected that on such a subject their opinions will \nbe expressed, and that not indistinctly. \n\nBut, here it is proper to inquire, before examin- \ning the references to slavery in the apostolic writ- \nings, What was the slavery which then existed 1 \nDid it resemble at all the negro slavery of modern \ntimes ? The question is not a difficult one to be an- \nswered. Doubtless the laws and usages were various \nin different parts of the empire, according to the \ncharacter of the various subject nations, and their \nancient civil institutions ; doubtless the lot of the \nslave was less miserable in some provinces than in \nothers ; but we presume no scholar will deny that \nslavery, as it existed at the metropolis, and as it \nwas practiced by Roman citizens, may fairly be \ntaken as a specimen of the slavery which the apos- \ntles encountered in their labors, and to which refer- \nence is had in their writings. \n\nThe following particulars, respecting Roman \nslavery, are familiar to every schoolboy w^ho has \nstudied Adam\'s Roman Antiquities. \n\n1. Slaves were held, not as persons, but as things; \nand were bought and sold like any other merchan- \ndise. Fathers might sell their free-born children \ninto slavery. \n\n2. The children of a female slave were the pro- \nperty of her master. There was no regular mar- \nriage among slaves ; but man and woman lived to- \ngether by the permission of the master, in a con- \nnection altogether like the unlegalized and unpro- \ntected marriage of slaves in this country. \n\n3. The power of the master over his slaves wms \nabsolute. He might scourge them, or put them to \n\n\n\n40 SLAVERY. \n\ndeath,* at bis pleasure. The lash was the common \ninstrument of punishment; but sometimes slaves \nwere branded in the forehead ; and sometimes they \nwere made to wear a piece of wood, like a yoke, \naround their necks. Sometimes, too, they were \npunished by confinement in a workhouse, or house \nof correction. When slaves were whipped, they \nwere suspended with a weight tied to their feet. \n\n4. If a master was slain at his own house by one \nof his slaves, or if the murderer was not discovered, \nall the slaves in his family were liable to be put to \ndeath. Tacitusf records a tragedy of this kind, in \nv/hich a family of four hundred slaves, of whom all \nbut one were probably innocent, were publicly exe- \ncuted. That affair occurred not far from the time \nwhen Paul was dwelling in his own hired house at \nRome. \n\n5. Slaves could not appear as witnesses in a court \nof justice. Nor could they inherit anything, or make \na will, except with the consent of their masters. In \na word, a slave was incapable of possessing proper- \nty, save as his master gave him the privilege of lay- \ning aside a peculiuin from the monthly or daily al- \nlowance on which he subsisted, or from the money \nwhich he might happen to receive in other w^ays. \n\n6. Slaves were often treated with great cruelty. \nSome, indeed, were educated, and employed as \nclerks, or as teachers of children. Some were the \n\n* Pone crucem servo\xe2\x80\x94\' Meruit quo crimine servus \nSupplicium 1 Quis testis adest \\ Quis detulit V Audi. \nNulla unquam dc morte hominis cunctatio longa est, \nO demens, ita servus homo est 1 Nil fecerit, esto. \nHocvolo, sic jubeo,sitproratione voluntas.\xe2\x80\x94 Juven. Sat. vi. t. 218. \n\nt Tacit. Annal. xiv. 42, 45. \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. 41 \n\npersonal attendants, and humble companions of \ntheir masters. Not a few, perhaps, were kindly \nand atfectionately treated ; and were permitted to \ncherish the hope of becoming free, and sharing in \nall the immunities and honors of Roman citizenship. \nBut the condition of others, and those not few, was \nthe lowest to which human nature can be degraded. \nSome served in chains, as the doorkeepers of their \nmasters\' houses. Some, in chains, were compelled \nto\'dig upon a soil, the fruits of which were never to \nbe their own. Others toiled in subterranean work- \nhouses. \n\n7. The number of slaves was very great. Great \nthe number must have been, when four hundred, \nthe inmates of one house, were publicly butchered, \nto expiate a single murder. A wealthy Roman was \nsometimes the proprietor of several thousands. \n\nThese particulars, which are only a part of a \ngrammar-schoolbo)^\'s learning, are sufficient to show \nwhat was understood, in Paul\'s time, by the words \nmaster and servant, and what was then the differ- \nence between bond and free. Who will not ac- \nknowledge that the state of things in the Roman \nempire at that time was, at least, almost as bad as \nthe state of tilings at present in this Federal Republic? \nThe question is, how did the apostles express them- \nselves, and conduct themselves, in respect to the re- \nlation of servitude, as it then existed? \n\nPassing by, as unimportant, all those allusions \nwhich merely show the fact, that the first preachers \nof Christianity had to do with a slaveholding people, \nwe notice, first, Paul\'s advice to the slaves who \nwere members of the Corinthian Church. ^\'Lct \n\n\n\n42 SLAVERY. \n\nevery man abide in the same calling wherein he was \ncalled: [that is, let ever}^ man be satisfied to con- \ntinue in the same social and secular engagements in \nwhich he was when he became a Christian.] Art \nthou called, being a servant? care not for it; but if \nthou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he \nthat is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the \nLord\'s freeman ; likewise, also, he that is called, \nbeing free, is Christ\'s servant. Ye are bought with \na price ; be not ye the servants of men."* The \nslave is here exhorted to perform the duties of his \nstation without repining at his lot, inasmucli as bond \nand free, who believe in Christ, are alike the ser- \nvants and the freed-men of the Lord ; and yet, he is \nreminded, in language which shows that the apostle \nwas thinking how God had forbidden the children of \nIsrael to hold each other in bondage, tliat if he may \nbe made free, it is unworthy of his dignit}^, as the \nLord\'s redeemed freeman, to be any longer the slave \nof a fellow-man. t Nothing is said, in this epistle, \nrespecting the duty of masters. Is it because there \nwere no masters among the Corinthian Christians? \n\nIn addressing the Church at Ephesus, the apostle \nexhorts not only slaves but slaveholders. \'\'Ser- \nvants, be obedient to them that are your masters ac- \ncording to the flesh, with fear and trembling, [with \nthe utmost respect,] in singleness of heart, as unto \nChrist; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but \n\n\n\n* 1 Cor. vii. 20-23. \n\n\xe2\x96\xa0f The language of the apostle evidently shows that he was thinking \nhow God had forbidden tlie children of Israel to liold each other as \nbondmen, Levit. xxv. 42. JMr. Paxton remarks, (p. 122,) that the words \nof Paul might well pass for a quotation from Moses. \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. 43 \n\nas the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from \nthe heart; with good will doing service, as to the \nLord and not to men ; knowing, that whatsoever \ngood thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive \nof the Lord, whether he he hond or free. And ye, \nmasters, do the same things to them, [conduct your- \nselves towards 3^our servants with the same conscien- \ntiousness,] forbearing threatening, knowing that your \nMaster also is in heaven ; neither is there respect of \npersons with him."* \n\nA passage, entirely parallel to that just cited, oc- \ncurs in the Epistle to the Colossians. \'^ Servants, \nobey in all things your masters according to the \nflesh, not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but in \nsingleness of heart, fearing God ; and whatever ye \ndo, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, \nknowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the re- \nward of the inheritance, [the wages of future bles- \nsedness,] for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that \ndoeth wrong, shall receive for the wrong which he \nhath done ; and there is no respect of persons. \nMasters, give to your servants that which is just and \nequal, [or equitable,] knowing that ye also have a \nMaster in heaven."! In both these passages it is \nimplied, first, that the writer felt slavery to be at best \na hard and painful condition; and, secondly, that in \nhis view, the idea of a master governing his slaves \nconscientiously, equitably, and on Christian princi- \nples, was not a contradiction. \n\nIt is to be remarked, that one of the bearers of the \nepistle last referred to, was Onesimus, a fugitive ser- \n\n* Eph. vi. 5-9. -f Col. iii. 22-35; iv. 1. \n\n\n\n44 SLAVERY. \n\nvant, who, coming to Rome, bad been converted \nunder the ministry of Paid, and was now sent back \nby the apostle to bis master Philemon, one of the \nColossian Christians. The epistle which the return- \ning fugitive carried to his old master from the im- \nprisoned apostle, cannot but afford some clue to that \napostle\'s views of slavery. *\' Though I might be \nmuch bold in Christ, to enjoin thee that which is \nconvenient, [proper,] yet for love\'s sake, I rather \nbeseech thee. I beseech thee for m}\'^ son, Onesimus, \nwhom I have begotten in my bonds ; who in time past \nwas to thee unprofitable, but now is profitable to thee \nand to me : whom I have sent again ; thou, therefore, \nreceive him, that is my own bowels. Whom I would \nhave retained with me, that in thy stead he miglit \nhave ministered to me in the bonds of the gospel, \n[in my imprisonment for the gospel.] But without \nthy mind, [consent,] would I do nothing, that thy \nbenefit, [kindness,] should not be as it were of ne- \ncessity, but willingly. For, perhaps, he therefore \ndeparted for a season, that thou shouldst receive him \nforever ; not now as a servant, but above a servant, \na brother beloved, especially to me, but how much \nmore to thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord ? If, \ntherefore, thou count me as a partner, receive him \nas myself. If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee \naught, put that on mine account. I, Paul, have \nwritten it with mine own hand, I will repay it.\'** \nOnesimus was evidently not of the lowest rank of \nslaves, but an educated and intelligent man \xe2\x80\x94 ^just \nsuch a man as the apostle needed to assist him while \n\n* Philem. 10-19, \n\n\n\nSLAVERt. 45 \n\na prisoner. Paul, sending him back after bis con- \nversion, to Philemon, speaks of the new relation of \nbrotherhood which is hereafter to subsist between \nthe master and the servant, and prefers a request for \nthe emancipation of the converted slave, and offers \nto become responsible for whatever losses Philemon \nmay have sustained by his former unfaithfulness. \n\nPeter, in his epistle to the Christians of \'\'Pontus, \nGalatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia," countries, \nsome of which were the Guinea \xe2\x80\x94 the very slave- \ncoast* \xe2\x80\x94 of the Roman empire, is naturally led to al- \nlude to the hard condition of slaves, which he does \nin language indirectly expressive of much sympathy. \nThe passage need not be quoted. It is of much the \nsame tenor with Paul\'s exhortations to the same \nclass of Christians.! He enjoins it upon them, by \nChristian motives, to be conscientiously obedient \nand respectful towards their masters, and to submit \npatiently to the unkindest treatment. \n\nThis kind of preaching to slaves is, in Paul\'s epis- \ntles to Titus and Timothy, made a part of the duty of \nChristian ministers. To Timothy it is said, \'\'Let as \n\n\n\n* \' Cappadocian,\' was with the Romans another name for slave. \nCicero says of one of his enemies, \' Ca2:>padocc7n modo abreptum de grege \nvcnalium diceres \' \xe2\x80\x94 an expression nearly equivalent with the phrase \nsometimes used at the South, \' He is as stupid as a new negro.\' It is \nremarkable that Juvenal, alluding to the degradation of society, occa- \nsioned by the honors and privileges bestowed on emancipated slaves, \nenumerates, as the native provinces of those slaves converted into \nknights, the same countries mentioned by Peter in the inscription of \nhis epistle, with the exception of Pontus. \n\nFaciant equites Asiani, \nQuanquam et Cappadoces faciant equitesque Bithyni, \nAltera quos nudo traducit Gallia td.\\o.\xe2\x80\x94Sat. vii. 14. \nt 1 Pet. ii. 18-21. \n\n3* \n\n\n\n46 SLAVERY. \n\nmany servants as are under the yoke^ ccaint their own \nmasters worthy of all honor, that the name of God \nand his doctrine be not bLasphcmed. And they that \nhave believing masters, let them not despise them, \nbecause they are brethren ; but rather do them ser- \nvice, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers \nof the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If \nany man teach otherwise, and consent not to Avhole- \nsome words, the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and \nto the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is \nproud, knowing nothing, doting [diseased] about \nquestions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, \nstrife, railing, evil surmisings, etc\xe2\x80\x94 from such with- \ndraw thyself.\'\'^* Here we see, first, that there were \nbond-servants among the Christians in the region \nwhere Timothy, as an evangelist, was to superin- \ntend tlie organization of churches, and w^as to put \nin operation the entire system of apostolic institu- \ntions ; secondly, that some of those bondmen had \nmasters who were recognized as believers ; thirdly, \nthat even at that early period, there were some who \nundertook to infer from the gospel the abolition of \nslavery as a civil institution ; txndi fourthly , that Paul \nadvised Timothy to have no partnership with such \nteachers. \n\nThe reader has now before him a full view of \nwhat the apostles have said respecting slavery, and \nthe duties of master and slave. So far as our pre- \nsent inquiry is concerned, the whole may be sum- \nmed up in the following remarks : \n\n1. The apostles have said nothing in vindication \n\n* 1 Tim. vi. 1-5 ; Titus ii. 9, 10. \n\n\n\nSLAVER V. 47 \n\nof slavery. In all the allusions of the New Testa- \nment writers to this subject, not a word is found \nwhich seems as if they approved of one man\'s hold- \ning another in bondage ; not a word to encourage \nthe master in perpetuating the degraded condition \nof his servants ; not a word to caution him against \nthe \'^ mistaken philanthropy" of giving them their \nfreedom. \n\n2. It is manifest that the apostles regarded the \ncondition of slaves with compassionate sympathy. \nTheir language, when they inculcate on servants \nthe duties of their station, breathes always the spirit \nof condolence. They enjoin it on every slave who \nmay be made free, to accept the higher responsibili- \nties of a freeman, as more worthy of one redeemed \nby the blood of Christ. We find in their w^ritings \nno pictures of the happiness of servitude ; none of \nthe sickening common-places of southern philan- \nthropy about the contentment of slaves, their exemp- \ntion from care, the lightness of their tasks, and the \nsuperiority of their condition over that of a free pea- \nsantry. Every word in the New Testament, that \ntouches on slavery, is in a very different tone. \n\n3. Immediate emancipation on the part of slave- \nholders, was not a condition of membership in the \napostolic churches. Philemon, a man of consider- \nation among the saints at Colosse, was a slaveholder, \nPaul expected that Timothy, in fulfilling his office \nof an evangelist, would have occasion to exhort some \nslaves, at least, that had believing masters, (\'jtKfrovg \n(^stf-TTora^.) In the church at Ephesus, as well as in \nthat of the Colossians, there were so many masters, \nthat it seemed proper to address them as a distinct \n\n\n\n48 SLAVERY. \n\nclass. All these men must have been acknowledged \nas credible professors of Christianity. Yet, not one \nword is said by way of enjoining upon them the im- \nmediate emancipation of their servants ; not one \nword which implies that to live in the relation of a \nmaster, even for an hour, is to live in high-handed \niniquity ; not one word which intimates any sympa- \nthy with a certain Address to the Presbyterian \nChurch, which has been widely circulated at the ex- \npense, we presume, of some of the leading aboli- \ntionists, (so called,) in the city of New York. \n^\' Slaveholding," says that address, \'^under every \npossible modification, is man-stealing. Man-steal- \ning, as combining impiety in principle, falsehood in \nclaim, injustice and cruelty without intermission and \nwithout end, is the most flagrant iniquity which a \nsinner can perpetrate. All profession of religion, \nby a man who thus acts, is a gross deception." Such \nis the modern doctrine of immediate emancipation. \nThe master of a slave, U7ider every possible modifica- \ntion of that relation, is guilty of the most flagrant \niniquity possible ; his crime is one in which impiety \nand falsehood, injustice and cruelty unremitting and \ninterminable, are all combined ; and if he attempts \nto make a profession of religion, he is a gross de- \nceiver. Such were the nidroi bcdnfoTon of whom Paul \nspeaks to Timothy. Such was Philemon, wliom \nthe great apostle styled, \'\'our dearly beloved, and \nfellow-laborer." Such . were the \'\'masters " in the \nchurches at Ephesus and Colosse. The apostles \ndid not teach immediate abolitionism, nor did they \nform their churches on that basis. \n4. The apostles seem to have taken it for granted, \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. 49 \n\nthat the Christian master would do for his slaves all \nthat was consistent with their welfare and the pub- \nlic good. So Paul acted in the case of Philemon \nand Onesimus. The slave is sent back to his mas- \nter, and the master\'s legal claim is distinctly recog- \nnized. Yet it is taken for granted, that Philemon \nwill act with other views than a regard to his own \npecuniary interest; that he will look on Onesimus \nnot as an article of merchandise, but as a man, a \nbrother, and will treat him accordingly. It is taken \nfor granted that now, since the grace of God has \ntaken effect on the once unprofitable slave, and has \nfitted him to be happy and useful under the respon- \nsibilities of freedom, his Christian master will not \nonly forgive his past offences, but will send him \nforth free, to be the helper of Paul, or in any other \nway to advance the kingdom of the Saviour. So \nto masters generally, the command was, \' Render to \nyour servants that which is right and equitable ;\' \nand it was left to an enlightened conscience to \ndecide, in each instance, what the principles of \nright and equity required. Of course it was taken \nfor granted, that the slave would be treated as an \nintelligent and immortal being ; and that, whenever \nthe great rule of equity, the golden rule of love, re- \nquired the slave to be put upon his own resources, \nand set to act under his own guidance, he would be \nemancipated. \n\nWe find the discussion extending itself beyond \nour expectation, and the printer warns us to bring \nit to a conclusion. Let us look, then, at some points \nof Christian duty in regard to slavery, as we have \nto do with it in this country at the present day. \n\n\n\n50 SLAVERY. \n\n1. Ought the naked fact, that a certahi man is \nthe master of slaves, to exclude him, without farther \ninquiry, from the communion of the churches 1 \nWe answer. No. It may be that he came into that \nrelation Avithout any act of his own. It may be that \nhe is doing for the welfare of those slaves, conscien- \ntiously and diligently, the most that existing cir- \ncumstances will allow. It may be that if he eman- \ncipates them from under his hand, the sheriff will \nimmediately arrest them, and sell them to the highest \nbidder. It may be that he is prosecuting a course \nof measures, which, after less than a seven years\' \n" apprenticeship," will result in their real emanci- \npation. The mere fact that he is invested with a \ncertain legal power over the persons of these indi- \nviduals, implying a certain legal title to their ser- \nvices, is not necessarily a crime. The author of \nthese letters enslaver}^, while he, was educating his \nservants to take care of themselves, and providing \ntheir outfit to Liberia, was not a criminal, though \nhe w^as still their master, and as such, responsible \nfor their good government. The question, in each \nindividual instance, is, Whence did this man obtain \nhis power over these his fellow-men ? and to what \nends is he employing it 1 On the answer to this \nquestion will depend the propriety of allowing his \nclaims to be considered as a servant of Christ. If \nhe makes it a business to breed slaves for market \xe2\x80\x94 \nif he treats rational and immortal beings only as if \nthey were cattle \xe2\x80\x94 nay, if he does not see carefully, \nnot only that their physical wants are supplied, but \nthat they are restrained from vice, and properly in- \nstructed, especially in the things of their everlasting \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. 5 1 \n\npeace ; and if, after due admonition, he will not \nrepent of his iniquity, then treat him as a heathen \nman and a publican. \n\n2. Ought the mere buying of a slave to exclude \nthe buyer from Christian communion? Not the \nmere act of buying. The question is, To what end, \nand with what vie\\vs, was the purchase made? A \nfriend of ours in the District of Columbia, once \nbought a negro woman with a family of children. \n^ Away with him !\' cry the abolitionists \xe2\x80\x94 ^ Excom- \nmunicate him !\' But, ^\' good friends, sweet friends, \nlet us not stir you up to such a sudden rage ;" \xe2\x80\x94 \ntake your fingers from your ears, and hear the story. \nThat woman and her children were for sale, and, \nby the operation of the internal (or, as the word is \nsometimes spelled, not incorrectly, infernal) slave- \ntrade, w^ere about to be transported to the extreme \nsouth. There are philanthropists who would have \nstood by to witness the transaction, and would have \neased their burthened minds, by letting off a volley \nof execrations. But our friend has taken no de- \ngrees in their college. Though not worth a dollar \nbeyond his daily earnings, he bought the whole \nfamily, borrowed the money on his own responsi- \nbility, with the endorsement of a friend, and, if we \nmistake not, owes for it, and pays seven per cent, \ninterest for it, to this day. Those slaves are now \nfree, not in Liberia, but in America ; and their \nbenefactor, a standing mark for the obloquy of some \nwho think themselves the only abolitionists, toils on \nin the great cause of suffering humanity, burthened \nwith the debt of that purchase. When any of those \nwho have arrayed themselves as his enemies, shall \n\n\n\n52 SLAVERY. \n\nhave been guilty of a similar imprudence, we will \ngive them credit for being warm-hearted as well as \nhot-headed. But to the question, Shall this man, \nfor biiying slaves, be excluded from the commimion \nof the saints ? Often may we commune with him \nin Christian ordinances here ; and be it ours to sit \ndown with him at the \'^ marriage-supper of the \nLamb." \n\nTake another case. Suppose some wealthy indi- \nvidual undertakes to demonstrate, by a public ex- \nperiment, the practicability and good economy of \nconverting slaves into free laborers. He purchases \na tract of land in Florida, where no State govern- \nment can forbid philanthropy to exert itself, but the \nlaws and liberties of the Union are his protection. \nNext, he goes into the slave-markets of Virginia, \nand buys fifty or a hundred slaves. These he trans- \nports to his new plantation ; as their legal master, \ninvested with all the powers of government over \nthem, he establishes such regulations as he deems \nnecessary to their order, their industry, their im- \nprovement, and sets them at work, intending to make \nthem, as fast as they will indemnify him for the ex- \npense of the undertaking, the free proprietors of the \nsoil on which they labor. Shall such a man be ex- \ncommunicated for buying slaves? We earnestly \nwish that some of the gentlemen who are expending \nthousands of dollars in a conscientious, (we dare \nsay,) but still most unprofitable crusade against \nAfrican colonization, might be induced to divert a \npart of that expenditure to buy slaves for such an \nexperiment. \nThese cases are stated for the sake of showing that \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. 53 \n\nthe crime does not consist in the act of buying, \nbut in the purposes and views with which the pur- \nchase is made. The man who, born free and among \nthe free, makes himself a slaveholder for the sake \nof gain ; (shame to New England that there are so \nmany such,) the man who buys his fellow men, as \nhe would buy oxen, simply with a view to his own \ninterest, that he may have them to sell again if he can \nsell them at a bargain, or that he may enrich himself \nby their reluctant toil, and when he has done with \nthem, leave them to \'heirs he knows not who;\' the \nman who buys slaves with any other design than to do \nthem all the good he can, is most manifestly an of- \nfender against the law of love, and ought to be dealt \nwith as such, by all the churches. He is not only \nguilty of wrong towards the individuals whom he \npurchases, but he gives the full support of his exam- \nple to the entire system of slavery, and voluntarily \nmakes himself a partaker in all the sins which that \nsystem, by its natural tendency, diffuses through \nsociety. \n\n3. What ought the slaveholder to do? What \nought he to do in regard to his own slaves\'? Obvi- \nously, he ought to do for them just what, on a care- \nful consideration of their character and all their cir- \ncumstances, he sees will be most for their good ; we \ndo not speak here of the public good, because their \ngood and the \'public good are, in reference to this \nquestion, inseparable. Let him consider, not only \ntheir actual condition, but their liabilities. Be it \nthat their master is kind and attentive to all their \nwants ; be it that they are well governed, and sup- \nplied with religious instruction ; be it even that they \n\n\n\n54 SLAVERY. \n\nare contented with their present lot, and are nnwil- \nling to change phices with the free blacks around \nthem ; all this w^eighs but little in the scale against \ntheir liabilities. They are liable, as chattels, to be \nattached and sold for their master\'s debts; and, \nwhatever commercial revolution, whatever accident, \ninvolves him in pecuniary embarrassment, is likely \nto bring on them a distress, compared with which \nbankruptcy and poverty are nothing. So, on the \ndeath of their master, when his estate comes to be \nsettled and divided, they are liable to the same fate ; \nall their connexions may be sundered; and, torn from \nall that is home to ihem, they ma}^ be consigned to \na condition the more terrible for the former allevia- \ntions of their lot. What, then, does a wise regard \nfor their welfare \xe2\x80\x94 what does imperative justice to- \nwards them \xe2\x80\x94 demand of their master? Ought he \nnot, if possible, and as soon as possible, to secure \nthem against such contingencies 1 Against such \ncontingencies they cannot be secured, as the laws \nnow are, but by being made free. Does he ask. How \ncan I make them free? We answer. You can edu- \ncate them for liberty ; and, as fast as the}^ beconie \nat all competent to take care of themselves, you can \nput them in the way of earning a passage to Africa, \nor let them choose their own course to whatever \ncountry will open its doors to receive them. \n\nBut w^hat ought the slaveholder to do in regard to \nthe system of slavery? First of all, lie ought, on \nevery fit occasion, to bear his testimony against it, \nand against the legislation which creates and sup- \nports it. He ought to declare himself, fearlessly, \nthe enemy of slaverv, and the friend of whatever \n\n\n\nSLAVERY. 55 \n\nwill mitigate the curse, or promote its peaceful abo- \nlition. Where such an evil pervades society, offend- \ning the heavens with its atrocity, and cursing the \nvery soil with its afflictive influences, if any indivi- \ndual has a right to be silent, that individual is not \nthe slaveholder. His silence respecting such an evil, \nis approbation ; his neutrality, is partisanship. The \ntimidity which seals his lips, makes him, in fact, an \nabettor and supporter of all those laws, the mere di- \ngest of which is enough to make the brow of an \nAmerican crimson with shame. If all those men in \nthe southern States, who are, in conscience and in \njudgment, dissatisfied with slavery \xe2\x80\x94 who are con- \nvinced that it must be abolished, and desire to see \nthat consummation peacefully acconiplished \xe2\x80\x94 would \nbut speak out like freemen, there would soon be in \nthose States such a demonstration of public opinion, \nas would make the advocates of slavery cower and \nhide their heads for shame. \n\nYet, in order that the slaveholder\'s testimony \nagainst slavery may be complete and effectual, his \nexample must accord with it. If, on his own plan- \ntation, he perpetuates the system just as he received \nit from his predecessors ; if his slaves, born, living, \ndying, in the lowest condition to which humanity \ncan be degraded, transmit that condition unmitigated \nto their children ; if he does not set himself in earn- \nest, and like a working-man, to the work of ele- \nvating and blessing those whose destiny is commit- \nted to his hands \xe2\x80\x94 no matter what opinions he may \nexpress hostile to the system \xe2\x80\x94 the testimony of his \nexample is recorded for slavery, slavery as it is, sla- \nvery forever. The man who emancipates his slaves, \n\n\n\n56 SLAVERY. \n\nand places them where they will be free indeed, \nwhether in Liberia or in Hayti, whetlier in the Brit- \nish West Indies or on the prairies of Illinois, bears a \ntestimony against slavery, w^hich the consciences of \nhis neighbors cannot resist, and which he may think \nof with pleasure on his dying bed. \n\n\n\nTHE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.* \n\n\n\n[quarterly christian spectator, 1S33.] \n\n\n\nIt cannot be doubtedj that much of the dispute \nwhich exists at the present time among- those who \nare seeking the extinction of slavery, is to be as- \ncribed to some mutual misunderstanding in regard \nto the import of terms. One class of philanthropists, \namong whom the author of this book has recently \nbecome a standard-bearer, insist on Avhat they call \nthe immediate, unqualified, complete abolition \nof slavery. Another class, whose philanthropy is \nequally unquestionable, think that though the imme- \ndiate and universal emancipation of two millions of \nslaves may be better than the perpetuity of slavery, \na progressive and gradual subversion of the fabric \nof society now existing in the southern States would \nbe much more desirable, as respects the well-being \nof both the slaves and their masters, and as respects \nall those great interests of the human race, which \nare confessedly involved in the result. Between \nthese two classes \xe2\x80\x94 strange to tell \xe2\x80\x94 has arisen con- \ntention, such as turns the very temple of our reli- \n\n\n\n* Lectures on Slavery and its Rebiedy. By Amos A. Phelps, \nPastor of Pine street Church, Boston. Published by the New England \nSlavery Society, 1834. ISmo. pp. 284. \n\n\n\n58 THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. \n\ngioiis anniversaries into a scene of clamor and vio- \nlence. \n\nWe set up no claim to be considered peculiarly dis- \ninterested or impartial in this controversy. It is not \nfor us to pretend to act as umpires. Our readers all \nknow, that our sympathies are neither with the ad- \nvocates and apologists of slavery, nor with the cru- \nsaders for immediate and universal emancipation. \nWe have taken our ground with that class of Chris- \ntian philanthropists, who, reasoning not from the \nabstract equality of all men, as to political rights, \nbut from the great law of love, believe, first, that abo- \nlition in almost any form, is better than perpetual \nand immitigable slavery; and secondly, that the \nimmediate emancipation of two millions of slaves in \nthe United States, would be far less beneficent, and \ntherefore far less equitable towards the slaves them- \nselves \xe2\x80\x94 whose interests and rights in the matter are \nfirst to be consulted\xe2\x80\x94 than some more progressive \nchange of their relations to the other classes of soci- \nety. Yet, unless we deceive ourselves, we are not \ncommitted on this subject, so as to be unwilling to \nlearn. The subject has been much in our thoughts \nfor years; and as we are sure, that we understand it \nnow better than when we began to study it, so we \nconfidently expect to learn more and more in years \nto come. Our discussions of this subject, as of every \nother, are pursued, we trust, for truth rather than \nfor victory. And though we may be sometimes ex- \ncited \xe2\x80\x94 unduly excited, perhaps, by the treatment we \nreceive from men of whom we have a right to expect, \nif not the courteous bearing of gentlemen, that Chris- \ntian candor and kindness which is far better \xe2\x80\x94 we \n\n\n\nTHE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 59 \n\nStill hope, that no personal feelings of ours will lead \nus to pervert clear testimony, or will hinder us from \nacknowledging the force of argument. \n\nThe first thing necessary to the adjustment of the \ncontroversy, between the two parties of those who \ncherish a common enmity against slavery, is, that \nwe have a distinct and right understanding of the \nterms \' abolition\' and \' emancipation,\' as they are \nused in this controversy. It is common with im- \nmediate abolitionists, in their arguments on the sub- \nject, to describe in the strongest terms, some of the \nhorrors of that slavery which exists in the southern \nStates ; to deal out certain aphorisms about inalien- \nable rights ; and to infer, that every slave in the \nUnited States ought to be emancipated instanta- \nneously, and that all slavery ought to be instanta- \nneously abolished. What do they mean? is the \nfirst question. Do they make a right use of lan- \nguage 1 is another question. \n\nTo take an example \xe2\x80\x94 the authenticity of which \nwill not be called in question \xe2\x80\x94 the ^ National Anti- \nSlavery Convention,\' in their declaration of prin- \nciples, argue as follows : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\' Those, for whose emancipation we are striving \xe2\x80\x94 constituting \nat the present time at least one-sixth part of our countrymen \xe2\x80\x94 \nare recognized by the law, and treated by their fellow-beings as \nmarketable commodities \xe2\x80\x94 as goods and chattels \xe2\x80\x94 as brute beasts ; \nare plundered daily of the fruits of their toil without redress ; \nreally enjoying no constitutional nor legal protection from licen- \ntious and murderous outrages upon their persons ; are ruthlessly \ntorn asunder \xe2\x80\x94 the tender babe from the arms of its frantic mo- \nther \xe2\x80\x94 the heart-broken wife from her weeping husband \xe2\x80\x94 at the \ncaprice or pleasure of irresponsible tyrants. For the crime of \nhaving a dark complexion, they suffer the pangs of hunger, the \n\n\n\n60 THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. \n\ninfliction of stripes, and the ignominy of brutal servitude. They \nare kept in heathenish darkness, by laws expressly enacted to \nmake their instruction a criminal offence. * * * \n\nNo man has a right to enslave or imbrute his brother \xe2\x80\x94 to hold \nor acknowledge him, for one moment, as a piece of merchandise \n\xe2\x80\x94 to keep back his hire by fraud \xe2\x80\x94 or to brutalize his mind by de- \nnying him the means of intellectual, social, and moral improve- \nment. \n\nThe right to enjoy liberty is unalienable. To invade it, is to \nusurp the prerogative of Jehovah. Every man has a right to his \nown body \xe2\x80\x94 to the products of his own labor\xe2\x80\x94 to the protection \nof law \xe2\x80\x94 and to the common advantages of society. It is piracy \nto buy or steal a native African, and subject him to servitude. \nSurely the sin is as great to enslave an American as an Afri- \ncan. \n\nTherefore we believe and affirm\xe2\x80\x94 That there is no difference, \nin principle, between the African slave-trade and American sla- \nvery ; \n\nThat every American citizen, who retains a human being in \ninvoluntary bondage as his property, is, according to scripture, a \nman-stealer ; \n\nThat the slave ought instantly to be set free, and brought under \nthe protection of law ^ * * * * * \n\nThat all those laws which are now in force, admitting the \nright of slavery, are therefore before God utterly null and void ; \nbeing an usurpation of the Divine prerogative, a daring infringe- \nment on the law of nature, a base overthrow of the very founda- \ntions of the social compact, a complete extinction of all the rela- \ntions, endearments, and obligations of mankind, and a presump- \ntuous transgression of all the Holy Commandments\xe2\x80\x94 and that \ntherefore they ought to be instantly abrogated.\' \n\nWe quote this passage, not to argue with it, but \nto inquire, What do these people mean by imme- \ndiate emancipation 1 Take the fi st paragraph, on \nwhich, if wc mistake not, the whole argument waS \nsupposed by the signers of that address, to depend. \nThat paragraph seems to be the definition of that \n\n\n\nTHE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. Qi \n\nstate of things which ought to be immediately abol- \nished \xe2\x80\x94 the description of that slavery from which \nthe slaves ought to be immediately delivered. Sup- \npose, then, the abolition of that state of things to \nhave taken place. Suppose the slaves to have been \nactually delivered from the wrongs above recited. \nWhat is the changed The slaves are no longer \n\n* recognized by the law, or treated by their fellow- \nbeings, as marketable commodities, as goods and \nchattels, as brute beasts ;\' they are henceforth \n" PERSONS held to service,^\' They are no longer \n\n* plundered of the fruits of their toil ;\' the law takes \ncare effectually that they shall have such guardian- \nship, support, and comfort, as shall be a full equiva- \nlent for their labor. They are no longer \' destitute \nof constitutional and legal protection from licentious \nand murderous outrages on their persons ;\' the law, \nthrough the ministration of courts and officers insti- \ntuted for the purpose, guards them, as effectually as \nother subjects of the law are guarded against vio- \nlence and abuse. They are no longer \' ruthlessly \nlorn asunder \xe2\x80\x94 the babe from its mother, the wife \nfrom her husband \xe2\x80\x94 at the caprice or pleasure of ir- \nresponsible tyrants;\' it is provided by law, that \nevery master shall be held responsible for all his \ntreatment of his servants \xe2\x80\x94 that families of slaves \nshall not be separated without their own consent \xe2\x80\x94 \nand that no slave shall be transferred from one mas- \nter to another, without his own voluntary subscrip- \ntion (if he be an adult, or the subscription of his \nparents, if he be an infant,) to the instrument of \ntransfer. They no longer \' suffer the pangs of hun- \nger, the infliction of stripes, and the ignominy of \n\n4 \n\n\n\n62 THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. \n\nbrutal servitude, simply for the crime of having a \ndark complexion ;\' they are well fed ; their rations \nare forfeited only by the apostolic rule, as a punish- \nment for indolence ; stripes are inflicted on them \nonly for evil-doing, at the sentence of a magistrate, \nor if you please, other more civilized penalties have \nsuperseded the infliction of stripes ; their servitude \nhas ceased to be brutal. They are no longer \'\' kept \nin heathenish darkness, by laws expressly enacted \nto make their instruction a criminal offence ;" \xe2\x80\x94 the \nface of legislation has been turned the other v;ay ; \nstrong and thorough enactments have provided for \ntheir instruction at the public expense ; and the \nmaster, whose slaves are found untaught, is held \nguilty of a crime against the prosperity and safety \nof the State. Suppose all this to be a reality. Is \nthis what is meant by emancipation, immediate and \ncomplete? Is this the instant and unqualified abo- \nlition of slavery? Tell us not, that this must of \ncourse result in sweeping away the last vestiges of \nservitude. The question is not, what will it grow \nto \xe2\x80\x94 but what is it? Is it immediate abolition \xe2\x80\x94 in- \nstantaneous, universal emancipation? \n\nWe answer. No. Emancipation \xe2\x80\x94 abolition, means \nmore than all this. All this may be, while yet the \nslaves have not begun to be their own masters. \nThere is no emancipation till the slave is made a \nfree man. All short of this, is the improvement of \nhis condition, the alleviation of his bondage. To \nsay, that the slave is \'\'brought under the protection \nof the law," is something short of saying, that he \nis \'^ instantly set free." To make the slave an ap- \nprentice for life, or for a term of years, or for a single \n\n\n\nTHE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. ^3 \n\nyear; to establish, that he is not a chattel, but a \nperson ; to secure for him an equitable compensation \nfor his toil ; to protect him against abuse ; to legal- \nize and guard his domestic relations ; to provide \nfor his moral and religious instruction, and for the \neducation of his children, is not of course to make \nhim instantaneously a free man. All this is not all \nthat the convention mean by emancipation, when \nthey get among their abstractions. There they de- \nmand for the slave, not merely a legal personality, \nnot merely protection, compensation for labor, do- \nmestic rights, and the means of instruction ; but \nliberty \xe2\x80\x94 inalienable liberty \xe2\x80\x94 liberty which is his al- \nready, and always has been, save as he has been \nand is precluded from the enjoyment of it by *\' laws \nwhich before God are utterly null and void." Do \nthey understand the extent of their demand ? Do \nthey intend to denounce, as an \'^ usurpation of the \nprerogative of Jehovah," any law which, regard- \ning the slave as a minor, an infant, incompetent \nfor the present to control himself, should provide \nemployment for him, and forbid him to stroll away \nfrom it \xe2\x80\x94 should declare him incapable of making \ncontracts, except under the direction and advice of \nhis conservator \xe2\x80\x94 should regulate the application and \nexpenditure of his earnings, and should make ar- \nrangements for his being \'\' gradually" introduced \ninto the privilege of self-employment, of self-con- \ntrol, and of disposing of his own earnings at his \nown pleasure ? Is the immediate emancipation for \nwhich they contend, the emancipation inferable \nfrom their abstract principles % Or is it merely the \n\n\n\n54 THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. \n\nabolition of those particulars enumerated in their \ndescription of slavery 7 \n\nWe have before us, in the \'^ Preamble and Con- \nstitution of the Anti-Slavery Society of Lane Semi- \nnary," the following \'\' exposition of immediate \nemancipation," given for the very purpose of \'\' pre- \nventing misapprehensions." *\' It has been exten- \nsively adopted," say the writers of that document, \n\'\'as expressing the views of abolitionists, and em- \nbodies substantially our own." We doubt not, that \nit was intended to express fearlessly all that they \nmean, and all that they do not mean, by immediate \nemancipation : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\' "By immediate emancipation, we do not mean that the slaves \nshall be turned loose upon the nation, to roam as vagabonds and \naliens \xe2\x80\x94 nor \n\nThat they shall be instantly invested with all political rights \nand privileges \xe2\x80\x94 nor \n\nThat they shall be expelled from their native land to a foreign \nclime, as the price and condition of their freedom. \n\nBut we do mean \xe2\x80\x94 that instead of being under the unlimited \ncontrol of a few irresponsible masters, they shall really receive \nthe protection of law ; \n\nThat the power which is invested in every slaveholder, to \nrob them of their just dues, to drive them into the field like \nbeasts, to lacerate their bodies, to sell the husband from his wife, \nthe wife from her husband, and children from their parents, shall \ninstantly cease ; \n\nThat the slaves shall be employed as free laborers, fairly com- \npensated and protected in their earnings; \n\nThat they shall be placed under a benevolent or disinterested \nsupervision, which shall secure to them the right to obtain secu- \nlar and religious knowledge, to worship God according to the \ndictates of their consciences, and to seek an intellectual and \nmoral equality with the whites." \' \n\n\n\nTHE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 65 \n\nIn this definition, or, as the young men of the \nLane Seminary choose to call it, this " exposition \nof immediate emancipation," the only particular \nwhich implies emancipation at all, in the sense of \ninvesting the slaves with freedom, is the demand, \n" that the slaves shall be employed as free labor- \ners." That expression, taken by itself, might be \nunderstood to mean, that they are to be immediate- \nly free to labor or not to labor at their pleasure, free \nto find employment for themselves according to their \nliking, and free to dispose of their earnings accord- \ning to their own discretion. But against such a con- \nstruction, the writers seem to have guarded at the \noutset, by saying, \'\' We do not mean, that the \nslaves shall be turned loose upon the nation, to \nroam as vagabonds and aliens." In other words, \nthey do not mean, that the slaves are to be imme- \ndiately invested with self-control. \n\nThis, if we understand the meaning of words, is \nnot immediate emancipation. The slave, we re- \npeat, is not emancipated, till he becomes a free man. \nYou may make the master responsible, and limit \nhis power. You may take the slave out of the power \nof his master entirely, and put him under an over- \nseer appointed by the public. You may do for his \nphysical comfort, for his protection, for his instruc- \ntion, whatever seems needful. But he is not eman- \ncipated, till he goes forth, like the freed apprentice \nat the expiration of his indentures, his own master, \n\'Moose to roam" whithersoever he pleases. \n\nNo man can tell what abolition is, till he can first \ntell what slavery is. The immediate abolition of \nslavery, is the immediate annihilation of that state \n\n\n\n66 THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. \n\nof things which the word slavery denotes. Mr. \nPhelps, in the book before us, is the first immediate \nabolitionist whom we remember to have met with, \nwho was not too immediate \xe2\x80\x94 in too much haste for \nabolition, to undertake a distinct definition of the \nthing to be abolished. \'^ Slaver}^," he tells us, \'^ is \nan assumed right of property in man; or, it is the \nprinciple, admitted in theory, and acted on in prac- \ntice, that in some cases, each individual being his \nown judge in the case, it is lawful to hold property \nin man.\'\' He accompanies this definition with \nseveral pages of explanation, from which we learn, \nthat, in his view, wherever a man holds his fellow- \nman as property, as not a person but a thing, \' such \nas an ox or a horse,\' there is slavery, and there \nonly. It would be unfair, after his explanations, to \ninfer from the expression, " property in man," that \nhe condemns as slaveholding, the legal property of \nthe master in the time, strength, and skill, acquired \nor acquirable, of his apprentice. By \'^ holding \nproperty in man," he means simply, \'^ holding man \nas property" \xe2\x80\x94 simply holding and treating a rational \nand accountable creature of God, a brother of the \nhuman family, as a thing without rights, a mere \narticle of merchandise. The thing, then, which is \nto be immediately abolished, and the extinction of \nwhich is all that is necessarily meant by immediate \nabolition, if Mr. Phelps\' definition of slavery is a \ntrue one, is nothing else than the practice of own- \ning men, or rather of assuming and claiming to own \nthem, as chattels. \n\nThis definition of slavery is a very compendious \nmethod of proving, that the relation of the slave- \n\n\n\nTHE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 57 \n\nholder to his slaves is invariably, simply, and inex- \ncusably sinful. Our objection to it is, that it is not \na definition of all servitude, but only of that servi- \ntude which implies sin on the part of the master. \nIt was obviously framed with a view to the propo- \nsition \xe2\x80\x94 All slaveholdingis criminal. It was framed \nby a mind desirous of giving to its own positions a \nfair aspect, at least, of reason and consistency, and \nseeking a basis on which to construct the doctrine \nof immediate emancipation \xe2\x80\x94 a doctrine that shall \nmake every master of slaves, in all conceivable cir- \ncumstances, and without any possibility of explana- \ntion or defence, an oppressor, a man-stealer, a pirate, \nan enemy of the human race. If we understand \nthe meaning of terms, a man may be constituted by \nlaw the master of slaves, and may exercise over \nthem all the duties of guardianship and government, \nwithout considering them or treating them as pro- \nperty, and may yet be a slaveholder \xe2\x80\x94 the master of \nslaves, in the common acceptation of those terms \namong all w4io speak the English language. Those \nslaves are slaves, so long as they are not emanci \npated. They are not emancipated, as common \nsense understands emancipation, till they cease to \nbe under the control and guardianship of another. \n\nMr. Phelps\' definition of emancipation corre- \nsponds, as we might expect, with his definition of \nslavery. In answer to the question, \'\' What does \nyour immediate emancipation mean 1" he says : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n< It is simply, that the slaves be at once delivered from the \ncontrol of arbitrary and irresponsible power, and, like other men, \nput under the control of equitable laws, equitably administered. \nSlavery, as I have shown, is the principle, that man, in some \n\n\n\n68 THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. \n\ncases, at his own discretion, may hold his fellovv-man as pro- \nperty. This, adopted as a practical principle, is slavery ; rejected \nas s. practical principle, is slavery rejected. Immediate Emanci- \npation, then, means that slaveholders, as individuals, and as a \ncommunity, should at once give up this as a principle of action, \nand so doing, give up all that treatment which is based upon \nit, and thus put their slaves on the footing of men, and under \nthe control of motive and law. It is, for example, that England \nshould at once yield the principle of taxing us at pleasure, \n^vithout our consent; and in this one act yield, of course, all \nthe treatment growing out of, and based upon that principle. \nOr more specifically, immediate emancipation means. \n\n1. That the slaveholder, so far as he is concerned, should \ncease at once to hold or employ human beings as property, \n\n2. That he should put them at once, in h:s regard and treat- \nment of them, on the footing of men, possessing the inalienable \nrights of man. \n\n3. That instead of turning them adrift on society, uncared \nfor, he should offer to employ them as free hired laborers, giv- \ning them, however, Hberty of choice, whether to remain in his \nservice or not :* \n\n4. That from this starting point \xe2\x80\x94 this emancipation from sla- \nvery itself, he should at once begin to make amends for the past, \nby entering heartily on the -nvork of qualifying them for, and \nelevating them to all the privileges and blessings of freedom and \n\n* Suppose some of them are children, without parents, boys at fifteen \nyears of age. Ought he to give them that " liberty of choice 1" Sup- \npose one of them, at the age of thirty, is but a boy of larger growth, as \nignorant, as unfitted to employ himself, as incompetent to take care of \nand use his own earnings, as a child. Ought he to give to such a one \nthat liberty of choice 1 Again, what does that liberty of choice amount \nto, as the laws are in the Southern States 1 To what but a free choice \nbetween going forth and being arrested and sold by the sheriff, on the \none hand, and on the other hand, a continuance under the government \nand protection of his old master 1 Not to leave an unfair impression \nrespecting Mr. Phelps\' meaning, we add, that he himself says, on the \npreceding page, " We would not turn the slaves adrift on society, if we \ncould. So far from it, we are opposed to such a measure. We insist, \neven, that the master has no ktght thus to set them afloat on soci- \nety, unlocked after and uncared for." \n\n\n\nTHE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. ^9 \n\nreligion ; \xe2\x80\x94 thus doing what he can to emancipate them from their \nignorance, degradation, &c. \xe2\x80\x94 in other words, from the conse- \nquences of slavery, as well as from the thing itself. \n\nThus much in respect to the individual. In respect to the \ncommunity, as such, the scheme means, \n\n1. That, in its collective capacity, it should yield the principle \nof property in man, and thus cease to recognize any human heing \nas the property of another. \n\n2. That, by wise and equitable enactments, suited to the vari- \nous circumstances of the various classes of its members, it should \nrecognize them, all alike, as men\xe2\x80\x94 as subjects of equal law, \nunder its, and only its, control, to be deprived of \' life, liberty and \nthe pursuit of happiness,\' on no account but that of crime, and \nthen, by due and equitable process of law. \n\nAnd farther, in respect to those slaves who might be disposed \nto leave their master\'s service, and become idle vagrants in soci- \nety, the scheme means, \n\n1. That they should come under the control of vagrant laws- \njust as white vagrants do. \n\n2. That, if they commit crimes, they should be tried and con- \ndemned like other criminals, by due process of law.\' \n\nWe understand by abolition, much that is not in- \ncluded in Mr. Phelps\' description of it. Slavery, \naccording to our definition, is that artificial relation^ \nor civil institution^ hy which one man is invested with \na property in the labor of another^ to ivhoin, hy virtue \nof that relation^ he owes the duties of protection^ sup- \nport and government\') and who owes him^ in return^) \nobedience and submission. Our notion of the aboli- \ntion of slavery, is the entire destruction of that \nartificial constitution of society, which takes away \nfrom one man the power of self-control, and puts \nhim under the protection and control of another. \nThe immediate emancipation of a slave by his mas- \nter, is the instantaneous dissolution of the relation \n4* \n\n\n\n70 THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. \n\nin that individual instance. The immediate aboli- \ntion of slavery, in a state or country, is the instan- \ntaneous dissolution of that relation between all the \nmasters and all the slaves, by some sudden violence, \nor by some act of legislation. While the slave is \npassing through a period of pupilage, controlled by \nthe discretion of another, his emancipation may be \nin progress, but it is not complete. While the slaves \nof a country are considered by the law as not yet \nfully competent to the responsibility of directing their \nown movements and employments, so long \xe2\x80\x94 though \nthe process of abolition may be going forward with \ngreat rapidity, and though the result may be as sure \nas the progress of time, and though the statute-book \nmay have fixed the date at which the slaves shall \nbe left to their own discretion \xe2\x80\x94 slavery is not com- \npletely abolished. \n\nIn taking our stand, then, against immediate \nemancipation, as the duty of the individual master, \nand against immediate abolition as the duty of the \nLegislature, we do not oppose what Mr. Phelps, and \nmen like him, of logical and calculating minds, ar- \ngue for, under those names. As for the thing wdiich \nalone they profess to recognize as slavery, we hold \nit to be invariably sinful. As for the thing, which, \nwhen they attempt to speak accurately, they call \nemancipation, we hold it to be the plainest and first \nduty of ever}?- master. As for the thing, which they \ndescribe as the meaning of immediate abolition, we \nhold it to be, not only practicable and safe, but the \nvery first thing to be done for the safety of a slave- \nholding country. The immediate abolition against \nwhich we protest, as perilous to the Commonwealth \n\n\n\nTHE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. >Jl \n\nand unjust to the slaves, is a different thing from that \nwhich the immediate abolitionists think they are \nurging on the country. \n\nWhy, then, dispute about words? Why not let \nthese men state their object, and call it by what \nname they choose ? We answer, because words in \nsuch a case are not mere breath, but things, and \nthings of great importance in their effect on the pub- \nlic mind, and in their effect on those who use them. \n\'\'In questions of philosophy or divinity, that have \noccupied the learned, and been the subject of many \nsuccessive controversies, for one instance of mere \nlogomachy," says Coleridge, " I could bring ten in- \nstances of logodcedaly, or verbal legerdemain, which \nhave perilously confirmed prejudices, and withstood \nthe advancement of truth, in consequence of the ne- \nglect of verbal debate, that is, the strict discussion of \nterms." This sagacious remark is, at least, as true \nrespecting questions of political right, and of practi- \ncal morality, as it is respecting questions of abstract \nphilosophy, or scientific theology. In the present \ninstance, it is not mere logomachy to dissent strongly \nfrom these immediate abolitionists ; there is, in their \nuse of terms, a certain logical sleight-of-hand, which \nperplexes, irritates and inflames the public, and the \ninfluence of which on their own minds, combining \nwith the exciting character of the subject, and with \nthe peculiar temperament of some among their lead- \ners, tends to embitter their philanthropy, and to turn \ntheir sense of right into something too much like \nrancor. \n\nThe sophism by which they unwittingly impose \non their own minds, and inflame the minds of others, \n\n\n\n72 THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. \n\nis this: the terms ^\'slavery," ^^slaveholding," \'^im- \nmediate emancipation," Slc, having one meaning \nin their definitions, and, to a great and unavoidable \nextent, another meaning in their denunciations and \npopular harangues. Thus they define a slaveholder \nto be one who claims and treats his fellow-men as \nproperty \xe2\x80\x94 as things \xe2\x80\x94 as destitute of all personal \nrights ; one, in a word, whose criminality is self-evi- \ndent. But the moment they begin to speak of slave- \nholders in the way of declamation, the word, which \nthey have strained from its proper import, springs \nback to its position, and denotes any man who stands \nin the relation of overseer and governor to those \nwhom the law has constituted slaves ; and conse- \nquently every man who, in the meaning of the laws, \nor in the meaning of common parlance, is a slave- \nholder, is denounced, with unmeasured expressions \nof abhorrence and hate, as an enemy of the species. \n"What is the effect of this on their own minds ? What \n\xe2\x80\x94 on the minds of those who happen, from one cause \nor another, to be ripe for factious and fanatical ex- \ncitement against the south 1 What \xe2\x80\x94 on the minds \nof those who, without unraveling the sophistry of \nthe case, know that many a slaveholder is conscien- \ntious, and does regard his slaves as brethren ? What \n\xe2\x80\x94 on the minds of those slaveholders themselves, \nwho are conscious of no such criminality? So of \nimmediate emancipation. They define that to be an \nimmediate cessation from the sin of claiming and \ntreating men as chattels ; but when they begin to \nurge this duty, in appeals to popular feeling, the \nphrase \'\'immediate emancipation," cannot be hin- \ndered from meaning an immediate discharge of the \n\n\n\nTHE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 73 \n\nslave from all special guardianship and government, \nand his immediate investiture with the power of \nself-control. This, they are understood to mean by \nthe great mass of those who hear them, and this \nthey do actually imply in many of their appeals, not- \nwithstanding their definitions and restrictions. And \nwhat is the effect 1 The public understands them as \ndemanding immediate and complete emancipation, \nin the obvious meaning of the terms ; and the public \nat large, north and south, east and west, denounces \nthem as visionary and reckless agitators. Hence \nit is, that even in those States where the hatred of \nslavery is most pervading and most intense, the call \nfor an immediate abolition meeting, is so often the \nsignal for some demonstration of popular indigna- \ntion. What is the effect on themselves ? Convinced, \nas they are, by their definition, of the self-evident \nduty of immediate emancipation, as they define it, \nand of the indispensable necessity of that emancipa- \ntion, as preliminary to any other effort for the ben- \nefit of the slaves, they forget that immediate eman- \ncipation, in the ordinary acceptation of terms, is not \nequally a self-evident duty, and equally indispensa- \nble, as preliminary to other efforts ; and so they look \nwith contempt, with dislike, and, unless they are \nvery watchful over their own spirits, with something \nakin to malignity, on the efforts now made at the \nsouth, by Christians of various denominations, for the \nthorough religious instruction of those held in bond- \nage. They ^\' must husband their strength." They \n" have no energies to waste in the chase of phan- \ntoms." They ^\'cannot afford to be diverted from \nthe main object by eloquent speeches, and touching \n\n\n\n74 THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. \n\nappeals, about plans of instruction." They declare, \nperemptorily, that \'\xe2\x80\xa2\' all attempts at instruction are \na real evil." Those attempts may, indeed, inform \nthe mind of the slave with ^* truths which are essen- \ntial to his salvation," but still they are to be depre- \ncated as "\xc2\xab real evil,^^ inasmuch as slavery without \ninstruction is so much more fertile in horrors, where- \nwithal to garnish the appeals of abolitionists, and to \nrouse the public mind to action. If such a man as \nMr. Phelps, (see p. Ill of the work before us,) a \nminister of the gospel, with a mind gifted by nature, \nand disciplined by education, can be deluded by this \n^\'verbal legerdemain" into the expression of such \nsentiments, what may we not expect from men of a \nlower order as to intellect and spirit. \n\nWe say, then, we cannot consent to be enrolled \namong the doctors or disciples in this school of im- \nmediate abolition. Though their immediate abolition \nmay be a harmless thing, as they define it, they in- \nsist on arming that harmless thing with a most harm- \nful name. Their well-intended definitions, unable \nto overcome that intrinsic power by which words re- \ntain their popular signification, define only to mystify, \nand mystify only to irritate. \n\nWe know it is often said, that any doctrine short \nof immediate emancipation, puts the conscience of \nthe slaveholder asleep, and justifies him in trans- \nmitting slavery unmitigated to another generation. \nBut nothing can be more unwarranted than such an \nassertion. The duty of immediate emancipation is \none thing. The immediate duty of emancipation is \nanother thing. That duty, the present duty of begin- \nning the emancipation of his slaves, the instant duty of \n\n\n\nTHE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 75 \n\ncommencing a process Avith them, which shall infalli- \nbly result in their complete liberation, at the earliest \ndate consistent with their well-being-, may be urged \nat once on every slaveholder as a direct and indis- \nputable corollary from the great law of love. Such a \nprocess, under whatever form it may be commenced, \nmust imply at the outset, that, in the estimation of the \nmaster at least, the slave is no longer a chattel, but \na person ; no longer a thing, but a man, invested \nwith the majesty of God\'s image, and endowed with \nthe rights that belong to God\'sintelligent and account- \nable creature. \n\nHere, then, let the public sentiment of the country \nspeak out for the emancipation of slaves, and for the \nabolition of slavery. This is the gradual abolition \nwhich we stand ready always to advocate, without \nthe liability to mean one thing when we define it, \nand another thing when we urge it. Let it be ever}^- \nwhere insisted on, as the first point to be carried, \nthat to hold men as property, to claim them, and use \nthem, and dispose of them, as things without person- \nality, and without rights, is a sin, with which neither \nhumanity nor religion can have any compromise. \nOn this point, the north can be made to speak through \nall the organs of public sentiment, as with the voice \nof many thunders. On this point, the feeling in \nthe free states is unanimous, and has been for these \nforty years. The preachers of immediate abolition \noften profess, that a great battle must be fought, be- \nfore even New England will come out against sla- \nvery. A battle must be fought, indeed, before New \nEngland will fall in with their measures, or adopt \ntheir style ; but it is nothing better than a libel on \n\n\n\n76 THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. \n\nNew England, to affirm, that there is here one parti- \ncle of sympathy witli slavery, or any feeling adverse \nto its abolition. Where, in New England, can even \nthe repulsive power of immediate abolitionism drive \nNew England men from their avowed abhorrence of \nslavery, in all its forms and operations 1 Nothing is \nwanting but the occasion and call, to bring out the \npublic sentiment of all the north in one loud cry of \nreprobation against the practice of making merchan- \ndise of men. \n\nNor will it be found impracticable to discuss this \npoint at the south, or to convince even slaveholders \nof the wrong of claiming their slaves as \' property, \nin the same sense with their brood mares.\'* It is \nnot impracticable ; for there are hundreds of masters \nthere, who are convinced already, and who act on \nthe conviction, that they stand to their slaves, not \nin the relation of ownership over property, but in \nthe relation of guardianship and government over \nmen, intelligent, and invested by the God of nature \nwith the rights of humanity, yet ignorant, depend- \nent, and, but for the master, defenceless. By the \npower, not indeed of heat, and smoke, and fury, but \nof light and love, that conviction may be made to \nspread, till, having first pervaded the churches there \nof every denomination, it shall become the strong \nconviction of the popular mind ; and till the majesty \nof the people, speaking by distinct enactments, shall \npronounce that the slaves are persons, having hu- \nman rights, and, as such, subject to the law, and \n\n* It seems incredible that such a comparison should have been made \nby an advocate of slaver}^ within a few months past, in the Legislature \nof proud Virginia. Yet such is the fact. \n\n\n\nTHE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 77 \n\nunder its protection. Then will the keystone of the \nmighty fabric of oppression have been taken away ; \nand legislation will have begun, effectually, the abo- \nlition of slavery. \n\nWe appeal, therefore, earnestly, to all the rational \nphilanthropists of the so-called Anti-Slavery party, \nto cease from the bewildering cry for an immediate \nemancipation, which, as defined by them, is either \nnot immediate, or not emancipation ; and for an im- \nmediate abolition, which, as they explain it, is to \nleave slavery mitigated, indeed, but not yet abol- \nished. We call on them to forsake all fraternity \nwith those who insist on thus blinding themselves, \nand abusing the public. We call on them hence- \nforth to use language in its proper acceptation ; and \nwhen they mean to demand that men shall no longer \nbe held and treated as merchandise^ to demand it \nonly in terms that shall convey their meaning clear- \nly to every mind. Let them go with this point to \nthe General Assembly, and all the Synods of the \nPresbyterian Church, to the General Associations of \nNew England, to the Conferences of Methodism, to \nevery assembly and convention by which public \nsentiment, on a point of morals, can be directed, or \nthrough which such sentiment can find fit utterance. \nLet them persuade every ecclesiastical tribunal in \nthe land, to fix it as a principle, that he who buys, \nor sells, or treats, his fellow -men as merchandise, is \nto be dealt with as a sinner. We will go with them ; \nour voice shall be lifted up as loud in the demand \nas theirs. Let them employ the press in all its forms \nof influence, till first the buying and selling, and then \nthe owning and treating of men as merchandise, shall \n\n\n\n78 THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. \n\nbe infamous throughout the land. We will be their \nhearty coadjutors. It needs no long-continued ef- \nfort \xe2\x80\x94 it needs only wise and vigorous effort \xe2\x80\x94 to make \nthe traffic in human beings, and the claim on which \nthat traffic rests, infamous, utterly infamous, even \namong slaveholders. Make that traffic infamous ; \nwaken the public conscience at the south, to decide \nupon it as it is ; and then the spirit, first of indivi- \ndual emancipation, next of general abolition, will \ncome in like a resistless flood. What is that which, \nat the present time, stands more than anything else \nin the way of abolition ? It is the domestic slave- \ntrade. It is the fact that slaves have a market price, \nand can be exchanged for money, at the pleasure or \nnecessity of the proprietor. The market for slaves, \nin the recently settled cotton and sugar States, is the \nonly cause which makes the slaves of Maryland and \nVirginia, of Kentucky and Tennessee, worth hold- \ning as property. The value of slaves in Maryland, \ndepends entirely on their value at New Orleans. \nShut up the southern market, and the Maryland \nslaveholder is richer without his slaves tlian with \nthem, so that his pecuniary interest is on the side of \nemancipation. Make him feel that he has no right \nto sell his slaves \xe2\x80\x94 make him see that he cannot sell \nthem without infamy \xe2\x80\x94 and to him the market is \nshut up already ; nothing but l)enevolence can hin- \nder him from the most immediate emancipation, un- \nless the laws forbid him. \n\nWe are confident that the appeal which we here \nmake to rational abolitionists, will not be in vain. \nWe entreat them in behalf of our common country, \nand in behalf of all those interests of mankind, which \n\n\n\nTHE ABOLITIO^r OF SLAVERY, 79 \n\ndepend on the internal peace and continued pros- \nperity of this nation ; we entreat iheni in behalf of \nthe slaves, the objects of their sympathy ; we entreat \nthem as men of soberness and reason, as friends of \nman, as friends of Him who came to preach deliver- \nance to the captives \xe2\x80\x94 we beg them not to reject this \nappeal, without a candid and serious consideration. \n\n\n\nPRESENT STATE \n\nOF \n\nTHE SLAVERY QUESTION.* \n\n[quarterly christian spectator, 1S36.] \n\nThis little book will do more for its author\'s repu- \ntation, with that portion of mankind Avhose favor- \nable opinion is most to be desired, than any other \none thing- which has come from his pen. We have \nread it with almost nnmingled satisfaction. The \nchapter of \'\' explanations," that on the " evils of \nslavery," that on the \'\' means of removing slavery," \nand the short concluding chapter on the " duties of \nthe free States," are the best parts of a book in \nwhich almost every page is very good. A fine and \nlofty moral spirit breathes through the whole. The \nonly portion which betrays at all the habits of the \nUnitarian theologian, is the chapter in refutation of \n\'\' the argument which the Scriptures are thought to \nfurnish in favor of slavery." Not that there is \nUnitarianism in that chapter ; indeed the whole \nbook is orthodox in its air and spirit; and there are \npassages which, read with evangelical views, and \nconstrued as an evangelical reader would construe \n\n* Slavery. By William E. Channing. Boston : 1835. \n\n\n\nTHE SLAVERY QUESTION. 81 \n\nthem, have a higher meaning, and a still greater \ncogency, than they could have had in the mind of \ntheir eloquent author. The seven pages in which \nthe Scriptural argument is dispatched, betray the \nUnitarian only as they show that Dr. Channing is \nin the habit of reasoning from what he conceives to \nbe the genius of Christianity, rather than from the \ninspired record of Avhat Christianity is. \n\nDr. Channing\'s ground is, briefly, that so far as \nslavery divests its victims of all personal rights ; so \nfar as it reduces human beings to the rank and con- \ndition of cattle; so far, in a Avord, as it converts men \ninto property, it is sin, simple, unqualified sin. He \ndiscriminates justly between the w^rong of slavery, \nthat is, the wrongfulness of those laws which make \nthe negro a chattel, and refuse to recognize him in \nany other relation \xe2\x80\x94 and the guilt attached to the in- \ndividual, who, not seeing how to lay down the au- \nthority committed to him by those laws, exercises \nthat authority, not for his own emolument, but for \nthe w^elfare of his servants. Upon those masters \nwho hold the slave \'^ not for his own good or for the \nsafety of the State, but with precisely the same \nviews with which they hold a laboring horse, that \nis, for the profit they can wiring from him," he \npours a torrent of eloquent indignation ; while he \nfreely acknowledges, that all masters are not thus \nguilty. In regard to the means of removing slavery, \nhe holds, that the best, safest, happiest remedy, is in \nthe hands of the masters ; that the institution of new \nrelations between the master and the servant, with- \nout the master\'s full consent, though it may be far \nbetter than the perpetuity of the relations now exist- \n\n\n\ng2 PRESENT STATE OF \n\ning-j cannot but be attended with disaster ; that \nwhile the recognition of the slave as a man entitled \nto the benefits of good government ought to be im- \nmediate, his emancipation must be a gradual pro- \ncess ; that the slave ought to be trained for self-sup- \nport, by being taught to labor under the impulse of \nother and manlier motives than the mere terror of \nthe lash, by seeing new privileges and honorable \ndistinctions awarded to the honest and industrious ; \nby being made to feel, that he has a family whose \nhappiness depends on his industry, integrity and \nprudence, and by being imbued with the truths and \nmotives of the Gospel of Christ. We need not say \nhow entirely ihese views coincide with our own. \n\nOne chapter is devoted to abolitionism in the now \ntechnical meaning of that word. The author, while \nexhibiting his objections to the spirit and proceed- \nings of the anti-slavery societies, vindicates them \nfrom the charge of designing to promote insurrec- \ntion among the slaves, and denounces with great \nsolemnity and earnestness the parricidal attempts \nthat have been made to suppress their proceedings \n"oy violence. His greatest objection seems to be \nagainst the system of agitation^ by which the anti- \nslavery men have sought to compass their ends. Of \nthis system of agitation he says : \n\n* From the beginning it created alarm in the considerate, and \nstrengthened the s3-mpathies of the free States with the slave- \n^ jlder. It made converts of a few individuals, but alienated \nmultitudes. Its influence at the south has been evil without \nmixture. It has stirred up bitter passions and a fierce fanaticism, \nwhich have shut every ear and every heart against its arguments \nand persuasions. These effects are the more to be deplored, be- \n\n\n\nTHE SLAVERY QUESTION. 33 \n\ncause the hope of freedom to the slave lies chiefly in the disposi- \ntion of his master. The abolitionist proposed, indeed, to convert \nthe slaveholders ; and for this end he approached them v^rith vitu- \nperation and exhausted on them the vocabulary of abuse ! And \nhe has reaped as he sowed. His vehement pleadings for the \nslaves have been answered by wilder ones from the slaveholder ; \nand, what is worse, deliberate defences of slavery have been sent \nforth, in the spirit of the dark ages, and in defiance of the moral \nconvictions and feelings of the Christian and civilized world. \nThus, with good purposes, nothing seems to have been gained. \nPerhaps (though I am anxious to repel\'the thought) something has \nbeen lost to the cause of freedom and humanity.\' \xe2\x80\x94 pp. 141, 142. \n\nOn this text we offer a few comments, illustrating \nthe recent history and present bearings of the slavery- \nquestion in this country. What Dr. Channing says, \nis for the most part truly said, and well said; yet \nin some points it is far from being the whole truth. \n\nThe system of agitation pursued by the abolition- \nists has \'^strengthened the s)^mpathies of the free \nStates with the slaveholder." True; yet this in- \ncreased sympathy with slaveholders, is not produced \nby the system of agitation alone. It is by their \nschemes of agitation, taken in connection with their \ndoctrine of immediate freedom, and their usurpation \nand perversion of the name of abolitionist, that the \nanti-slavery societies have produced in the free States \nso considerable a reaction favorable to slavery. Dr. \nChanning finds himself compelled, by the persecu- \ntions and the mobs which have been got up against \nthese societies, to take sides with a party whose doc- \ntrine of immediate emancipation he renounces, whose \nsystem of agitation he deprecates, and whose spirit \nof denunciation he abhors. Just so, thousands of \n\n\n\n84 PRESENT STATE OF \n\nthe best of men, struck with the ferocity of the de- \nnunciations indiscriminately launched against all \nslaveholders in all possible circumstances, have been \nconstrained to take sides with slaveholders, and to \nsay, whatever may be true of slavery, slaveholding \nis not necessarily so bad as you represent it. Those \nwho have demurred at the new doctrine of immediate \nemancipation, or its corollaries \xe2\x80\x94 such as the exclu- \nsion of every slave-owner from all Christian commu- \nnion, have been vilified in the publications of these \nreformers, as ^^dough-faces," ^\'pro-slavery advo- \ncates," " apologists for oppression and man-steal- \ning;" and by suffering the same reproaches with \nthe slaveholder from the same quarter, have been \ncompelled thus far to S3anpathize with him. The \nname of abolitionist, which justly belongs, as a name \nof honor, to all those States which have provided for \nthe extinction of slavery within their own territory, \nand to every citizen of those States who approves \nand honors such a policy, has been perverted and \ndegraded by being claimed as the distinctive name \nof a bitter, contentious, and therefore obnoxious par- \nty ; till many who once would have gloried in such \na name, and who, when it shall have regained its \nlegitimate meaning, will glory in it again, having \nlost their sympathy with the name, have uncon- \nsciously become less interested in the thing. Under \nsuch influences, it is not strange that there has been \na temporary reaction in the public sentiment of the \nfree States ; nor is it strange, that political editors \nand others at the north, presuming on the force and \npermanancy of this reaction, and having an object \n\n\n\nTHE SLAVERY QUESTION. 35 \n\nto gain, have even ventured to defend the whole \ntheory and practice of slavery and the slave-trade, \nas they exist in the southern States. \n\nAt the south, this system of agitation \'^ has stirred \nup bitter passions and a fierce fanaticism, which have \nshut every ear and every heart against its arguments \nand persuasions." So says Dr. Channing, and we \ncannot deny that it is so. Yet if any suppose, that \nthe furious fanaticism of southern demagogues has \nall been created by the anti-slavery societies, they \nentirely misunderstand the matter. The direct in- \nfluence of the immediate abolitionists has been far \nless at the south ; their publications have had a far \nmore limited circulation there, than is implied in \nsuch a supposition. Besides, others who discussed \nthe subject of slavery before tlie modern doctrine of \nimmediate emancipation was broached, before the \npresent system of agitation was dreamed of, found, \nas Dr. Channing has found since the publication of \nthis book, that it is not the doctrine of immediate \nabolition only, nor the scheme of northern agitation \nonly, nor a fierce denunciatory temper only, nor the \ncombination of all these things only, that is odious \nat the south ; but that ever}^ discussion of slavery in \nwhatever quarter, and in whatever form ; every pro- \nposal for the abolition of slavery, whatever the spirit \nin which it may be conceived, and whatever the ar- \nguments by which it may be enforced, is sure, if only \nit attracts attention at the south, to be met with a \ngrowl of fanatical defiance. \n\nAs we understand the matter, the most important \neffect of the anti-slavery agitation thus far, has been \nits influence on the feelings, opinions, and party \n6 \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa76 PRESENT STATE OF \n\nsympathies of that small portion of the southern com- \nmunity Avhich was predisposed to favor the abolition \nof slavery. The great majority of active ministers of \nthe gospel at the south, seeing, as they were com- \npelled to see, the disastrous obstacles which slavery \nrears in the way of the gospel, by its influence on \nthe master, on the slave, on the form and spirit of \nsociety ; very many of the more devoted and intelli- \ngent members of the various Christian churches, \nbecoming gradually more and more associated with \nthe churches of the free States in philantln\'opic and \nChristian enterprises, and continually receiving reli- \ngious intelligence and religious papers and books \nfrom the north ; many thinking and sober men, con- \nsidering the subject in the light of politics and politi- \ncal econom}^, and imbued with the free spirit which \nbreathes through all modern literature ; were not \nonly ashamed of slavery, but were ready to receive \nmore light on the question of its moral character, and \nto ask, how can it be abolished? \xe2\x80\x94 These classes gen- \nerally have been somewhat acquainted with the \nmovements of the immediate abolitionists, and have \nread enough of their publications to know something \nof their doctrines, their proposals and their spirit. \nOn these persons, the influence of the anti-slavery \nsocieties has indeed been \'^ evil without mixture." \nThe idea of immediate and unqualified emancipation \nthey could not entertain for a moment. Moved by \ntheir abhorrence of a doctrine which seemed to them \nso extravagant ; by an excusable indignation at the \ndenunciations hurled against them and their fellow- \ncitizens ; by the fear of being thought to entertain \nsome sympathy with \'\' the fanatics of the north ;" \n\n\n\nTHE SLAVERY QUESTION. 87 \n\nand by the natural yielding of each individual mind \nto the current of public sentiment ; they have taken \nsides with the most tborough defenders of slavery, \nand to some extent, with the most fanatical denounc- \ners of the liberty of speech and thought. Thus it is, \nthat while a spirit as malignant as ever thirsted for \nblood, has blazed over the southern States, there has \nhardly been in all the south, one whisper of protes- \ntation. Such is the triumph of the anti-slavery soci- \neties. They have silenced, they have annihilated \nfor the time, that party in the southern States which \nwas opposed to slavery, at least, in theory, and \nwhich was inclined to promote inquiry respecting a \nsafe and righteous abolition. \n\nBut what is the cause of that excitement of \'^bitter \npassions and fierce fanaticism" which is now raging \nat the south 1 We have already intimated, that the \ncause is not to be found in the operations of our anti- \nslavery friends ; and Ave know it will be put to us to \nsay, Whence all this excitement\'? Whence these \noutrageous proceedings\'? Whence the before un- \nheard of claim, that Congress has no power to make \nlaws for the protection of the ^^inalienable rights" of \nsome five or six. thousand persons under its ^\' ex- \nclusive jurisdiction" in the District of Columbia? \nWhence the demands, so fatal to liberty, that the \nright of petitioning Congress shall be trampled un- \nder foot, and peaceful and respectful petitioners \ntreated with insult by the national legislature ; that \nthe entire post-ofiice establishment shall become a \nliterary inquisition ; that the free States shall make \nlaws to abridge the freedom of the press, the freedom \nof the pulpit, the freedom of voluntary association ? \n\n\n\ngg PRESENT STATE OF \n\nWhence the preposterous claim, that in a country \nwhere no other subject is too high or sacred for dis- \ncussion ; where the atheist may assail Christianity \nwith ribaldry in taverns and steamboats ; where \nagrarians may hold public meetings to discuss and \nplan the philanthropic scheme of abolishing pro- \nperty ; where a brazen-fronted woman may lecture \nin the theatres against the slavish institution of mar- \nriage ; free men in the free States shall not speak, \nnay, shall not think, on the subject of slavery 1 To \nus, the cause of all this mad excitement seems to lie \nquite on the surface of passing events. When were \nthe votes of the south given to make a northern man \nPresident of the United States\'? When was there \nany danger of their being thus given, till the can- \nvassing for the now coming election was commenced. \nWe will speak more distinctly. Was it not quite \ncertain, some two or three years ago, in consequence \nof the overwhelming influence and popularity of the \npresent administration, that unless some desperate \nexperiment should be made upon the public mind, \nmany southern votes, not to say a great majority of \nthe southern votes for the presidency, would be \ngiven to a citizen of the north ? Is it not notorious, \nthat at that time a newspaper in the city of Wash- \nington, representing and leading a certain party in \nthe southern States, began in concert with associated \npresses still farther south, to address the fears, preju- \ndices and pride of the slaveholding States, on this \nvery subject of northern interference with slavery? \nWas it not a manifest and leading object of the ap- \npeal then commenced, to make the question of sla- \nvery entirely a political question with every southern \n\n\n\nTHE SLAVERY QUESTION. 89 \n\nman? And can there be any doubt that this was \ndone \xe2\x80\x94 this excitement kindled, this agitation kept \nup, month after month \xe2\x80\x94 simply with a view to re- \nvive and aggravate that intense sectional feeling \nwhich heretofore has always been strong enough to \ndirect the votes of southern men ? What is it that \nis going on in Congress at this very time, in relation \nto the anti-slavery memorials 1 Are not the southern \nleaders continually urging their extravagant de- \nmands with a view to compel the friends of that \nnorthern candidate either to take some position that \nshall ruin their candidate at the south, or to make \nsome cowardly and servile concession that shall dis- \ngrace him at the north 1 How are the people con- \ntinually abused by the demagogues of all parties, \nwho play upon their ignorance, their prejudices, \ntheir basest passsions, to gain the power or the emol- \numents of office ! \n\nOf all parties, we say \xe2\x80\x94 What more affecting illus- \ntration of the degradation of the political press can \nbe demanded, than the fact that at the north, while \npartisans of the administration have attempted to \nthrov/ upon their opponents the odium of an alliance \nwith the anti-slavery societies, the equally unprinci- \npled attempt has been made on the other side, and \nhas been persevered in with infinite effrontery by \njournals of great authority and wide circulation, to \nfix the same odium on the friends of the administra- \ntion? \n\nIn our judgment, then, the immediate abolition- \nists are only to a limited extent responsible for the \nexcitement in the slaveholding States. They have \nbeen the occasion rather than the cause or source of \n\n\n\n90 PRESENT STATE OF \n\nthe mischief. Political men, having- political ends \nin view, have taken advantage of their ill-advised \noperations, to blow the unquenchable fanaticism of \nthe south into a devouring flame. \n\nAnother unfortunate result ascribed to the system \nof agitation pursued by the anti-slavery societies, is, \nthat " deliberate defences of slavery have been sent \nforth in the spirit of the dark ages, and in defiance \nof the moral convictions and feelings of the civilized \nworld." These defences of slavery, the atrocity of \nwhich surpasses even Dr. Channing\'s power of ex- \npression, are to be traced, we apprehend, to several \ncauses, among which the anti-slavery agitation is by \nno means the most considerable. \n\nNo man has forgotten, that in the summer of 1831 \nthere was an insurrection of slaves in Southampton \nCounty, Virginia, in the sudden fury of which some \nsixty or seventy white people were murdered. The \neyes of the southern people were opened for a mo- \nment to the horrors of that condition of society in \nAvhich they live. In Virginia, particularly, it was \nfelt that something must be done ; and when the \nLegislature of that great State met, in the winter fol- \nlowing, memorials were presented, praying that mea- \nsures might be taken for the abolition of slavery. \nAt once it appeared, that in the Legislature of old Vir- \nginia there was a powerful abolition party. The \nwhole subject of slavery \xe2\x80\x94 its injustice, its impolicy, \nits perils, the practicability of its removal \xe2\x80\x94 all was \ndiscussed with open doors, in the presence of crowd- \ned and excited auditories ; and speeches, -worthy of \nthe best days of Virginian eloquence, were reported \nfor the newspapers, and ^vere scattered over all the \n\n\n\nTHE SLAVERY QUESTION. Ql \n\nsouth, to be read in every family. The session closed \nwithout any decisive action on the subject ; yet not \nwithout the expectation, that in the progress of an- \nother year some plan would be matured which should \nsecure the removal of slavery from that common- \nwealth which gave birth to Washington, and the soil \nof which is hallowed by the ashes of the father of \nhis country. \n\nIn tliis emergency, it became necessary that some- \nthing should be done to convince the people of Vir- \nginia of the safety, the profitableness, the republican- \nism, and the respectability of slavery. Not a little \nwas done by speeches in the capitol, and by essays \nin the newspapers ; but the champion of slavery, \nwho appeared just in time to turn the tide of public \nopinion, was one \'^ Thomas R. Dew, Professor of \nHistory, Metaphysics and Political Law, in William \nand Mary College." This gentleman, whose name \nwe trust will be duly honored by posterity, was the \nauthor of an article on the debate in the Virginia \nLegislature, which having been first published, with \nmuch curtailment, in the American Quarterly Re- \nview, was soon afterwards published entire at Rich- \nmond, forining a pamphlet of one hundred and \nthirty-three large pages. We have read the pam- \nphlet diligently, and with no little admiration. The \nlearned professor of history, metaphysics and political \nlaw, \'^ boldly grapples with the abolitionists on the \ngreat question." He argues, that the practice of \nenslaving captives taken in war is the first step which \nmarks the departure of mankind from primeval bar- \nbarism ; and that inasmuch as it is perfectly just for \ntwo nations or tribes, in a state of mutual hostility, \n\n\n\n92 PRESENT STATE OF \n\nto kill each other to the greatest possible extent, the \nmen, women and chilrlren who, instead of being- mur- \ndered outright, arc reduced to perpetual and absolute \nslavery, have nothing to complain of, but everything \nto be thankful for. He argues further, that where \nall the property is in the hands of a particular class, \nor where the government through w^eakness or inef- \nficiency fails to afford protection, there the holders \nof property will be the masters, and the others will \nnecessarily, and therefore of course righteously, be \nheld as slaves. Not stopping even here, he urges \nthe argument, that in many barbarous or over- \ncrowded countries people are reduced to such ex- \ntremity of suffering, that they will consent to be \nslaves for the sake of having a slave\'s food and rai- \nment, and, in some savage tribes, \'\' a father will sell \nhis son for a knife or a hatchet." And lest any \ndoubt should remain in respect to the perfect equity \nof absolute and hereditary slavery, such as exists in \nVirginia, the striking and conclusive position is taken \nthat \'\' all governments, even those of the States of \nour confederacy, have ever been considered as per- \nfectly justifiable in enslaving for crime." All this \nhe considers as proving that " slavery is the neces- \nsary result of the laws of mind and matter ;" and \nhence he infers, \'\' that it was intended by our Cre- \nator for some useful purpose." Proceeding to set \nforth the advantages which have resulted to the world \nfrom slavery, he insists that this benignant institution, \nwhich by some unaccountable fatality is everywhere \nspoken against, \'\'has been perhaps the principal \nmeans for impelling forward the civilization of man- \nkind." In particular, he shows by the conjoined \n\n\n\nTHE SLAVERY QUESTION. 93 \n\nlight of history, metaphysics and political economy, \nthat it diminishes the frequency and the honors of \nwar; that it makes the migratory man domestic, \nand the indolent man industrious, and should have \nbeen seasonably applied to save the Pequots, the \nMohawks and the Cherokees from extinction ; and \nthat it raises woman (listen, ye fanatics, and be \nforever silent) from the condition of a mere beast of \nburden to her proper station, and endows her with \ngraces and accomplishments. The African slave- \ntrade next comes under consideration ; and here the \ningenious author seems to think, with Sir Roger De \nCoverly, that ^\'much may be said on both sides;" \nthough, as the revival of that trade, under the sanc- \ntion of the laws, would seriously interfere with the \nprofits of the Virginia slave-breeders, he is on the \nwhole not disposed to reverse the judgment which \nthe conscience of the civilized world has pronounced \nupon this traffic. Next he undertakes to expose the \nfutility of all possible plans for the abolition of \nslavery. Through this part of his book, which is \nby far the most considerable in extent and in ability, \nwe have no time to trace the progress of his argu- \nment. One or two points, however, in that argument, \nmust be mentioned, to illustrate the cold-bloodedness \nwith which the subject is treated. He shows that in \nVirginia the slaves are worth in market one hundred \nmillions of dollars ; and he infers that this property, \nbeing nearly one-third of all the property existing in \nthat great State, would be annihilated by any scheme \nof abolition, leaving Virginia a desert. He shows \nthat negro slaves are the great staple of Virginia, \ninasmuch as \xc2\xab\' upwards of six thousand are yearly \n5* \n\n\n\n94 PRESENT STATE OF \n\nexported to other States," so that the chivah-oiis \ncommonwealth of Virginia receives from the sale of \nhuman beings, born under its own motto of sic sem- \nper tyrannis, not less than $1,200,000 every j^ear. \nIn the professor\'s own words: \'\'Virginia is in fact \na negro-raising State for other States. She produces \nenough for her own supply, and six thousand for \nsale." He shows, furthermore, that so long as the \nplanters of tlie more southern States can buy negroes \nfrom abroad at a cheaper rate than the cost of raising \nthem at home, so long comparatively few slaves will \nbe raised on those plantations ; and so long the slave- \nholders in Virginia will be able to realize their mill- \nions by the exportation of negroes. " The slaves in \nVirginia," he says, "multiply more rapidly than in \nmost of the southern States ; the Virginians can raise \ncheaper than thc)^ can buy ; in fact, it is one of their \ngreatest sources of profit." He brings his work to a \nconclusion, by considering distinctly the alleged in- \njustice and evils of slavery : and in refutation of the \nvulgar errors on this subject, he maintains that slavery \nis not wrong in the abstract; that its moral effects \nare not pernicious, but, on the contrary, the more \nabsolute the slavery the more magnanimous will be \nthe master, and tlie more contented and happy will \nbe the slave ; that slavery is a powerful promoter of \nthe spirit of liberty ; that there is no danger from \nplots and insurrections, but the more nimierous and \ncompact the population the greater the safety ; and \nfinally, that the notorious and lamented decay of old \nVirginia is owing not to slavery, but to " the exac- \ntions of the federal government." \n;^ This pamphlet \xe2\x80\x94 to the ability of which our rapid \n\n\n\nTHE SLAVERY QUESTION. 95 \n\nsketch has by no means done justice, for arguments \nin support of slavery must needs suffer by being con- \ndensed \xe2\x80\x94 produced a powerful impression upon the \nState of Virginia. Nor can it be considered strange \nthat such was the fact. Professor Dew himself re- \nmembered, and inadveitently quoted, as a great \ntruth, the saying of Hobbes, \'\' that men might easily \nbe brought to deny that things equal to the same \nthing are equal to each other, if their fancied inter- \nests were opposed in any way to the admission of \nthis axiom.\'\' It Avas easy then to make tlie people \nof Virginia believe, that while their slaves were worth \none hundred millions of dollars, and while the ex- \nportation of a part of the annual increase was bring- \ning into the State one million two hundred thousand \ndollars yearly, slavery could not be so bad a thing \nas it had seemed, under the excitement which fol- \nlowed the Southampton massacre. Accordingly, \nwhen the Legislature came together again, and a \nwhole year had passed without another insurrection, \nthere seemed to be no occasion for any farther dis- \ncussion, and Professor Dew\'s book was thenceforth \nconsidered to be perfectly unanswerable. \n\nSince that time defences of slavery have been \nmultiplied at the south. Formerly, southern men \nv/ere generally in the habit of acknowledging that \nslavery is in some sense an evil, and excused it b}^ \npleading the difficulties in the way of abolition. But \nnow they as generally take the ground that the state \nof society in which the working-class are held as \nslaves is the very heau ideal of a well-regulated com- \nmunity ; that this institution is the nurse of patriot- \nism, of refinement, of all heroic and generous senti- \n\n\n\n96 PRESENT STATE OF \n\nments ; an excellent, promoter of good morals, of \npublic tranquillity and domestic happiness ; and that \nall the religion which does not teach that God made \nnegroes on purpose to be slaves, is sheer fanaticism. \nAll the unqualified and shameless defences of slavery \nthat have been uttered at the south since 1832, seem to \nus to have been derived directly or indirectly from the \ngreat repository of doctrines and arguments found in \nProfessor Dew\'s \'^ Review of the Debate in the Vir- \nginia Legislature.\'\' And that which first put the \nsouthern orators and essay writers upon this barba- \nrian defence of one of the most barbarous institutions \non earth, was not the anti-slavery agitation at the \nnorth, but rather that agitation so much nearer the \nseat of the evil, which ensued upon the Southampton \nmassacre, and which, for one whole winter, thun- \ndered in the capitol at Richmond. \n\nUndoubtedly this now prevalent practice of de- \nfending slavery in the abstract, has been promoted, \nas Dr. Chaaning intimates, by the measures of the \nanti-slavery societies. Yet it is not to be imagined \nthat such arguments are designed exclusively or \nchiefly for northern readers. The design is to ope- \nrate upon the southern public, to put down entirely \nthose ideas of the insecurity, the impolicy, and the \ninjustice of slavery, which so lately threatened the \noldest and greatest of the slave States with abolition, \nand to aid in those political agitations to which we \nhave already referred. \n\n\'^ Perhaps something has been lost to the cause of \nfreedom and humanity." Certainly the good cause \nhas lost ground within the last four years. Yet we \nenjoy the consolation of believing, that the evils \n\n\n\nTHE SLAVERY QUESTION. 97 \n\nwhich Dr. Channing deplores, and which are indeed \nto be lamented as great evils, will be only temporary, \nand under the benignant providence of Him who can \nmake the wrath of man to praise him, will be, in \nthe end, productive of good. It is not to be expected \nthat public sentiment, in respect to a subject so in- \nvolved with innumerable interests, and entangled \nwith all the complications of prejudice and passion, \ncan be reformed in the southern States, without con- \ntinued conflicts, and the liability to frequent reaction. \nSuch a reaction we are just now witnessing. But \nthat reaction will react again. Every high-wrought \nexcitement, especially every excitement got up by \nextra agitation, is essentially transitory. And Avhen \nthe hour of this present excitement in the south shall \nhave passed, there will be found men at the south, \nwho will dare to think for themselves, and who, not \nhaving the fear of Lynch-law before their eyes, will \ndare to say, that an arrangement which puts one- \nhalf of the population of a State under the most ab- \nsolute despotism, leaving them without any legal \nprotection for one of the rights of their human na- \nture, and which does all that can be done to hinder \nthem from outgrowing their original barbarism, or \nbecoming in any manner capable of freedom, is nei- \nther safe, nor politic, nor just. In other words, dis- \ncussion, debate, free inquiry on the subject of slavery, \nnow suppressed everywhere beyond the Potomac, \nwill break out again. None can tell how near the \noccasion is, that shall put a new aspect upon all \nthese discussions. Another massacre like that of \nSouthampton might not do it. The burning of a city \nmight not do it. But a reduction of the prices of \n\n\n\n98 PRESENT STATE OF \n\ncotton and sugar some twenty-five per cent., for two \nsuccessive seasons, would operate resistlessly to en- \nlighten public sentiment in all the slaveholding \nStates ; and at v/hatever time such an event may \ntake place, the men will be found who, in the name \nof the commonvrealth, and in the names of human- \nity and justice, will demand that something be done \nfor the removal of slavery. Nay, without any such \noccasion, it must ere long appear, that the extreme \ndoctrines and measures now urged in support of .^la- \nvery, are not received unanimously, even at the \nsouth. \n\nWhat then is in brief, the present state of the sla- \nvery question? It is just this. The anti-slavery \nsocieties, by their doctrine of immediate and unqual- \nified abolition, and by the peculiar measures which \nthey have adopted for the propagation of that doc- \ntrine, have divided the north and united the south. \nThe southern agitators, by their doctrine of the su- \nperlative excellence and inviolable sacredness of sla- \nvery, and by their audacious demands in Congress \nand elsewhere, are rapidly making the north unani- \nmous, and will ere long produce a division at the \nsouth. Then, when the voice of the north shall be \nagain distinct, manly, true to its principles ; and \nwhen some southern men shall again dare to main- \ntain, that slavery is not the perfection of civilization \n\xe2\x80\x94 it will be found, that the cause of truth, of freedom, \nof happiness, while suflfering temporary disaster, has \nbeen imperceptibly approaching the hour of final \ntriumph. \n\nDr. Channing\'s book is well suited to do good just \nat this juncture. At the north, its eloquent appeals \n\n\n\nTHE SLAVERY QUESTION. 99 \n\nwill find a response in the mind of every man who \ndoes not himself deserve to be a slave. The super- \nficial, sneering-, infidel reply, which some anony- \nmous author has published in Boston,* so far as it \nhas any effect on the public mind, must operate to \nsecure for the work before us a wider circulation, a \nmore attentive reading, and therefore a more decided \nand salutary influence. At the south, its circulation \nmust of course be limited ; but there, hundreds of \nleading men who would scorn to look upon a tract, \nor a volume gratuitously circulated, are constrained \nto buy it and to read it ; and however they may rage \nagainst it or attempt to answer it, the time must \ncome, when the seed thus sown upon the axgry \nwaters will have found a soil in which to vegetate. \nThe criticisms pronounced upon it by southern sen- \nators in Congress, will only go to promote that dis- \ncussion of slavery which neither speeches, nor reso- \nlutions, nor laws, nor lawless violence, will be able \nto suppress. Such speeches as that of the senator \nfrom Virginia! are, if we may resume t]ie figure we \nhave just been using, the wind which will help to \ncarry the scattered and floating seed to the spot \nwhere, taking root, it will put forth first the blade, \nthen the ear, then the full corn in the ear. \n\nAt the hazard of seeming somewhat more discur- \nsive than we are wont to be, we take leave to notice \none or two points in the speech of Mr. Leigh review- \ning Dr. Channing\'s book. The manliness and the \n\n* Remarks on Dr. Channing\'s Slavery. By a citizen of Massachu- \nsetts. Boston, 1835. \n\nt Mr. Leigh\'s speech on abolition of slavery in the District of Colum- \nbia. New-York Observer, Feb. 13, 1836. \n\n\n\n100 PRESENT STATE OF \n\ngentlemanliness of that speech, entitle it to a degree \nof consideration which is not due to the vulgar and \ntheatrical chivalry which many southern orators ut- \nter so profusely on such subjects. What then is the \npresent state of the slavery question, as it appears in \nthe honorable senator\'s critique on Dr. Channing 1 \n\nFirst, if we do not altogether misunderstand the \nscope of Mr. Leigh\'s remarks, it is demanded, that \nthe discussion of slavery and the publication of opin- \nions concerning it shall be put down at the north, \neither by legislative enactments or by popular vio- \nlence ; and the question is, whether this demand \nshall be complied with. The senator\'s first and pro- \nfoundest grief in regard to Dr. Channing\'s book is, \nthat it is the Doctor\'s " purpose to counteract the \nefforts of those who are endeavoring to put down the \nschemes of the abolitionists, by embodying public \nopinion into efficient action against them." Em- \nbodying \'public opinion into efficient action ! If any \nman is at a loss to decide what that means, let him \nlook over a file of the New York Courier and Enqui- \nrer, or of the New York Evening Star, or of some \nof the agitating journals of those States in which the \nLynch-court takes cognizance of all abuses of the \nfreedom of speech. \n\nSecondly, the doctrine is now laid down, that it \nis incendiary to declare that a man cannot rightfully \nbe used as property. Dr. Channing uses this lan- \nguage : ^\' We have thus seen, that a human being \ncannot rightfully be held and used as property. No \nlegislation, not that of all countries or worlds could \nmake him so. Let this be laid down as a first fun- \ndamental truth. Let us hold it fast, as a most sacred. \n\n\n\nTHE SLAVERY QUESTION. IQl \n\nprecious truth. Let us hold it fast, against all cus- \ntoms, all laws, all rank, wealth, and power. Let it \nbe armed with the whole authority of the civilized \nand Christian world." " Now," says the senator \nfrom Virginia in reply, \'\' If Dr. Channing does not \nknow, that such language as this is in its nature and \ntendency incendiary, 1 insist that he ought not to \nwrite upon any subject he so little understands." \nWe say then, the question is, whether this doctrine \nshall be received as political and moral orthodoxy at \nthe north. The question is not, whether the publish- \ner of an incendiary book ought to be punished ; it \nis, what makes the book incendiary? \xe2\x80\x94 it is, whether \nthe author, the printer, and the publisher, who were \nconcerned in getting up a paper or book which con- \ntains the opinion, that man, made in God\'s image, \ncannot rightfully be held and used as property, are \nincendiaries. Let every citizen of the free States \nmake up his mind upon this question. Free States, \ndid we say ? Nay, if this doctrine is to be admitted \nand established, Turkey is freer than New England. \nThirdly, it is a question between Dr. Channing \nand Mr. Leigh, whether slavery tends to licentious- \nness. \n\nOn this point, Dr. Channing has expressed him- \nself eloquently and with great power. His language, \nwhich, in a single word, is perhaps a shade stronger \nthan was necessary, need not be quoted here. Mr. \nLeigh says in reply, \'\' I shall content myself with \ndeclaring my conscientious belief, that there is no \nsociety existing on the globe, in which the virtue of \nconjugal fidelity, in man as well as woman, and the \nhappiness of domestic life, are more general than in \n\n\n\nlOa PRESENT STATE OF \n\nthe slaveholding States.\'\' We cannot doubt that \nMr. Leigh believes as he says. Yet we cannot for- \nget, that in those States the pnrity of a million of fe- \nmales is at the mercy of masters and of masters\' \nsons, living imder a fervid clime, in idleness and \nfullness of bread. We cannot forget, that among \nmore than two millions of people in those States \nthere is no such thing as legal marriage ; that among \nthose two millions, the connections which they form \nunder the name of marriage, are always liable to be \ndissolved, not only at the will of the parties, but \nagainst their will, whenever the interest of a mas- \nter or of a master\'s creditors may require a separa- \ntion ; and that, therefore, among two millions of \npeople there, the connection of husband and w^ife \xe2\x80\x94 \nno, of male and female \xe2\x80\x94 can have nothing of the \nsacredness that belongs to the relation of husband \nand wife in a civilized and Christian community. \nWe cannot forget, that in those States females of \nevery variety of complexion, from the glossy ebony \nto that slightest tinge of yellow through which the \nquick blood speaks as eloquently, perhaps, as on the \ncheek of the most delicate mistress, are liable to be \nset up on a table in the most public places, exposed \nlike any other merchandise to the examination of \nevery idler passer by, and sold to the highest bidder; \nand that the moment the purchaser has laid his hand \nupon his bargain, she is as completely at his disposal \nas if she had been sold in the slave-market of Tripoli, \nto adorn the harem of a Turk. Some may find it \neasy to believe, tliat every young master at the \nsouth is a very Scipio ; but we must forget what the \nlaws are in those States, and what human nature is \n\n\n\nTHE SLAVERY QUESTION. 103 \n\neverywhere, before we can go as far as the senator \nfrom Virginia goes, in his vindication of the chastity \nof the southern slaves. The question, however, \nwhether there is an actual connection between sla- \nvery and licentiousness, is a question more interest- \ning and more important at the south than at the \nnorth. Let every southern man look around him \nand see what the facts are. Let every southern mo- \nther of a son ask herself, whether she believes that \nall mothers in the free States have just such anxie- \nties as she has. \n\nDr. Channing touches on another part of this sub- \nject. He adverts to the fact, that many masters \nhave children born into slavery. Most of these child- \nren, he presumes, are kindly treated during the \nlife-time of the fathers ; but, as the fathers die, not \na few, especially since the obstacles in the way of \nemancipation have been increased, are left to the \nchances of slavery. \'\' Still more, it is to be feared, \nthat there are cases in which the master puts his \nown children under the whip of the overseer, or else \nsells them to undergo the miseries of bondage among \nstrangers." \'\' Among the pollutions of heatlienism, \nI know nothing worse than this. The heatlien who \nfeasts on his country\'s foe, may hold up his head by the \nside of the Christian who sells his child for gain \xe2\x80\x94 \nsells him to be a slave. God forbid that I should \ncharge this crime on a people. But however rarely \nit may occur, it is a fruit of slavery, an exercise of \npower belonging to slavery, and no laws restrain or \npunish it." To this the eloquent senator replies \xe2\x80\x94 \nhow ? \xe2\x80\x94 by admitting all that Dr. Channing has said. \n\'^ I shall not deny that such facts as he mentions \n\n\n\n104 PRESENT STATE OF \n\nmay have occurred. But," he proceeds, \'^ is it rea- \nsonable, is it cliaritable, to allege such iniquities as \na reproach against our national character 1" Cer- \ntainly, Mr. Senator, so long as your laws tolerate and \nuphold such villany, so long your proud escutcheon \nbears the stain in the face of all the world. When \nyour legislatures shall doom to the gallows or to the \npenitentiary the man who sells his children, then \nwill that stain be wiped away. Mr Leigh proceeds \nto say, that within a year he has seen several ac- \ncounts of parents exposing their new-born infants in \nthe streets of the city of New York ; and he asks, \n" Is there any man in his sound senses, that would \ndeduce from such facts matter of reproach against \nthe people of that city ?" We answer, perhaps not. \nBut why is it so ? Why are not the people there \nresponsible ? Simply because such exposures there \nare held as crimes, not merely in the eye of con- \nscience, but in the eye of law. The senator having \nthrown up this little cloud of dust, makes good his \nretreat from the point, by saying, " I believe that \nthe judicial records of this country will show that the \nnumber of crimes, especially those of deepest atrocity, \ncommitted in the non-slaveholding States, is much \ngreater than those committed in the slaveholding \nStates." Pray, Mr. Leigh, do the slaves in your \npart of the country ever steal? do they commit \nadultery? are they ever found guilty of assault and \nbattery upon each other? and is there any \'^judicial \nrecord" showing how often slaves are convicted of \nsuch crimes? Nay, if a slave should perpetrate a \nrape upon the body of a slave, would there be any \n\'^ judicial record" of the crime? If two gentlemen \n\n\n\nTHE SLAVERY QUESTION. 105 \n\nhave a brawl at a tavern, or a rencontre in the streets, \nand fight it out fairly and handsomely, with fists, \nwith dirks, or with pistols, is there always some \n\'^judicial record" of the transaction? In general, \ndoes not the very existence of slavery, by making \nthe master, in numberless instances, judge, jury, \nand executioner, and by keeping up among the \nlords of the soil a very peculiar sort of public senti- \nment, tend to diminish the number of \'\'judicial re- \ncords," rather than the number of crimes actually \ncommitted 7 \n\n" Can the slaveholder use the word amalgama- \ntion without a blush ?" To this question Mr. Leigh \nreplies, " It is absolutely wonderful how little amal- \ngamation has taken place in the course of two centu- \nries." Wonderful it is to us, considering all the \ncircumstances of the case ; and yet we think, that if \nany man shall venture upon reading Dr. Channing\'s \npungent question in the senate, Avhen Col. Johnson \nshall have attained to the presidency of that body, \nthere will be some expectation of a blush in certain \nquarters. But what is the great shame charged up- \non Col. Johnson by his political opponents at the \nsouth\'? Is it simply that he has a family of colored \nchildren? Or is it rather, that instead of treating \nhis daughters as if they were cattle, he treats them \nwith something of a father\'s affection, and even at- \ntempts to force them upon society, by taking them \nwith him to places of public resort, and by mar- \nrying them to white men ? We might name the \ngovernor of one of the proudest States of the Union, \nwho permitted his daughter to be sold and trans- \nported from her native city to the painful and hope- \n\n\n\n106 rilESENT STATE OF THE SLAVERY QUESTION. \n\nless servitude of a plantation in Louisiana, when lie \nmight easily have saved her, and it was proposed to \nhim to save her. Yet so little ignominy attaches to \nhim on that account, that we presume not one in \nten thousand of those who admire his greatness, can \nguess the name of the statesman and patriot who \npermitted his daughter to be sold into exile and \nslavery, when one w^ord of his lips would have saved \nher. The African prince w\'ho should do the self- \nsame thing on the banks of the Congo, would for- \nfeit his character : \n\n\' But Brutus is an honorable man, \nSo are they all, all honorable men.\' \n\n\n\nSLAVERY IN MARYLAND.* \n\n\n\n[quarterly CHRISTIAISr SPECTATOR, 1836.] \n\n\n\nThe author of this book was formerly, for several \nyears, Professor of Languages in the University of \nNorth Carolina. Of course he has some qualifica- \ntions for writing on slavery, which do not belong to \nevery man who undertakes to treat on that subject. \nThis book, however, contains the results, not so \nmuch of his former acquaintance with slavery, as of \na tour performed by him last summer, with a view \nto inquiries, in Maryland, Virginia and the District \nof Columbia. It seems to have been written with \nunusual candor. The author does not appear to \nhave commenced his inquiries with a predetermi- \nnation as to the conclusions at which he should ar- \nrive. We do not remember to have read anything \nof the kind which seemed so entirely worthy of un- \nqualified confidence. \n\nThe observations and inquiries which Mr. An- \ndrews had the opportunity of making, in a tour of \nthree weeks, were necessarily limited ; and any de- \nductions from them are, of course, liable to be modi- \n\n* Slavery and the Do:\\iestic Slave Trade in the United States. \nIn a series of letters addressed to the Executive Committee of the Ame- \nrican Union for the relief and improvement of the colored race. By \nProf. E. A. Andrews. Boston, 183G. \n\n\n\n108 SLAVERY IN MARYLAND. \n\nfied by the results of more extended investigation. \nYet there are some things in slavery, and in the \ncondition of the colored population, which appear \nto a discerning observer at the first sight; and from \nwhich conclusions may be drawn which no subse- \nquent investigation can set aside. \n\nWhat is southern slavery in theory 1 This ques- \ntion can be answered, without going to the south at \nall. It can be accurately or fairly answered, only \nout of the statute-books of the States in which sla- \nvery exists. What is southern slavery in actual ope- \nration 1 \xe2\x80\x94 is quite another question. Putting our \nknowledge of the theory of slavery side by side with \nour knowledge of human nature, we may infer what \nthis system will be in its actual operation. But this \nis only inference ; and though no man who knows \nanything of human nature, can fail to acquire in \nthis way some correct knowledge of the w^orking of \nthe system \xe2\x80\x94 every rational inquiver must feel that \nthere may be \xe2\x80\x94 in the state of society, in the vital \nenergy of the Christianity diffused, more or less ex- \ntensively, through the community, in the power of \npublic opinion uttered from all parts of the world ; \nnay, even in the working of enlightened selfishness \n\xe2\x80\x94 counteracting and modifying influences not easily \nestimated. He must feel, too, that there may be, in \nthe burning sun and enervating air of an almost Ori- \nental climate, and in the excitement of commercial \nspeculation, influences that even aggravate the na- \ntural operation of a system which, in theory, shocks \nall his sensibilities. The rational inquirer, then, \ncannot but presume, that the actual working of the \nsystem of slavery can only be c^xupletel^ ^nd truly \n\n\n\nSLAVERY IN MARYLAND. IQ9 \n\nknown by actual obsei-vation, or by the testimony \nof candid and faithful observers. \n\nBut what is the testimony of observers in respect \nto the operation of the system of slavery ? One man, \nhaving traveled over the south, comes home with an \naccount of the comforts of the slave, his contentment, \nthe lightness of his tasks, his secure provision against \nthe time of sickness or old age, his thoughtless merri- \nment, and the contrast between his condition and that \nof the laz}^, improvident, drunken, ungoverned and \nunprotected free black; and this is his picture of sla- \nvery. This, we need not say, is the very picture \nuniformly drawn by slaveholders. Another man \nwill go over the same ground, and will see nothing \nbut horrors, or at least will report nothing but hor- \nrors. Tlie slave bleeding under the scourge, or \nfainting and dying under his burdens ; the master \nindulging all the vices of the pirate ; children torn \nfrom parents, and husbands from wives ; these are \nthe figures which fill up his representation. What \nshall we believe? Shall we receive all that is said \nby the one, and reject all that is said by the other? \nCertainly neither of these witnesses reports the whole \ntruth ; though probably each of them reports the \nwhole impression produced on his mind by what he \nhas seen. The observer who represents both sides \nof the subject, is the one whose story has in itself \nthe strongest indications of complete trust-worthi- \nness. There are slaves whose lot is simple wretch- \nedness, without mixture, without alleviation, with- \nout hope. On the other hand, there are slaves well \nfed, well clothed, carefully protected and provided \nfor, kindly and judiciously governed, whose yoke of \n6 \n\n\n\n110 SLAVERY IN :MARYLAND. \n\nbondage is so light that it is hardly felt to be a yoke. \nTo describe the lot of eitlier of these classes ever so \nvividly, is not to give a full or fair account of sla- \nvery as it is in actual operation. The truth lies be- \ntween these conflicting statements ; or rather, the \ntruth includes them both, and includes a great deal \nmore. He whose interests or prejudices prevent him \nfrom seeing in slavery anything much to be regret- \nted, and he whose feelings or predeterminations \nprevent him from reporting any alleviating circum- \nstances, may both be valuable witnesses ; for each \nmay report facts of great importance, which the \nother entirely omits. Such a reporter, however, as \nthe author of this book, is better than both of them. \nWhile he represents without fear or favor, and with \nnatural sentiments of indignation, the atrocities \nwhich slavery produces, and which are the natural \noperation of the system, he has no passions and no \nperverted habits of mind, which prevent him from \nseeing or admitting into his statement the facts on \nwhich the slaveholder relies for the defence of the \nsystem. The following statement is one which \nseems to us important to a right apprehension of the \nsubject : \n\n\' Among others into whose society I was accidentally thrown, \nwere two families from the extreme south, who were returning \nslowly homeward from their summer\'s tour to the northern States, \nand stopping so long in the principal cities through which they \npassed, and at the various watering-places which they visited, as \nto reach Louisiana after the first frosts of autumn should have \nrendered their return safe. The gentlemen might have been \ntwenty-five or thirty years old ; the ladies were a few years \nyounger. The latter had each the charge of an interesting child \ntwo or three years old, the special care of which was committed \n\n\n\nSLAVEllY IN MARYLAND. m \n\nto two colored nurses, who were their only attendants. It was \nnot easy to determine which of the group were happiest ; the se- \ndate, intelligent, and dignified fathers, the accomplished mothers, \nthe playful children, or their young, well-fed, and well-dressed \nnurses. \n\nThe situation in which domestic slaves are often placed, in \nprosperous moral and intelligent families, is one of far more un- \nmingled happiness than is usually imagined by those who have \nnever witnessed it. The mistake into which many fall, upon \nthis subject, arises principally from their failing to estimate prop- \nerly the amount of happiness occasioned by the mutual affection \nbetween the white and the colored members of the same family. \nThis attachment is of course a more available source of happiness \nin virtuous families, than in those of an opposite character ; but, \nlike parental and filial affection, it is rarely entirely wanting, even \nin the most hardened and profligate. This relation is in reality \nmore like that of parent and child, than like any other with which \nit can be compared, and is altogether stronger than that which \nbinds together the northern employer and his hired domestic. \nThe slave looks to his master and mistress for direction in every- \nthing, and insensibly acquires for them a respect mingled with \nafiection, of which those never dream who think of slavery only \nas a system of whips and fetters \xe2\x80\x94 of unfeeling tyranny, on the \none part, and of fear mingled with hatred, on the other. The \nlatter is the usual picture of slavery which is presented to the \npeople of the north, and it is no wonder that southern masters, \nwho know how wide from truth this representation is, are not \nparticularly ready to listen to the counsel of those, whom they \nperceive to be so ill-informed upon the subject. Wanton cruelty \nmay be too often practiced by masters, as it is by many parents ; \nbut this, which is but an occasional incident of slavery, should \nnot be exhibited as the prominent evil. This may be removed \nby the influence of humane feelings, and especially by Christian \nprinciple ; but countless evils will still remain, inherent and in- \nseparable from the system.\' \xe2\x80\x94 pp. 33-35. \n\nAnother aspect of slavery is exhibited in the follow- \ning passage. It is in vain to tell a human being, \n\n\n\n112 SLAVERY IN MARYLAND. \n\nwith a human heart, that slavery, however disguised, \nis not " a bitter draught." \n\n* It is sometimes said, that liberty is not greatly prized by tlie \nslaves, or even by the free blacks themselves. I have seen the \nattempt made to convince the slave that liberty would not place \nhim in more eligible circumstances. He would sometimes yield \nto the arguments, but there was always something in his man- \nner which showed that, even if the reason was confounded, the \nheart did not yield its assent. Although the condition of the \nfree blacks in the southern States is proverbially wretched, and \nmost of them are sufficiently apprized of its inconveniences and \nmiseries by their own bitter experience, yet none of them mani- \nfest an inclination to return to slavery. Fully acquainted with \nboth conditions, they submit to the inconveniences of freedom, \nnot indeed contentedly, but with no design of improving their \ncircumstances by sacrificing their liberty. While residing at the \nsouth, I knew an intelligent free mulatto, whose name was Sam. \nI do not remember in what manner he obtained his freedom, but \nhe richly deserved it by his uniformly good behavior. A friend \nof mine who took a deep interest in his welfare, often conversed \nkindly with him concerning his prospects, and endeavored to \nsuggest plans for his benefit. He was struck with the unfortu- \nnate circumstances in which the free blacks were placed, and \nonce endeavored to convince Sam that his condition had not been \nimproved by obtaining his liberty. Sam listened to his repre- \nsentations in respectful silence, conscious of his own inability to \nmaintain the cause of freedom by an array of argument. When \nmy friend had concluded his appeal, Sam\'s only answer was, \n" After all, it\'s a heap better to be free." Brief, however, \nas the answer was, it spoke the feelings of the whole human \nrace, whether bond or free. If liberty could ever be accounted \nworthless, it would be such a liberty as falls to the lot of the \nfree negro, when surrounded by slaves and their masters. Yet, \nwith no better prospects than these, he was able to decide, with \na clearness of apprehension that nothing could confuse or mislead, \nthat freedom was still invaluable. While this principle remains \nin full operation in the heart, it is in vain that the slave is con- \nvinced that his external circumstances would not be improved by \n\n\n\nSLAVERY IN MARYLAND. n^ \n\nobtaining his freedom : though satisfied that by remaining a slave \nhe shall be better fed, and clothed, and sheltered, and nursed \nwhen sick or old, he still feels that the power to choose for him- \nself and to direct his own actions, is more than an equivalent for \nall these advantages, and his heart replies, " After all, it\'s a heap \nbetter to be free." \'\xe2\x80\x94pp. 107-109. \n\n!- What is slavery in the city of Washington ? \xe2\x80\x94 the \nslavery which is too sacred to be touched by the ex- \nclusive jurisdiction of Congress? The facts de- \nscribed below occurred last summer. Our author\'s \ninformant was \'^ a gentleman well known in this \ncountry for his literary and scientific attainments." \n\n\xc2\xab A negro, about twenty- five years old, who is married, and \nhas three or four children, has just applied to my informant, \nstating that he is to be sold immediately to a slave-dealer, and \nseparated forever from his family, unless he can find some resi- \ndent in the District who will consent to purchase him. He is a \nmember of a church in this city, and has uniformly sustained a \nChristian character. His master wishes to raise a few hundred \ndollars, which he has not the means of doing conveniently, with- \nout the sale of one of his slaves. Now it happens that the pur- \npose for which this money is to be raised is well known, and \nis no other than to purchase a mulatto wotnan, with whom he is \nknown to be criminally connected. As if even this were not a \nsufficient provocation to the moral sense of the community, there \nis an aggravation arising from the motive which determined the \nmaster to sell the slave of whom I am speaking, rather than any \nother. He had endeavored to employ this slave in bringing other \ncolored women into the same relation to him, as the mulatto \nwoman whom I have mentioned, but here the servant felt that \nhe had a Master in heaven, whom he was bound to obey, rather \nthan his earthly master. His refusal had greatly irritated his \n\nmaster, and led to his being selected for sale.\' \xe2\x80\x94 pp. Ill, 112. \n******** \n\nOne of the most interesting topics in the whole \n\nfield of inquiry respecting slavery and abolition, is \n\nthe progress of Maryland toward becoming a free \n\n\n\n114 SLAVERY IN MARYLAND. \n\nState. Some facts in relation to this subject have \nbeen collected by Mr. Andrews, which are well \nworthy to be considered by all who would under- \nstand what prospect there is of the abolition of slave- \nry. It is only to be regretted that these facts, in- \nstead of being scattered here and there through a \nseries of somewhat familiar letters, were not arranged \nand combined in such forms as to show more dis- \ntinctly the great principles which they involve. \nPerhaps, however, the book might in that w^ay \nhave lost in popular interest more than it Avould \nhave gained in philosophical precision. \n\n\'\' In this State," says our autlior, \'^ slave-labor em- \nployed in agriculture has long since ceased^ with few \nexceptions^ to he valuable.^^ This everybody knows \nalready ; and everybody knows the reason of it. \nSlave-labor, in Maryland, comes into competition \nwith free-labor, and is therefore unprofitable. And \nwhen the political economists of the south have \n*\' exhausted the argument" for the superior profit- \nableness of slave^abor in agriculture, it is answer \nenough to point to the agriculture of Maryland, and \nto demand of them an instance in which free labor \nhas become unprofitable when placed in competition, \non equal terms, with the labor of slaves. Slave- \nlabor then must cease to be profitable everywhere, \njust in proportion as the labor of freemen can be \nemployed in the production of the same commodities. \nLet the time come when the labor of intelligent \nfreemen shall produce cotton, rice, and sugar, on a \nlarofe scale, and slave-labor will cease to be more \nprofitable in the agriculture of Louisiana and Missis- \nsippi, than it is in the agriculture of Maryland. \n\n\n\nSLAVERY IN MAR\'iLAND. XI5 \n\nIn consequence of the unprofitableness of slave- \nlabor, there is an increasing desire among the citizens of \nMaryland to he rid of slavery. The transportation of \nslaves by thousands to the southern States, does not in- \ndeed indicate such a desire. But other things men- \ntioned by our author, do indicate the desire in Mary- \nland to become a free State. No serious legal difficul- \nties are thrown in the way of emancipation. The \ntestimony of one respectable witness, that he is well \nacquainted with the party, and that he knows him to \nbear a fair character for honesty and temperance, is \nregarded by the courts as sufficient to secure for the \nemancipated slave the privilege of a continued resi- \ndence within the State. Emancipations are frequent, \nand are increasingly popular. It is stated that not fewer \nthan fifteen hundred slaves had been manumitted \nwithin the three and a half years preceding the date \nof our author\'s inquiries ; and that the majorit}^ of \nthese were manumitted without reference to their \nemigration. Can it be doubted, that if at any time \nslave-labor should become equally unprofitable in \nthe more southern States, there w^ill be in those more \nsouthern States the same disposition to be rid of \nslavery which nov/ exists in Maryland ? \n\nSlavery in Maryland is actually on the wane. The \nnumber of slaves has been, for a quarter of a cen- \ntury, continually diminishing. At the first census, \nviz., in 1790, the number was 103,036. At the end \nof ten years the increase had been 2.52 per cent. \nDuring another ten years the increase was 5.55 per \ncent. ; so that in 1810 the number of slaves was 111, \n502, or 8,466 more than in 1790. From 1810 to \n1820, the decrease was 3.68 per cent. ; and from \n\n\n\n116 SLAVERY IN MARYLAND. \n\n1820 to 1830, il was 4.1 per cent. ; so that in 1830 \nthe slave population of that State was less than it \nwas in 1810 by 8,508. The white population in the \nmeanwhile has increased in a constantly increasing \nratio \xe2\x80\x94 for the first ten years, 3.68 per cent. ; for the \nsecond, 8.68; for the third, 10.67; for the fourth, \n11.87. The time is not far distant, then, when \nMaryland w^ill be numbered with the free States. \nMust not other States in their turn yield to the same \ninfluences, and become free? \n\nThe diminutio7i of the slave population in Mary- \nland^ has been accompanied with a great increase of \nthe free colored population. In 1790 the number of \nfree colored persons in Maryland was only 8,043. \nIn 1830 the number was 52,938, making an in- \ncrease of 558 per cent, in forty years. From 1820 \nto 1830, the increase was 33.24 per cent., just about \nthree times as great as the increase of the white \npopulation for the same period. It is to be noticed, \nhowever, that since the prohibition of the foreign \nslave-trade, the increase of the entire colored popu- \nlation, bond and free, has not been rapid. In the \nten years, from 1800 to 1810, the increase Avas 16.13 \nper cent. But from 1810 to 1820, it was only 1.17 \nper cent. From 1820 to 1830, it was 5.98 per cent. \nIf Maryland has her Prof. De\\v, let him tell us how \nmuch the internal slave-trade has to do w^ith this \ndiminished per centage. But however this may be, \nthe great increase of the free colored population, is \nproof decisive of the tendency toward emancipation. \n\nSome indications of the same kind appear in other \nStates. In Virginia, the increase of the free blacks \nin the ten years preceding the last census, was \n\n\n\nSLAVERY IN MARYLAND. 117 \n\n27.49 per cent. ; that of the slaves, for the same pe- \nriod, was only 11.85 per cent. ; that of the whites, \n15.12 per cent. In North Carolina, for the same \nperiod, the increase oftthe free blacks was 33.74 per \ncent. ; that of the slaves, 19.79 per cent. ; that \nof the whites 12.79 per cent. In Kentucky, \nthe increase of the free colored population, for \nthe same period, was 67.18 per cent. ; that of the \nslaves, 30.36 per cent. ; that of the whites, 19.12 \nper cent. In Tennessee, the increase of the free \nblacks for the same period, was 63.9 per cent. In \nOhio, which, bordering upon a slave region, re- \nceives a great share of the slaves emancipated in the \nneighboring States, the increase of free blacks for \nthe same period, was 96.91 per cent. In Indiana, \nduring the same period, 2,499 free blacks were ad- \nded to their numbers, making the increase of this \nportion of their population 195.04 per cent. These \nstatistics show, that emancipation is all the while \ngoing on, not in Maryland alone, but in all the \nStates in which the profits of slave labor are dimin- \nishing. Taking the whole Union together, no class \nof population increases so rapidly as the free blacks. \nBut what will be the result of emancipation in the \nmore northern slave States 1 Will the emancipated \npopulation be removed 1 Will they be employed \nas laborers upon the soil ? Will they coalesce with \nthe white population, sharing with them on equal \nterms in all the employments of society 1 These \nare questions not to be answered with much certain- \nty ; yet some of the statements made by our author \nmay be regarded as affording materials for an ap- \nproximation to a correct answer. \n6* \n\n\n\n118 SLAVERY IN MARYLAND. \n\nIn Maryland, the labor of the free blacks is not con- \nsidered valuable. There, as at the north, they are \nfound, not in the country laboring upon the soil, \nnot in the workshop or manufactory, where w^ork \nis to be done with steady application, but congre- \ngated in the cities. In Baltimore alone, which con- \ntains not one twenty-fifth part of the slaves of Mary- \nland, nearly two-fifths of the free blacks maintain \ntheir existence, living by just such employments as \nsupport the free blacks in New York and the cities \nof New England. \n\nThe labor of white men is superseding the labor \nboth of slaves and of the free people of color. In those \nemployments which require severe and steady effort, \nnot only is a decided preference given to the labor \nof white men, but white laborers are found in suffi- \ncient numbers to meet the demand. Mr. Andrews \ntells us, that all the great public works in Maryland \nhave been constructed almost exclusively by the \nhands of Irishmen. He tells us furthermore, what \nevery traveler passing that way has occasion to ob- \nserve, that even in Baltimore, the Irish and other \nforeigners are competitors with the blacks for em- \nployment as porters, carmen, ostlers, and domestic \nsevants. There is a constant immigration of foreign \nlaborers into Baltimore. We find among our memo- \nranda the following fact, stated at the time in one \nof the newspapers of that city. Between the first \nand the twenty-fifth of June, 1833, nearly seventeen \nhundred emigrants from Europe, of whom about \none hundred and fifty were Irish, and the remainder \nnearly all Germans and Swiss, arrived at Baltimore, \nand were expected to settle in that part of the coun- \n\n\n\nSLAVERY IN MARYLAND. _H9 \n\ntry. Such facts show, that in that region the labor \nof white men is likely to supersede the labor of the \nfree blacks, as well as of the slaves. A similar com- \npetition exists to some extent in almost every part \nof the country. An intelligent gentleman from \nSouth Carolina, who had no theory to support, re- \nmarked to Mr. Andrews, that even there. Irishmen \nwere ready to do anything that the free blacks might \nbe wanted to do. \n\nYet it is not impossible for the free blacks to \nfind employment. The demand for labor is so great \nin this country, that all sorts of laborers are in re- \nquest. In New York it is remarked, that the colored \npeople, by their address and ingenuity, contrive to \nmonopolize, to a considerable extent, a certain class \nof employments, and to turn over to their Irish com- \npetitors the more toilsome business of carrying mor- \ntar, breaking stone, or digging and plying the wheel- \nbarrow upon roads and canals. In Baltimore, Mr. \nA. observed, that many of the free people of color \nwere much better dressed than the lower class of \nwhite people, particularly the Irish. As domestic \nservants, those colored people who have been brought \nup to that business are far better than any others in \nthis country. Thousands of the better sort of the \nfree colored people at the south, might find immedi- \nate employment in NeAV England, to the great relief \nof many a householder, whose daily grief is to hear \nthe groanings of his helpmate over the unskillfulness \nand misrule of her kitchen cabinet, and the diflficul- \nty, so unheard of in politics, of filling vacant places. \n\nThe mortality among the blacks is greater than in \nany other class of the community. For eleven years, \n\n\n\n120 SLAVERY IN MARYLAND. \n\nthe record of deaths in the city of Baltimore has \ncarefully distinguished the three classes of white, free \nblacks, and slaves. The deaths among the free \nblacks annually, are one in twenty-nine ; among the \nwhites, one in thirty-eight ; among the slaves, only \none in fort) -four. If distinct records of the deaths \nin each of these three classes were kept everywhere, \nthe proportion might not indeed be everywhere \nthe same ; but there is great reason to believe, that \nsimilar results would everywhere appear. Mr. An- \ndrews suggests the inquiry, whether it may not be \nthat slavery alone prevents the colored race in the \nUnited States from a gradual extinction. Let us see \nwhat facts there are to answer this inquiry. The \ncolored population of Massachusetts increased at the \nrate of only 2.62 per cent, in the ten years preceding \nthe last census. Yet Massachusetts, while she sends \nout no colored emigrants, is every summer receiv- \ning into her metropolis colored emigrants from other \nStates. Rhode Island has large towns to give refuge \nand employment to the colored people ; yet in \nRhode Island, for twenty years before the last cen- \nsus, the colored population was slowly decreasing. \nConnecticut sends no colored people to Georgia, to \nIllinois, or to Liberia; but, on the contrary, her \ncities are continually receiving colored people from \nthe south ; yet in Connecticut the increase of tire \ncolored population, for the ten years preceding the \nlast census, was only 0.38 per cent. None of our \nreaders need to be reminded how the colored people \nfrom all the south crowd into the great cities of New \nYork ; yet the increase of the colored population of \nthat State was only 12.17 per cent, in ten years. In \n\n\n\nSLAVERY IN MARYLAND. 121 \n\nNew Jersey the increase was less than two per cent. \nNow cut off from these northern States the supply- \nthat pours from the south, and how long would \nthere be here any colored population to be counted 1 \n\nWe have no room to go into the theory of this \nsubject. Let it suffice to indicate one or two princi- \nples. The only possible check upon the growth of \na slave population must be either the cruelty of the \nmaster, or his absolute inability to give them food. \nNo moral " preventive check," no prudence, no \ndread of poverty, can prevent slaves from fulfilling \nto the utmost that great mandate, \'\' increase and \nmultiply." And when the children are once \nbrought into the world, they are not the children of \npaupers, exposed to the wants, the perils, the dis- \neases of poverty ; they belong to a rich man, who \nmust feed them and provide for them, if he be not a \nmonster. But when the slaves become free, all the \nchecks upon population begin to operate. And the \nmore sudden the emancipation, the more rapid will \nbe the working of these checks. \n\nWhat, then, may we anticipate, as the destiny of \nthe colored population of this country 1 If there are \ndistricts of this country, where the climate forbids \nthe white man to labor, those districts will undoubt- \nedly be inhabited by blacks. But in every other \npart, will not the white man be ultimately the labor- \ner and the sole possessor ? It is not for us to an- \nswer this question positively. We only say, that the \nquestion is worth studying. \n\n\n\nLETTER \n\n\n\nTO THE EDITOR OF THE PHIL. CHRISTIAN OBSERVER, 1545. \n\n\n\n[As the following letter is referred to on a subsequent page, and as it \ncontains not only an outline of the following series, but some thoughts \nwhich are not repeated elsewhere, it seems proper to give it a place in \nthis collection. It explains for itself the occasion on which it was \nwritten.] \n\n\n\nMr. Editor: \xe2\x80\x94 Some person has been kind enough \nto send me your paper of the 5th instant, in which a \nwritei-jsubscribing himself * A Puritan at the South," \nanimadverts with some freedom upon a speech \nwhich he supposes me to have made at the last meet- \ning of the General Association of Connecticut, and \nof which he has found some representation in the \nBoston Recorder. I have not seen the Boston Re- \ncorder to which he refers, and therefore I cannot say \nwhether the report of my speech there is correct or \nnot. I only know that elsewhere I have seen it \ndecidedly mis-reported. \n\nThe passage which your correspondent has quoted \nfrom my speech, is not a very unfair representation \nof something which I said, if the connection in which \nit was said is fairly given by the reporter \xe2\x80\x94 which I \nam bound to presume is not the case, inasmuch as \n\n\n\nPHILADELPHU CHRISTIAN OBSERVER. 123 \n\nyour correspondent makes no allusion to the course \nof my argument, on which the meaning of that pas- \nsage entirely depends. I said nothing in that speech, \nI believe, which I have not often said in print, with \nat least equal strength of language, years ago ; and \nbecause I have taken just the position which I took \nin that speech, those who in this part of the country \ncall themselves the only <\' friends of the slave," have \nmade me \xe2\x80\x94 as your correspondent knows, if he knows \nanything about me in this relation \xe2\x80\x94 a mark of spe- \ncial obloquy. \n\nMy positions were, in effect, and ^\'for substance," \nbriefly these : \n\n1. The relation of master to one whom the laws \nand the constitution of society have made a slave, is \nnot intrinsically and necessarily a sin on the part of \nthe master ; certainly not such a sin as will justify \na sentence of excommunication against him, without \ninquiry as to how he came into that relation, or how \nhe conducts himself in it. \n\n2. The master who buys and sells human beings, \nlike cattle, for gain ; who permits male and female \nservants, placed by law under his protection and \ncontrol, to live together in brutish concubinage, or \nin a merely temporary pairing, with no religious \nsanctity, which is not only unprotected by the law, \nbut which he himself considers liable to be dissolved \nat (he caprice of the parties, or whenever his conve- \nnience or gain may require the separation; who re- \nfuses to train his servants diligently, from their child- \nhood up, in the knowledge of God and in the way \nof salvation, and of the book of God, and whose ser- \nvants, in a word, live and die in heathenish igno- \n\n\n\n124 LETTER TO THE \n\nranee ; or who treats his servants in any manner in- \nconsistent with the fact that they are intelligent and \nvoluntary beings who were created in God\'s image, \nand for whom Christ has died \xe2\x80\x94 does not make a \ncreditable profession of Christian piety. Such a \nmaster has no more claim to recognition or commu- \nnion among Christ\'s disciples than a Turk might \nhave, who, having renounced Mohammed, might \npresent himself for membership in a Christian church \nwhile yet retaining a full \'\'patriarchal" seraglio of \nwives and concubines. \n\n3. It is not to be presumed that all masters, pro- \nfessing to be \'\'believing masters," are, of course, \nguilty of all or any of the crimes above described. \nBut so far as the ministers, elders, or members of any \nchurch commit any of these crimes, and the church \nto which they are responsible in respect to their \nChristian character, does not deal with them as of- \nfenders, to bring them to repentance, or if they will \nnot repent, to cut them off as reprobate, so far that \nchurch is liable to be called to account by every and \nany church with which it is in communion. And it \nis the duty of all churches with which a church so \nneglecting the discipline of Christ\'s house may de- \nsire communion, to admonish that church, and labor \nwith it for its reformation, and, in the event of the \nfailure of such efforts, then to withdraw from all \ncommunion with it. \n\n4. Those laws of the southern States, by the force \nof which the crimes above mentioned, and others of \nthe same general description, instead of being for- \nbidden and punished, are permitted and promoted, \nare a shame to human nature, especially when con- \n\n\n\nPHILADELPHIA CHRISTIAN OBSERVER. 125 \n\nsiderecl as the laws of a people glorying in their \nfreedom, their honor, and {proh pudor) their mag- \nnanimity. The system of slavery in these United \nStates, as it exists in its own theory, apart from any \nquestion of fact in respect to the working of the sys- \ntem \xe2\x80\x94 the system of slavery, simply as set forth in \nthe laws respecting slavery \xe2\x80\x94 is a system which be- \nlongs, historically and philosophically, to the lowest \nstage, save one, of human barl)arism. The exist- \nence of such a body of laws in the statute-books of \nfree A.merican states, "Anglo Saxon" in lineage, \nand pretending to be Christian, is enough to make \nthe cheek of an American, anywhere, tingle with \nshame. It is often said that no people can be, on the \nwhole, better than their laws are. I believe that thou- \nsands of the southern people are a great deal better \nthan their laws are. I try all I can to believe that the \nentire people of the south are better, in fact, than \nthey are, as represented by their laws \xe2\x80\x94 though some- \ntimes, I must confess, I have to try very hard, espe- \ncially when such events happen as that which hap- \npened a few days ago at Lexington, and that which \nhappened last winter at Charleston. I do believe \nthat there are thousands of southern men whose mo- \nral sense is shocked, as mine is, by the atrocity of \nthose defences of slavery which are put forth now \nand then by the Hammonds, the McDuffies, and the \nDews. But, after all, the fact remains. Those bar- \nbarian laws stand in the statute-books ; and of the \nthousands who at heart detest them, who dares to \npropose a repeal or an amendment? Who dares \neven to utter a protest against them ? Public opin- \nion at the south \xe2\x80\x94 or what passes for public opinion\xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\n\n126 LETTER TO THE \n\nannihilates, on this subject, the freedom of the press, \nthe freedom of speech, and even the right of private \njudgment. No people upon earth are more governed \nby public opinion, or have less idea of (he possibility \nof resisting public opinion, than the people of our \nsouthern States, particularly in relation to this sub- \nject. Public opinion makes them murder each other \n\xe2\x80\x94 like cowards who dare not refuse to do what they \nknow to be wrong \xe2\x80\x94 in duels. Public opinion, speak- \ning in the hoarse clamors of the blood-thirsty mob, \nand in the terrific sentence of the Lynch court, com- \npels the thousands who detest those laws about sla- \nvery to digest their detestation in silence. This very \nhabit of being governed by a local public opinion, \nand of regarding public opinion as a force that can- \nnot possibly be resisted, makes the southern people, \nin proportion as their intercourse wath other commu- \nnities increases, and the eyes of the nations are turned \nwith closer attention towards their " peculiar insti- \ntutions," more and more sensitive to the public opin- \nion of the world at large. \'\'They that take the \nsword, shall perish by the sword." So they w^ho \nattempt to uphold an atrocious body of laws by the \ntyranny of public opinion, are already beginning to \nwrithe under the indignant public opinion of the civ- \nilized W\'Orld. I say, then, let the voice of universal \nhuman nature utter itself against those laws. \n\nIt is not through any want of sensibility to shame, \nbut only through ignorance and thoughtlessness of \nwhat the public opinion of the world really is, that \ncitizens of the States in which that atrocious system \nof laws exists, are able to look citizens of other States, \nor the subjects of other governments, in the face \n\n\n\nPHILADELPHIA CHRISTUN OBSERVER. 127 \n\nwithout blushing. What Virginian or Carolinian \nwould not blush, to be told at a northern watering- \nplace, in the presence of enlightened foreigners \xe2\x80\x94 \nSir, the laws of your State permit a man to sell his \nown son, as he would a mule; or his own daughter, \nonly a shade yellower than himself, as he would sell \na horse. What stuff is that chivalry made of, that \nwould not cower to be told that in the chivalrous \nland of the sunny south, the chastity of more than \na million of women is without a shadow of legal \nprotection \xe2\x80\x94 that the father, the brother, or the hus- \nband of one of those women, if he should lift his hand \nagainst the seducer or the ravisher, might be killed \non the spot, as if he were a mad dog ? I cannot be- \nlieve that the people of the south \xe2\x80\x94 the more intelli- \ngent portion of them particularly \xe2\x80\x94 are so insensible \nto the public opinion of the world as not to care \nwhat the world thinks of these laws of theirs, which, \ninstead of requiring the master to render to his ser- \nvants that which is just and equal, forbid his paying \nthem wages ; which, instead of requiring the mas- \nter to see that his servants receive such an education \nas an enlightened State ought to furnish for every \nhuman being reared under its jurisdiction, make it \na crime to teach a slave the alphabet ; and which, \ninstead of regarding the slave as a being having per- \nsonal rights, even against his master, make it impos- \nsible for the master to endow him with any rights \nwhatever. \n\nYour correspondent, Mr. Editor, and what is of \nmore consequence, your readers, can see whether \nmy language is, as he affirms, \'\' sufficiently indis- \ncriminate and abusive to gratify the feelings of the \n\n\n\n128 LETTER TO THE \n\nmost thorough-going political revilers of the day." \nIn my views, and in ray language, I \' discriminate\' \ncarefully between the relation of a master to one \nwhom society has made a slave, and the conduct of \nthat master in that relation \xe2\x80\x94 or in other words, be- \ntween the powet of doing wrong which the law \ngives to the master as against the slave, and the use \nwhich the master makes of that power. I \' discrimi- \nnate\' carefully between the churches of the south \nand the offences of individuals in communion with \nthose churches, and instead of excommunicating all \nslaveholders simply as suchj and all churches which \ncontain slaveholders^ I would, in the discharge of a \nfraternal duty, call upon the southern churches \nthemselves to put in force the discipline of Christ\'s \nhouse against specific sins^ which their own moral \nsense acknowledges to be incompatible with the \ncredibility of a Christian profession. I also ^ dis- \ncriminate\' between the laws of the Southern States \nrespecting slavery and the blacks, and the individu- \nal citizens of those States ; and while I regard those \nlaws with unlimited abhorrence as a disgrace to my \ncountry and a disgrace to the human species, I re- \ngard the people of those States as better than their \nlaws \xe2\x80\x94 thousands of them a great deal better. I am \nwilling to treat individual citizens of slaveholding \nStates with all the courtesy and respect due to gen- \ntlemen and to American fellow-citizens, except as I \nfind individuals unworthy of such treatment. But \nthey on the other hand must allow me, here at home, \na freeman\'s privilege of abhorring slavery and of \nuttering my abhorrence. So I could treat a gentle- \nmanly Turk or Persian with courtesy and hospitali- \n\n\n\nPHILADELPHIA CHRISTIAN OBSERVER. 129 \n\nty in my New England home, but he must not re- \nquire me to give up my Christian and American \nopinions, out of complaisance to his Islamism and \nhis polygamy. \n\nYour correspondent seems to intimate that I, as \nliving in a free-labor State, am necessarily too igno- \nrant on the subject of slavery to have any opinion \nworth regarding. As if a man could not tell whether \nit is wrong to buy and sell human beings at pub- \nlic auction " in lots to suit purchasers," without liv- \ning in a slave State. As if the public opinion of a \nslave State, armed with the fui4es of Lynch law, and \nassuming an unlimited arbitrary power over every \nman\'s private judgment (unless it is very private \nindeed) were a necessary guide for erring human \nnature to a knowledge of the right and wrong about \nslavery. As if I, living here, where every man is \nfree to think and free to speak on every side, and \nwhere I have had the privilege of receiving through \nthe post-office no fewer than three copies of Gov. \nHammond\'s defence of slavery, were less competent \nto form an unbiased opinion, than I should be if I \nlived where no man is allowed to speak but on one \nside, and where, if I should be so unfortvmate as to \nform an opinion contrary to public opinion, and \nshould be found out in it, the least that I, as a \nnorthern man, could expect, would be to be arrayed \nin tar and feathers, unless I should make my escape \nas a felon flees from justice. \n\nYour correspondent farther suggests that if I \n*^ would reform the institutions of the south," I \nought to <^ come and dwell" there, where the work \nis to be done. Let me say then, that I have not un- \n\n\n\n130 LETTER TO THE OBSERVER. \n\ndertaken to reform the institutions of the south. I \nleave that work in the hands of the people of the \nsouth to whom it belongs, and whom God will hold \naccountable for it. I acknowledge the kindness of \nyour correspondent\'s hospitable invitation, but God \nhas given me a better lot. \'\' The lines are fallen to \nme in pleasant places." I find myself where all the \nwork that I can do comes daily to my hands ; and I \ndo not conceive that, considering all my relations, I \ncould do more for the kingdom of Christ, or the \nwelfare of my country there, than I can here. If \nGod had cast my lot there, I would stay there ; for \nnowhere upon earth can more good be done by a \ngood man who is native on the soil and has the con- \nfidence of the people, than there. I would not go \non a foreign mission, and leave that field behind \nme ; it were as wise to go from China on a foreign \nmission to Kamschatka. Least of all would I, like \nsome southern ministers, seek a settlement at the \nnorth for the sake of getting away from slavery. \n\nRespectfully yours, \n\nLeonard Bacon. \nJVew-Haven, SepU 8, 1845, \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION \n\n\n\nBETWEEN THE \n\n\n\nANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY AND THE AMERICAN BOARD, \n\n\n\n[new YORK EVANGELIST, IS46.] \n\n\n\nTo THE Editors of the New- York Evangelist: \n\nGentlemen: \xe2\x80\x94 I have felt myself called to prepare the following pa- \npers, because I see, in some quarters, evidence that the question be- \ntween the Anti-Slavery Society and the Foreign Missionary Board \nneeds once more to be distinctly stated, and that the position of the \nBoard is not fairly understood. I send the papers to you, asking a \nplace for them in the columns of your journal, instead of attemptii g \nany other form of publication, because 1 know not in what other way \nI can reach so many of those readers who are in a state of mind to be \ninfluenced by the views which I wish to present. \n\nThe extent to which my name has been used in connection with this \nsubject, seems on the whole to require that what I publish shall be on \nmy own responsibility. Yours, &c., \n\nLeonard Bacon. \n\nNew-Haven, Jan, 22, 1846. \n\n\n\nNO. I. THE QUESTION STATED. \n\nAmong the many mischievous effects of slavery \nin its unnatural connection with our republican and \nChristian institutions, is that erratic philanthropy \nwhich has usurped the name of abolitionism. There \nis so much in slavery that excites the mind to indig- \nnation ; the subject, at the same time, is so compli- \n\n\n\n132 THE COLLISION. \n\ncated in its nature and relations, touching upon so \nmany interests, commercial, political, and religious ; \nthat there is no wonder we find opposition to slavery \ncontinually tending to extravagances of statement \nand of action. So it will be while slavery contin- \nues. The odious and atrocious injustice of the sys- \ntem is enough to \'\'make a wise man mad;" how \nmuch more will it inflame to madness those whose \nfeelings are more than a match for their wisdom. \n\nThe Anti-Slavery Societies of the northern States, \nas is well known, have been for many years coming \ninto frequent collision with all sorts of religious and \nphilanthropic bodies. This has come to pass on the \npart of the anti-slavery leaders, not in mere malice \nor for the sake of working mischief, but in the belief \nthat if the religious and philanthropic bodies in this \npart of the country can all be made auxiliary to the \nAnti-Slavery Society, then that Society will be strong \nenough to abolish slavery. Under the influence of \nsuch a belief, colleges, theological seminaries, \nchurches and ecclesiastical organizations. Tract, Bi- \nble, and Missionary Societies, have all been assailed, \nwith various success. \n\nThe American Board of Commissioners for For- \neign Missions, has been to these reformers an object \nof special regard. So extensive have been the opera- \ntions of that institution ; so signal has been the suc- \ncess of some of its missions; and so great is the con- \nfidence with which it is honored by the New Eng- \nland churches, and by churches elsewhere, of New \nEngland sympathies ; that it has seemed to anti- \nslavery leaders to be just the instrument with which \nto accomplish their great design. If the Board of \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. \n\n\n\n133 \n\n\n\nForeign Missions could only be brought into an \nauxiliary relation to the Anti-Slavery Society, then \nsurely the anti-slavery cause would triumph. \n\nAccordingly from year to year, for I know not \nhow long, the anti-slavery question in one form or \nanother has been brought, by memorial or other- \nwise, into the conventions of the Board. To go into \nthe history of these proceedings would perhaps be \ntedious. A summary may be found in a pamphlet \nlately published by the Prudential Committee, which \nis probably within the reach of as many as would \ntake any special interest in reading it. I will say, \nhowever, that in my opinion the principal error in \nthe proceedings of the Board heretofore \xe2\x80\x94 if there \nhas been error on their part \xe2\x80\x94 has been that they \nhave not given, in answer to the various applications \nthat have been made to them from time to time, a \nbrief and peremptory definition of their principles \nin the form of distinct and well-considered proposi- \ntions, such as might be easily taken into the mind \nand easily remembered. The action of tlie Board \nhas not been in the form of resolutions affirming or \ndenying certain propositions respecting slavery ; but \nonly in the form of the acceptance of an essay, or a \ndiplomatic reply to the memorialists, from a com- \nmittee. In connection with this, there has seemed \nto be some sort of reluctance to meet the question \nface to face. Much has been said, and to very little \npurpose in my view, about the \'\' one object" of the \nBoard, the propagation of the gospel, and about the \nimpropriety of turning aside from that great and \ngood work for the sake of settling questions about \nslavery, or for the sake of co-operating in particular \n7 \n\n\n\n134 THE COLLISION. \n\nschemes of reformation ; whereas, nothing is\'more \npalpable than that if the Anti-Slavery Society, as \nrepresented by its publications and its executive \nofficers, is right \xe2\x80\x94 if the master of a slave, simply as \nsuch, without any reference to his treatment of the \nslave, is *\' a man-stealer," and is to be considered b}^ \nall Christians as a heathen man and a publican \xe2\x80\x94 then \nit is the duty of the Board, as a society instituted for \nthe one purpose of propagating the gospel, to say so \noutright without regard to consequences, and to in- \nstruct its Prudential Committee and all its agents \nand missionaries, to adopt that principle unswerv- \ningly in all its applications. And on the other \nhand, if the one only characteristic principle of the \nAnti-Slavery Society is, as I do earnestly believe, \na miserable, paltering, juggling sophism, that can \nhave no better effect than to mislead and madden \nenthusiastic minds, and to irritate the passions of \nthe slaveholder while it sears his conscience \xe2\x80\x94 then, \nat the very first obtrusion of this principle, it ought \nto have been met with a firm and peremptory denial, \nin language not to be misunderstood. But the suc- \ncessive reports which have been presented by com- \nmittees and accepted by the Board, have so careful- \nly abstained from the abstract assertion of general \nprinciples, have had so much to do with the state- \nment and explanation of particular facts, and have \nshown so much desire to conciliate the anti-slavery \nmovement, that the leaders of that movement have \nbeen encouraged with the hope of ultimate success. \nIt was quite natural for them to reason that if agita- \ntion had accomplished so much, then more agitation \nould accomplish more. \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 23^ \n\nThe late annual meeting of the Board, at Brook- \nlyn, Avas signalized by a discussion of slavery in its \nrelations to the missionary work. Never before had \nthe subject been debated in that body. Many feared \nthe occurrence of such a discussion as a great evil. \nMany apprehended that it would be accompanied \nwith popular excitement, and with such scenes of \nagitation as have accompanied similar discussions \nin other religious and philanthropic assemblies. At \nformer meetings, the subject had been considered \nonly in committees \xe2\x80\x94 the reports of the committees \nbeing presented near the close of the session, and \nadopted without debate. But in this instance, the \ndiscussion was anticipated by those who planned \nthe arrangement of business for the meeting ; and \neverything was very properly allowed to give way \nbefore the paramount urgency of the anti-slavery \nquestion. The debate occupied the greater part of \nthe entire session. It was free ; there was no res- \ntraint put upon the utterance of any opinion, how- \never extreme. On the one hand, there were the \nstrongest denunciations, not only of slavery, but of \nall who are masters of slaves \xe2\x80\x94 on the other hand \nthere was a speech from a South Carolina clergy- \nman, suited exactly to the meridian of Charleston \xe2\x80\x94 \nand both were heard with exemplary patience. \nThe discussion was bold, partly in consequence of \nits being free ; every man who spoke seemed to ex- \npress his opinion without fear of giving offence. At \nthe same time, it was characterized by decorum. \nThough the number of members present, corporate \nand honorary, was more than six hundred, all of \nwhom had the same right to speak ; and though, in \n\n\n\n136 THE COLLISION. \n\nthe absence of all concert or consultation as to who \nshould lead in the argument, some fifty or more were \nready and anxious to take part in the debate ; there \nwas no unseemly contending for the floor, and only \nonce or twice was there any occasion for a call to order. \nAnd notwithstanding the necessarily desultory char- \nacter of an unprepared debate, on such a subject, in \nsuch an assembly, all will agree that it was on the \nwhole an uncommonly able discussion. On the \npart of the Anti-Slavery Society, the leader in the \ndebate was the Rev. Amos A. Phelps, the Society\'s \nprincipal secretary ; a man not surpassed in logical \nacumen, or in the capacity of seeing the force of dis- \ntinctions and arguments, or in controversial experi- \nence, by any of the chiefs of that organization ; a \nman who having given the best 3^ears of his life, \nand the powers of a well-cultivated mind, to the \nstudy and practice of anti-slavery as a profession, \nand having made himself familiar with all depart- \nments of the subject, needed not, like some others, \nto retail the stereotyped common-places of fourth-rate \nanti-slavery lectures. On the other side, it will not \nbe invidious to mention the speeches of Dr. Edward \nBeecher and Prof. Stowe, as characterized by emi- \nnent learning and great force of argument. \n\nThe form in which the question presented itself \nfor discussion on that occasion, was perhaps the \nvery best form in which it could arise. In other \nforms in which the question might have been pre- \nsented, it would have been entangled with side \nquestions of expediency ; so that many individuals, \ndissenting entirely from the characteristic principle \nof the Anti-Slavery Society, might have been con- \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 137 \n\nStrained to vote with\'the adherents of that principle. \nThus, had the question been on the employment of \nslave-owners as missionaries, the men who hold the \ndoctrine of the Anti-Slavery Society would have \nanswered in the negative, because the slave-owner, \nas they judge, is in every possible case a man-steal- \ner ; and at the same time many others would have \nanswered in the negative with equal emphasis, for \nvery different reasons \xe2\x80\x94 such as that the slave-owner \nowes to the slaves who in the providence of God \nare under his protection, certain duties which re- \nquire him to remain with them \xe2\x80\x94 and that if he is \nthe right man in other respects for the foreign mis- \nsionary work, he is more likely to do good in South \nCarolina or Mississippi than in Syria or Africa. \nOr had the question been whether to send agents to \nthe southern churches, soliciting their contributions, \nthe consistent upholders of the Anti-Slavery Society- \nwould have answered. No, because the southern \nchurches admit slaveholders to communion, and \nbecause, in their judgment, every such church is no \nbetter than a synagogue of Satan ; while many- \nothers would also have said. No, as thinking that \nthe contributions thus realized would not repay the \nexpense and trouble accruing \xe2\x80\x94 or as of opinion that \nthe southern churches have more missionary work \namong the black heathen within their own borders, \nthan they are likely to attend to\xe2\x80\x94 or as judging that \nany attempt at extensive co-operation between the \nnorthern churches and the southern, is likely to re- \nsult in painful collisions, and to hinder instead of \npromoting the natural action of Christianity againit \nslavery. But in this instance the only question that \n\n\n\n138 THE COLLISION. \n\ncould legitimately be raised, was the question whe- \nther every slave-master is to be excommunicated \nfrom the church, simply as standing in that re- \nlation. \n\nPerhaps I may be allowed briefly to recall the \nleading facts of the case to the remembrance of my \nreaders. Negro slavery, it seems, has existed for \nmore than sixty years, to a limited extent, in the \nCherokee and Choctaw nations of Indians. The \nchurches formed by the missionaries in those two \nnations, have received to communion some few in- \ndividuals who are the owners of slaves. This fact \nhaving been seized upon by the Anti-Slavery Socie- \nty, memorials were sent to the Board, from some \nvery respectable sources, requesting that the Board \nwould take " such action as shall speedily remove \nthe evil." At the meeting in 1844, these memorials \nwere put into the hands of a committee, consisting \nof Rev. Dr. Woods and Rev. David Sandford and \nDavid Greene, of Masssachusetts ; Rev. Dr. Tyler \nand Hon. T. W. Williams, of Connecticut ; Chan- \ncellor Walworth and Rev. J. W. McLane, of New \nYork; Rev. Dr. Tappan and Rev. S. L. Pomeroy, \nof Maine, and Rev. Dr. Stowe, of Ohio. Of these \ngentlemen, two, Dr. Woods, and Mr. Greene, are \n;\xc2\xabrobably the only individuals against whom the \nAnti-Slavery Society had any special prejudice; \nthree, Dr. Tappan, Mr. Sandford and Mr. Pomeroy, \ncall themselves, and are commonly called, abolition- \nists, and are, it is believed, members of the Anti- \nSlavery Society; Mr. Sandford was himself one of \nthe memorialists. It was the duty of this Committee \nto obtain information respecting the facts alleged \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 139 \n\nand complained of by the memorialists, and to re- \nport at the meeting in 1845. Nor did the gentlemen \nperform their duty negligently. Every one of them, \nexcept Mr. Pomeroy, who was absent in Europe, \nattended to the business in person. After the neces- \nsary information had been obtained by correspond- \nence with the missions, the Committee met to agree \non their report. The draft of a report, which had \nbeen prepared by the chairman, was not entirely \nsatisfactory ; and after a full discussion of the prin- \nciples that were to be asserted and adhered to, it \nw^as put into the hands of a sub -committee. At a \nlater meeting, the sub-committee presented a new \ndraft, which, after further discussion and amend- \nment, was agreed to as the report of the Committee, \nand in that form was presented to the Board at \nBrooklyn. \n\nThe form of the report \xe2\x80\x94 the ordinary form of re- \nports in that body \xe2\x80\x94 had this disadvantage, that in \nthe discussion and decision there was a necessity of \ntaking, or rejecting it, as a whole. There was no \nseries of propositions to be separately discussed, and \nseparately voted on. Some of the most important \nprinciples of the case are introduced indirectly, and \nas it were, by the way, rather than put forward with \nas much prominence as some might desire. All that \nthe report contains, and all that it does not contain, \ncould hardly be ascertained by the mere hearer, at \none reading, or even at two. The representatives \nof the Anti-Slavery Society, however, were not long \nin perceiving that it did not contain their doctrine \ndirectly or indirectly. It was not enough for them \nto see, that it condemns the institution of slavery as \n\n\n\n140 THE COLLISION. \n\nan institution at war with natural justice and with \nall the principles and designs of the gospel, and as \nan arrangement which the legitimate influence of \nthe gospel will surely abolish ; it must go farther, if it \nis to please them. All the injustice and mischiev- \nousness of the institution, it must impute to every \nindividual whom that institution invests with power \nover his fellow-men ; and it must pronounce ana- \nthema against him, without inquiring how he ad- \nministers that power. Accordingly Mr. Phelps, at \nan early stage of the debate, proposed an amend- \nment in two parts, for the purpose of making the \nreport agree precisely with the peculiar and charac- \nteristic dogma of his Society. He moved to amend \nthe report as follows : \n\n1. By inserting the words, " and practice," after the words \n" system," in all those passages which speak of the system as \nwicked, unrighteous, &c., so that they will read " the wicked- \nness of tile system and practice of slavery." &c., &c. \n\n2. By appending the following as the conclusion of the report, \nviz. : \n\n*\' In conclusion, the Board adopt the following preamble and \nresolutions as a summary exposition of the views and principles \nembodied in the foregoing remarks, and of the rules that should \ngovern the Executive officers and missionaries of the Board in \ntheir practical application. \n\nWhereas, in the providence of God, this Board, in conducting \nits operations among the Indians and elsewhere, has been brought \ninto such contact with slavery as to demand some judgment of \nthe Board respecting its moral character, and the adoption of \nsome general rules of conduct for the guidance of its Executive \nofficers and missionaries, in cases where they are brought in con- \ntact with it, while seeking their one great object, therefore. \n\nResolved, That as this Board regard the system and practice \nof slaveholding as a great moral evil, entirely opposed to the \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 141 \n\nspirit and principles of the gospel whose propagation is its espe- \ncial and appropriate work ; it can never in the persons of its offi- \ncers, agents, or missionaries, sustain any relation to it, implying \neither approbation or sanction. \n\nResolved, That in accordance with this general principle, this \nBoard cannot appoint or sustain slaveholders, remaining such af- \nter remonstrance, as missionaries. \n\nResolved, That while this Board will not imperatively direct or \nconcern itself with the internal discipline of churches gathered \nby its missionaries on heathen ground, as it might seem to be an \nunauthorized interference with the liberty of Christ\'s house, so \nneither can it allow such missionaries to interfere in a similar \nway with its liberty in the appropriation of its funds ; and there- \nfore, that as this Board, in the exercise of its liberty, would feel \ncalled upon to withdraw its support from missionaries and \nchurches receiving drunkards, gamblers, and the like to their \ncommunion and retaining them in it, so it cannot continue its \nappropriations to missionaries and churches which, after remon- \nstrances on the subject, deliberately continue to receive slave- \nholders remaining such after due admonition, to their bosom and \nretain them in it. \n\nResolved, That the Board will expect its missionaries, minis- \ntering to churches that have slaveholders in them, to pursue the \nsame course in respect to their instruction, admonition, and disci- \npline as slaveholders, as if the same individuals were drunkards, \ngamblers, or the like, and that if the missionaries, in the exercise \nof their liberty and after full dehberation, shall decline to do so, \nthis Board hereby directs its Executive officers to dissolve farther \nconnection with them as missionaries of this body." \n\nOf this Mr. Phelps, in a document since published \nby him in his official capacity as Secretary of the \nAnti-Slavery Society,* says : \n\n" This, of course, as was our object in offering it, brought the \ndiscussion to a point ; and that point was simply this, viz. : whe- \nther in the matter of instruction, admonition, and discipline, the \n\n\n\n* American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Reporter, October, 1845. \n\n\n\n142 THE COLLISION. \n\nBoard would expect its missionaries 9.;)d i^issipji churches to \ntreat slaveholdingjust as they would drunkenness, gaming, fals-e- \nhood, idolatry, ai^d the like. The report and the -speakers had \nvirtually said they would expect them to do so in respect to spe- e \nciiic forms of maltreatment and personal abuse. The amead-\'\'\' \nment raised the question whether they would.-expect thenv-i^:do \nso in regard to slaveholding itself. In other t\'erms, it raised the \nquestion whether slaveholding, as such, is to be classed with the \nother offences named,*and whether so classed, instruction is- to be"* \ngiven against it by missionaries, and admonition and discipline to \nbe administered against it by them and the churches\', in the same \nway, and onlyin the same, as in respect to said other offences." \n\nThis paragraph has its value, as showing- that I \ndo not misrepresent the actual question between the \nAnti-Slavery Society and the Ame^jcan Board. The \nquestion, according to Mr. Phelps\' showing, is not \na question respecting \'^ specific forms of maltreat- \nment." To condemn every specific wrong which \nthe master may commit in theexercise of the power \nwhich the 1-aws give him over his slaves, is not \nenough. To condemn him for buying, and selling \nhuman beings as merchandise ; to condemn him, in \ndetail, for regarding and treating his servants as \nmere chattels ; to condemn him for every particular \nact of wrong-doing towards them which convicts \nhim of a selfish and unchristian heart ; to condemn \nhim for not duly recognizing their natural rights in \nthe parental and conjugal relations, and for neg- \nlecting the necessities of their intellectual and moral \nnature, and their dignity as bretliren of the human \nfamily, and as immortal beings to whom God speaks \nin the gospel \xe2\x80\x94 ^^all this is not enough. The Anti- \nSlavery Society demands that he shall be condemned \nfor the relation itself, without any inquiry touching \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 143 \n\nhis conduct in that relation. In the Anti-Slavery \nSociety\'s creed, he that condemns a slave-owner \nonly for well-defined individual acts of oppression, \ndoes the work of the Lord deceitfully ; we are re- \nquired to go back farther, and to condemn him for \nhaving the power to oppress. \n\nBefore taking leave of Mr. Phelps\' paragraph \nabove quoted, I cannot but remark, that the debate \nitself, as reported in the New York newspapers of \nthat week, does not seem to correspond with his \nopinion that his motion to amend \'\'brought the dis- \ncussion to a point." The speeches prior to his mo- \ntion \xe2\x80\x94 after a preliminary question, strangely raised, \nrespecting the jurisdiction of the Board, had been \ncleared up \xe2\x80\x94 were as nearly to the point as those that \nfollowed. The issue presented in Mr. P.\'s resolu- \ntions, is precisely the issue which was presented, \nunder another form, in the report. The question \ndiscussed in the report, is not whether slavery is \nwrong as a political system, and is everywhere and \nnecessarily mischievous ; nor is it the question whe- \nther the treating of human beings as merchandise, \nor as having no personal rights, by those who hap- \npen to have the power of so doing, is wrong ; it is \nsimply the question whether the mere relation of a \nslave-owner is always and necessarily a crime, and \nas such incompatible with a Christian profession. \nThat question the report answers in the negative; \nand it proposes, accordingly, that every individual \ninstance of slave-ownership shall be judged in that \nrespect by the missionaries and their churches. Mr. \nPhelps\' amendment, on the contrary, gives to the \nsame question an affirmative answer ; and it propo- \n\n\n\n144 THE COLLISION. \n\nses to instruct the missionaries everywhere, and the \nmissionary churches, that the mere possession of a \nmaster\'s authority over a slave, independent of all \nspecific exercise of that authority, is to be visited \nwith excommunication. Mr. Phelps\' motion, then, \nproduced, and could produce, no effect on the course \nor progress of the debate, save as it may have \nhelped to diminish the possibility of misunderstand- \ning the demands of the Society which he repre- \nsented. \n\nIt was my wish to finish all that I have to say \nrespecting the late meeting of the Board at Brook- \nlyn, in a single paper ; but I fear that in attempting \nto do so, I should occupy more space in the columns \nof the Evangelist, than would be consistent with the \nusual variety of matter in this widely read \'^ folio of \nfour pages." At this point, then, I pause, like a \nCongress orator suddenly struck down at the expi- \nration of his hour. The present article may be con- \nsidered as a statement and explanation of the ques- \ntion on which the Board was to act. In another \narticle, I propose to offer some considerations on the \ndecision of the Board, and the position in which it \nstands in respect to the Anti-Slavery Society. \n\n\n\nNO. II. \n\nTHE ACTION OF THE BOARD. \n\n\n\nThe precise question before the Board should be \ndistinctly remembered. It was not a question re- \nspecting that political institution which we call si a- \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 145 \n\nvery. It\'was not a question whether acts of wrong- \ndoing on the part of masters toward their servants, \nare inconsistent with Christian character and Chris- \ntian communion. It was simply a question respect- \ning the relation between a master and his slaves \nunder* the laws of a State which has incorporated \nthe system of slavery among its political institu- \ntions ; whether that relation, in itself, and without \nany specification of distinct acts of oppression com- \nmitted by virtue of the power which the relation \ninvolves, is a crime for which the master should be \ncut off from communion with every Christian church. \nThis was the question which the report from the \nCommittee answered in the negative, and which \nMr. Phelps\' motion for amendment answered in the \naffirmative. \n\nAfter the discussion had been prolonged till near \nthe close of the second day, another amendment \nwas moved by the writer of these papers, as a sub- \nstitute for that proposed by Mr. Phelps. It was in \nthese words : \n\n" In conclusion, it seems proper for the Board, on this occasion, \nto put upon record a distinct assertion of the principles contained \nin the following resolutions : \n\n1. Resolved, That inasmuch as the system of domestic sla- \nvery, under every modification, is at war with the principles of \nChristianity, with natural justice, with industry and thrift, with \nhabits of subjection to law, and with whatever tends to the ad- \nvancement of civilization and the ascendency of the gospel, and \ninasmuch as it brings upon every community which establishes \nand upholds it, the righteous displeasure of God, and the repro- \nbation of the civilized and Christian world, the existence of sla- \nvery in the Cherokee and Choctaw nations is deeply to be la- \nmented by their friends, and particularly by this Board, as hav- \n\n\n\n146 THE COLLISION. \n\ning been, for more than a quarter of a century, engaged in labors \ntending to their moral, intellectual, and social advancement. \n\n2. Resolved, That while the strongest language of reprobation \nis not too strong to be applied to the system of slavery, truth and \njustice require this Board to say that the mere relation of a mas- \nter to one whom the constitution of society has made a slave, is \nnot to be regarded as in all cases such a sin as to require the ex- \nclusion of the master, without further inquiry, from Christian or- \ndinances. \n\n3. Resolved, That the missionaries of this Board, everywhere, \nare expected to admit to Christian ordinances those, and only \nthose, who give satisfactory evidence of having become new \ncreatures in Christ. \n\n4. Resolved, That the master who buys and sells human be- \nings, as merchandise, for gain \xe2\x80\x94 who does not recognize in re- \nspect to his servants the divine sanctity of their relations as hus- \nbands and wives, and as parents and children \xe2\x80\x94 who permits \nthem to live and die in ignorance of God and of God\'s Word \xe2\x80\x94 \nwho does not render to his servants that which is just and equal, \nor who refuses to recognize heartily and practically their dignity \nand worth, as reasonable and immortal beings, for whom Christ \nhas died, does not give satisfactory evidence of being born of \nGod, or having the spirit of Christ." \n\nThe reason stated for moving this amendment \nwas in efTect, not that the report does not contain \nin some form of expression all that is contained in \nthese resolutions, but that it seemed desirable to \nembody, in a formal series of propositions, or theses, \na statement of what is and what is not to be con- \ndemned, making certain distinctions so definitely \nthat all parties should see them, and, if possible, \nshould be compelled to adopt them, or to dissent \nfrom them, without mystification. The first reso- \nlution, accordingly, speaks of slavery as a political \ninstitution, and laments its introduction into the \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 147 \n\nnascent civilization of tlie Cherokee and Choctaw \nnations ; and thus it contradicts, on the one hand, \nthose who defend and uphold the institution of sla- \nvery, which is done by many at the South, and \nwhich Dr. White was understood to do in that dis- \ncussion \xe2\x80\x94 and on the other hand, those who stigma- \ntize the Board, as defending and upholding slavery. \nThe second resolution denies peremptorily the pe- \nculiar dogma of the Anti-Slavery Society. The \nthird denies a principle assumed by some who hold \nthat a slave-owner may give undeniable evidence \nof Christian character notwithstanding his relation \nto his slaves ; but who insist that even in that case \nhe ought not to be admitted as a Christian to fel- \nlowship in Christian ordinances. The fourth points \nout the legitimate, and only legitimate application \nof church discipline against slavery, which is by \ncensuring and excommunicating the sinner, not for \nhaving the power to do wrong, but for doing wrong \n\xe2\x80\x94 not for standing in a certain constituted relation \ntoward his servants, but for his conduct toward them \nill that relation. \n\nThis motion to amend was heartily seconded. \nNothing was said in opposition to it. But as the \nsecond day of the debate was then closing, and as \nthe question before the house was becoming com- \nplicated with amendment upon amendment, it was \njudged best to recommit the whole subject ; and \naccordingly the original report, and both the pro- \nposed amendments, were put into the hands of Chief \nJustice Williams and five other gentlemen, one of \nwhom (Rev. John C. Webster) was himself one of \nthe memorialists. That Committee, the next morn- \n\n\n\n148 THE COLLISION. \n\ning, recommended the adoption of the original report \nwithout amendment. In the debate which followed \nthere were some passages which I may be allowed \nto notice. \n\nImmediately after the report had been made by \nChief Justice Williams, with some explanations of \nthe views of the Committee, the Rev. Dr. Tappan, \nwho had served on both Committees, and who, I \nbelieve, not only claims the title of abolitionist, but \nhas long been claimed by the Anti-Slavery Society \nas a patron, said, according to the summary of \nthe debate given in the New-York Evangelist of \nthat week, ^ \n\n" That every individual of the Committee approved of the \nprinciples of Dr. Bacon\'s resolutions, but it was feared that to \nappend them to the report would look too much like legislation, \nand might seem to ecclesiastical bodies as if the Board was \ntrenching upon their proper province. There are also other sub- \nstantial reasons ; and though the report was believed to contain \nevery principle contained in the resolutions, it was unadvisable \nto state them in this formal manner." \n\nThe American Board of Commissioners for For- \neign Missions combines in one system of operations \nthe foreign missionary charities of the New England \nCongregationalists, and the Constitutional (or New \nSchool) Presbyterians, and a respectable minority \nin the Old School body, and of the Reformed Dutch \nChurch. The ecclesiastical bodies of New England \nhave no such jealousy as that referred to by Dr. \nTappan. Had the resolutions been adopted, no \nAssociation, no Conference, no church or council of \nchurches, from Madawasca to Horseneck, would \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 149 \n\nhave suspected that the Board was going one hair\'s \nbreadth out of its proper province. In the Presby- \nterian connection (New School) there might be \nsome danger, but not much, of wakening that jea- \nlousy. The Dutch Church, however, conducts its \nforeign missionary operations in connection with \nthe American Board, through an auxiliary board of \nits own, which is under the control of its ecclesias- \ntical judicatories. In that body, therefore, charac- \nterized as it is by a large, though not disreputable, \nshare of the ecclesiastical spirit, some jealousy \nmight easily be excited by any ill-considered pro- \nceeding. Much deference is due to the judgment, \nand even to the prejudices, of such men as represent \nthe Dutch Church in the American Board of Foreign \nMissions, and in other kindred institutions. If those \nmen should say to me that the report in its original \nform would be highly satisfactory to them and to \ntheir brethren, and that the report with these reso- \nlutions appended would be likely to waken some \njealousy on the part of their judicatories, and to \nretard the progress of missionary zeal in their con- \ngregations, I should feel at once that an element \nnot before contemplated was to be taken into calcu- \nlation ; and that whatever advantages would result \nfrom the amendment in one direction, might be \ncounterbalanced by the disadvantages in another \nquarter. Just so, if men perfectly acquainted with \nthe state of the missions to the Choctaws and with \nthe dangers which beset the missionaries, should \ntell me that the report in its original form would be \nsafe in respect to any use that would be likely to be \nmade of it by wicked men with the design of break- \n\n\n\nX50 THE COLLISION. \n\ning up the missions, but that the resolutions might \nbe employed by mahcious wliite men to embarrass \nthe missionaries in their relation to the political \nauthorities of the Choctaw nation, and to procure \ntheir expulsion from tlie field ; then, though the mat \ncceluni abolitionists miglit cry out. So much the bet- \nter ! \xe2\x80\x94 let the missions be broken up ! \xe2\x80\x94 let the mis- \nsionaries be murdered ! \xe2\x80\x94 and might insist that the \nprospect of such resuUs was the best of all reasons \nfor putting the decision of the Board into this pre- \ncise form ; \xe2\x80\x94 my sense of duty would constrain me \nto hesitate long before determining, in the face of \nsuch a risk, to sum up the principles and reasonings \nof the report in those resolutions at the end. I can \nconceive, therefore, of very good reasons why the \nCommittee unanimously agreeing in the principles \nasserted by those resolutions, might deem it unne- \ncessary and unwise to express those principles in \nthat particular form. And to any reader who cares \nto know what my opinion was as a member of that \nCommittee, I may say that though my own mind \nwas not fully convinced that any considerable harm \nwas likely to result from the adoption of my amend- \nment, I could, and did, acquiesce in the decision of \nthe majority. \n\nAfter Dr. Tappan\'s speech, the Rev. Mr. Web- \nster said, that he found himself compelled, with \ngreat reluctance, to differ from his colleagues of the \nCommittee, and claimed the privilege of presenting \n\'\' a minority report," which he proceeded to offer in \nthe form of a speech.* I subjoin the sketch of his \n\n* I know not why it should not be stated that in the Committee \nMr. W. did not vote against the report\xe2\x80\x94 did not give any intimation of \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 251 \n\nremarks given by the reporters for the New York \nEvangelist. \n\n" It was from no want of attachment to the Board, on the con- \ntrary it was because he loved the Board, and because he desired \nthis perplexing question to be settled in such a way as to pro- \nmote harmony of feeling, that he could not assent to the report \nas it is. He would have been satisfied with Dr. Bacon\'s resolu- \ntions ; and if all the principles of the resolutions w-ere contained \nin the report, he saw no good reason why they should not be \nfrankly summed up at the close. This would have satisfied all \nparties. As it is, he feared that a large number of the Board\'s \nbest friends would not be satisfied. The general impression will \nbe that although slavery is condemned, there is a loop-hole left \nfor all who love to hold slaves." \n\nI cannot but call attention distinctly to the posi- \ntions taken by Mr. Webster as a dissentient mem- \nber of the Committee. He expressly gives up the \nAnti-Slavery dogma. ^^ He would have been satis- \nfied with Dr. Bacon^s resolutions^-^ which contain a \ndeliberate and formal denial of the distinctive doc- \ntrine of the Anti- Slavery Society, and which were \nproposed avowedly for the purpose\xe2\x80\x94 though not for \nthe exclusive purpose \xe2\x80\x94 of uttering that denial. Nay, \nhe speaks not for himself only, but for his party. \n^\' This," he says \xe2\x80\x94 that is, the addition of the resolu- \n\n\n\nan intention to offer a minority report \xe2\x80\x94 nay, expressly said that he \nwished to be understood as voting neither for the report nor against it. \nIt was, therefore, with some surprise that his "colleagues" of the \nCommittee found him, in the morning, in the attitude of positive oppo- \nsition to the decision towards which, in the evening, his attitude had \nbeen that of passive acquiescence. His right to change his mind after \ncommuning with his own heart on his bed, is undoubted ; but it seems \nto me that so formal and unusual a step as that of offerino^ a " minority \nreport" ought not to have been taken without giving notice to the ma- \njority of the Committee, or at least as much notice as might be implied \nin a vote against their decision. \n\n\n\n252 THE COLLISION. \n\ntions as an amendment to the report \xe2\x80\x94 \'^ this would \nhave satisfied all par ties. ^^ His opposition to the \nreport in the original form, is hecause it does not go \nso far as that amendment. \'\' The general impres- \nsion will be, that although slavery is condemned, \nthere is a loop-hole left for all who love to hold \nslaves." The amendment, then, in his judgment, \nwould have prevented this impression. I have no \ndoubt that Mr. Webster was honest in this ; that he \nspoke as he felt. Nor have I any doubt that many \nanti-slavery men of the same kind felt as he did, \nand verily thought that they would have been satis- \nfied with my resolutions. \n\nMr. Phelps, however, held his ground with un- \nflinching logical consistency. I might perhaps make \none exception to this remark. There was a moment \nwhen truth seemed to be breaking into his mind \nthrough the thick drapery of sophisms which he \nweaves so skillfully, but it was only a moment. He \nmade no such admissions as those into which Mr. \nWebster was led by his less practiced ingenuous- \nness. The Anti-Slavery Society would have been \nin a sorry plight, had its Secretary been so inconse- \nquent in his reasonings as to profess himself satisfied \nwith a resolution declaring that the mere relation of \na master to his slaves is not necessarily a crime on \nthe part of the master. Accordingly, Mr. P. em- \nbraced that last opportunity to reassert his one great \nprinciple in a speech, and in a new motion to amend \nthe report. His second motion for amendment was \nin eff\'ect the same with the first. It proposed to \nmake the report declare, in conclusion, that \'^ the \nBoard will expect its missionaries to treat slave- \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 153 \n\nholding", in the matter of instruction, admonition \nand discipline, in the same manner as they should \nand would treat drunkenness, gaming, falsehood, \nbigamy, idolatry and the like ; and that whenever \nand wherever it shall appear that the missionaries \nand the churches, in the exercise of their appropri- \nate liberty, do not do so, it will be the duty of this \nBoard, in the exercise of its liberty, to dissolve far- \nther connection with them." The amendment was \nrejected without farther discussion; and the original \nreport, as is well known, was adopted by a unani- \nmous vote of the corporation, including seventy-five \nindividuals there present, from every denomination \nrepresented in the Board, and of almost every shade \nof opinion in those various denominations. Some \nof those votes, it should be remembered, were given \nby men who have gloried in being abolitionists, \nwho have co-operated in anti-slavery meetings and \nmeasures, and whose names have been \xe2\x80\x94 and are \nnow \xe2\x80\x94 a tower of strength to the Anti-Slavery So- \nciety. \n\nI now propose to show that the report, as it came \nfrom the Committee, and as it was adopted by the \nBoard, does contain everything that was contained \nin those resolutions which, Mr. Webster assures us, \nwould have satisfied, not only him as one of the \nmemorialists, but \'\'all parties." The most conve- \nnient and conclusive method of doing this, is by put- \nting the language of the resolutions and the language \nof the report, upon each of the four topics, side by \nside. \n\nThe first topic is, slavery as a ^political system, and \nas introduced into the Cherokee and Choctaw nations* \n\n\n\n154 THE COLLISION. \n\nWhat do the resolutions say? What says the re- \nport 1 \n\nResolution. \xe2\x80\x94 \'\' Inasmuch as the system of domes- \ntic slavery, under every modification, is at war with \nthe principles of Christianity, with natural justice, \nwith industry and thrift, with habits of subjection tu \nlaw, and with whatever tends to the advancement \nof civilization and the ascendency of the gospel ; \nand inasmuch as it brings upon every community \nwhich establishes and upholds it, the righteous dis- \npleasure of God, and the reprobation of the civilized \nand Christian world ; the existence of slavery in the \nCherokee and Choctaw nations, is deeply to be la- \nmented by tlieir friends, and particularly by this \nBoard, as having been for more than a quarter of a \ncentury engaged in labors tending to their moral, \nintellectual and social advancement." \n\nReport. \xe2\x80\x94 \'\' The Committee do not deem it neces- \nsary to discuss the general subject of slavery, as it \nexists in these United States, or to enlarge on the \nwickedness of the system, or on the disastrous moral \nand social influences v^hicXx slavery exerts upon the less \nenlightened and less civilized communities where \nthe missionaries of this Board are laboring. On \nthese points, there is probably, among the members \nof the Board and its friends, little difference of \nopinion." \n\nAgain : ^\'The unrighteousness of the princi\'ples on \nwhich the whole system is based, and the violation of \nthe rights of man^ the debasement, wickedness and \nmisery it involves, and which, in fact, are witnessed to \na greater or less extent wherever it exists, must call \nforth the hearty condemnation of all possessed of \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. ;|^55 \n\nChristian feeling and sense of right, and make its \nentire and speedy removal an object of earnest and \nprayerful desire to every true friend of God and \nman." \n\nAgain: ^\'Wherever the gospel is brought to bear \nupon the community where slavery or any other \nform of oppression exists, its spirit is decidedly ad- \nverse to such a state of things J\' \n\nAgain : ^\'That slavery should exist at all in those \ntribes, (Cherokee and Choctaw,) who have suffered \nso severely from the violation of their own rights by \ntheir white neighbors, is deeply to be regretted ; and \nall should earnestly pray that as social improvement \nand Christian knowledge are rapidly advancing \namong them, they may speedily and nobly exem- \nplify the spirit of true philanthropy, as well as the \ngospel law of love, by showing that they duly ap- \npreciate the rights and welfare of the whole race of \nman." \n\nFurther: "The Committee cannot advert to some \nof the laws enacted by both the Cherokees and \nChoctaws, without pain and regret, especially those \nwhich prohibit teaching slaves to read, throw im- \npediments in the way of emancipation, restrict \nslaves in the possession of property, and embarrass \nthe residence of free negroes among them." \'\' Sla- \nvery was introduced among these Indians, and has \nbeen regulated by them, in unhappy imitation of \ntheir white neighbors in the adjacent States.\'^ \n\nOnce more: " Viewed in all its hearings ^ it is a \nTREMENDOUS EVIL. Its destructive influence is seen \non the morals of the master and slave. It sweeps \naway those barriers which every civilized commu- \n\n\n\n156 THE COLLISION. \n\nnity has erected to protect the purity and chastity of \nthe family relations,^\' \'\' A great proportion of the \nred people who own slaves, neglect entirely to train \ntheir children to habits of industryy enterprise and \neconomy^ so necessary in forming the character of \nthe parent and the citizen. Slavery^ so far as it ex- \ntends, will ever present formidable obstacles to the right \ntraining of the rising generation,^ ^ \n\nSo much for the agreement of the resolutions and \nthe report on the subject matter of the first resolu- \ntion. The second topic is the distinction between \nthe wrongfulness of slavery as a political institution, \nand the responsibility of the individual master for \nthe existence of the relation between him and those \nwhom that unnatural and unjust system has placed \nunder him ; or, in other words, the distinction be- \ntween slavery as a system and slaveholding as a rela- \ntion constituted by that system ; and, as a corollary \nfrom this plain distinction, the denial of the Anti- \nSlavery Society^s dogma, which is held only by re- \nsolutely blinking this distinction. How far do the \nresolutions and the report agree on this point. Let \nthem speak. \n\nResolution. \xe2\x80\x94 ^^ While the strongest language of \nreprobation is not too strong to be applied to the sys- \ntem of slavery, truth and justice require this Board \nto say that the mere relation of a master to one whom \nthe constitution of society has made a slave, is not \nto be regarded as, in all cases, such a sin as to re- \nquire the exclusion of the master, without farther \ninquiry, from Christian ordinances." \n\nReport. \xe2\x80\x94 ^\'Strongly as your committee are con- \nvinced of the wrongfulness and evil tendencies of \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. I57 \n\nslaveholding, and ardently as they desire its speedy \nand universal termination, still they cannot think \nthat, in all cases, it involves individual guilt in such \na manner, that every individual implicated in it can \non Scriptural grounds be excluded from Christian \nfellowship. In the language of Dr. Chalmers, when \ntreating on this point in a recent letter, the Com- \nmittee would say, \' Bistinction ought to he made be- \ntween the character of a system^ and the character of \nthe persons whom circumstances have implicated there - \nloith^^ " &c. \'\' Slavery (says he) we hold to be a \nsystem chargeable with atrocities and evils often the \nmost hideous and appalling whicli have either af- \nflicted or deformed our species ; j^et we must not say \nof every man born within its territory \xe2\x80\x94 \\7ho by in- \nheritance is himself the owner of slaves \xe2\x80\x94 that unless \nhe make the resolute sacrifice, and renounce his \nproperty in slaves, he is therefore not a Christian, \nand should be treated as an outcast from all the dis- \ntinctions and privileges of Christian society." \n\nIf on tJiis point there is any difference between \nthe resolutions and the report, it is that the latter is \nmore anti-slavery than the former. The report some- \ntimes, like the Anti-Slavery Society, uses the word \n\'\' slaveholding" as synonomous with "slavery;" \nand it seems to take for granted the idea that the \nmere ownership of slaves always implies, in what- \never circumstances, some degree of criminality on the \npart of the owner, and is so much detracted from the \nevidence of his Christian character. In the language \nquoted from Dr. Chalmers, it seems to be implied \nthat though the master of slaves may perad venture \nbe a passably good man, notwithstanding that unfor - \n8 \n\n\n\nJ58 THE COLLISION. \n\ntunate relation, still if he were only a better man \xe2\x80\x94 \nif he had a little more of Christian principle\xe2\x80\x94 rhe \nAvould cease to stand in tliat relation ; whereas, my \ndoctrine \xe2\x80\x94 though I confess that in that hastily drafted \nresolution, it is not so amply and distinctly stated as \nit should have been \xe2\x80\x94 reaches to the extent of admit- \nting the possibility of a case in which the man\'s in- \ntelligent and deliberate consenting to stand in the \nrelation of a master to those whom the law has \nmade his slaves, his holding and executing instead \nof renouncing, the trust which the State, under a bar- \nbarous constitution of society, has put into his hands, \nshall be a brighter and more conclusive evidence of \nhis disinterestedness and Christian integrity, than he, \nin those circumstances, could achieve by any act of \nmanumission. \n\nThe third topic is the denial of all tests of church \ncommunion which are not also tests of spiritual regen- \neration. On this point, let the resolution speak, as \nbefore, and then the report. \n\nResolution. \xe2\x80\x94 ^\'The missionaries of the Board, \neverywhere, are expected to admit to Christian or- \ndinances, those^ and only those who give satisfactory \nevidence of having become new creatures in Christ. ^^ \n\nReport. \xe2\x80\x94 \'\' As the ordinances of baptism and the \nLord\'s Supper are obviously designed by Christ to be \nmeans of grace for all ivho give credible evidence of \nrepentance and faith in Him, these ordinances cannot \nscripturally and rightfully be denied to professed \nconverts from among the heathen after they shall \nhave given such evidence." \n\nAgain : \'^ On this principle of receiving to their \nchurches all those, and only those, who give satisfac- \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. \n\n\n\n159 \n\n\n\ntory evidence of repentance and faitli in the Lord \nJesus Christ, they [the missionaries] all appear to \nhave proceeded.\'^ \n\nThe fourth topic is the proper application of church \ndiscipline in respect to slavery. On this subject the \ndictate of common sense is that the master who ex- \nercises his legal power over his servants to do them \nwrong, is to be censured, not indeed for having the \npower to do wrong with legal impunity, but for the \nspecific wrong-doing. \n\nResolution, \xe2\x80\x94 \'^The master who buys and sells hu- \nman beings, as merchandise, for gain ; who does \nnot recognize, in respect to his servants, the divine \nsanctity of their relation as husbands and wives, and \nas parents and children; who permits them to live \nand die in ignorance of God and of God\'s Word ; who \ndoes not render to his servants that which is just and \nequal ; or who refuses to recognize, heartily and \npractically, their dignity and worth as reasonable \nand immortal beings, for whom Christ has died ; does \nnot give satisfactory evidence of being born of God, \nor having the spirit of Christ." \n\nReport. \xe2\x80\x94 ^\'Should any church member who has \nservants under him, be chargeable with cruelty^ in- \njustice or uNKiNDNESs towards them^ should he ne- \nglect what is essential to their present comfort or their \neternal welfare; or should he in any manner trans- \ngress the particular instructions which the apostles \ngive concerning the conduct of a master, he would \nbe admonished by the church, and unless he should \nrepent, he would be excommunicated,^^ \n\nAgain: \'^In respect to the kind and amount of \ninstruction given by the missionaries, in relation to \n\n\n\nIQQ THE COLLISION. \n\nslavery and the duties of masters and slaves, the \nmissionaries seem substantially to agree. Mr. By- \nino-ton says, ^ We give such instructions to masters \nand servants as are contained in the epistles.\' \'In \nprivate we converse about all the evils and dangers \nof slavery.\' Of a similar tenor are the remarks of \nMr. Wright. \'The instructions, public and private, \ndirect and indirect, have been such as are found in \nthe Bible.\' " \n\nOn this point, then, either the report is entirely \nunworthy of credit, as a representation of facts, or \nany master in a church under the care of our mis- \nsionaries, who should be convicted of any of the spe- \ncifications set down in the resolution, \'\'would be \nadmonished by the church ; and unless he should \nrepent, he would be excommunicated." And in the \nname of justice \xe2\x80\x94 nay, in the name of Christ, whose \nhonor is so deeply implicated in this matter \xe2\x80\x94 I de- \nmand that the contrary shall not be asserted or as- \nsumed as the basis of argument against the mission- \naries or the Board, without clear proof. \n\nIf any man, then, shall venture to affirm that there \nare masters in our Cherokee and Choctaw churches, \nw4io buy and sell human beings, as merchandise, for \ngain \xe2\x80\x94 who do not recognize the divine sanctity of \nthe relations of husbands and wives, parents and \nchildren, among their servants \xe2\x80\x94 who permit their \nservants to live and die in ignorance of God and of \nGod\'s Word \xe2\x80\x94 who do not render to their servants \nthat whicli is just and equal \xe2\x80\x94 or who refuse to re- \ncognize their dignity and worth as reasonable and \nimmortal beings for whom Christ has died \xe2\x80\x94 I de- \nmand of that man that he shall identify the church \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 161 \n\nand the offender ; that he shall, in the presence of \nthat church convict that offender, not of sustaining \nthe relation of a master, but of some of these specific \nAvrong-doings ; and that, having done this, he shall \nbring back a well-authenticated statement to show \nthat the church, with the specifications distinctly \nproved, refused to censure the offender. If he will \nnot, or cannot, do this, let him confess himself a ca- \nlumniator of God\'s people. \n\nAt the risk of being tedious, I must ask two ques- \ntions, in view of the comparison which I have thus \ninstituted between the resolutions presented by my- \nself and the report adopted by the Board. \n\nFirst, How was it possible for Mr. Phelps, with all \nhis perspicacity, to say, as he says in the manifesto \nfrom which I made a quotation last week : \n\n" The anti-slavery sentiments expressed by such men as \nMessrs. Bacon, Hawes, Beecher, Stowe, Dwight, &c., are not to \nbe taken as defining at all the actual position of the Board. They \nare the sentiments of individuals. They did not prevail in the \nBoard. On the contrary, the Board distinctly rejected the reso- \nlutions of Dr. Bacon, \\vhich were a summary expression of them. \nThe Board, therefore, is no more to have the credit of them than \nit is to have the credit of the sentiments expressed by Dr. Ide and \nother abolitionists, and embodied in our amendments. It is no \nmore to have the credit of them than the curse of what was ut- \ntered by the slaveholder, Elipha White, and his worthy compeer. \nDr. Wisner. It is to have neither the credit, nor the curse of \neither, but must stand and be judged solely on what it did and \nwhat it refused to do \xe2\x80\x94 on the report adopted, and the amendments \nrejected." \n\nThe Board did not \'^distinctly reject" the resolu- \ntions proposed by me. In regard to those resolutions, \nthe Board took no distinct vote, except the vote by \n\n\n\n162 THE COLLISION. \n\nwhich they were referred to a committee. The ques- \ntion of adopting or rejecting them was never put. \nThe only amendment \'^rejected," was Mr. Phelps\' \nsecond amendment. So far as any ^\'anti-slavery \nsentiments expressed by such men as Messrs. Bacon, \nHawes, Beecher, Stowe, Dwight, &C.5" were \'sum- \nmarily expressed\' in my resolutions, they are all ex- \npressed, as I have show^n, not indeed more summa- \nrily, but more fully, and with even more of a tech- \nnically anti-slavery tone, in the report adopted by \nthe Board. I am far from imputing to Mr. Phelps \nany intentional misrepresentation. I only suppose, \nthat in the singleness of his devotion to the cause of \nhis society, he did not examine, so carefully as he \nshould have examined, the facts that lay in the printed \ndocuments before him. \n\nSecondly, Is it not plain that those who would \nhave been \'\'satisfied" with the adoption of the reso- \nlutions proposed by me, ought to be satisfied, if they \nare reasonable men, with the report as it stands? Is \nit not plain that, in lending their voices to a clamor \nagainst the Board, as if those resolutions contained \nsomething which the report, as adopted, does not con- \ntain, they will put themselves into a position in \nwhich they must appear very much like tools in the \nhands of other men ? Those men w^ho would have \nbeen thus "satisfied," will find a much better guide \nin their own instinctive connnon sense, and their \nlove of substantial and practicable usefulness, than \nin the transcendental formula? of the Anti-Slavery So- \nciety, or the movements of its Executive Committee. \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 163 \n\n\n\nNO. III. \n\nWHAT HAS CHURCH GOVERNMENT TO DO WITH SLAVERY ? \xe2\x80\x94 \nWHAT IS SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES ? \n\nImmediately after the publication of the first of \nthese articles, I received a friendly letter from Mr. \nPhelps, representing- that I omit all notice of what \nhe deems an important qualification of his position. \nAn extract from his letter, and a brief explanation \nof my views in regard to it, may serve as an intro- \nduction to what I propose to say on another part of \nthe general subject: \n\n*\' My position, then, allow me to say, is just this, that the mere \nfact of slaveholding, in the same way and in the same sense, as \nthe mere fact of drunkenness, falsehood, or gaming, is (1) to \nconstitute the ground and occasion for instruction, public or pri- \nvate, or both, against it ; (2) that such instruction resisted, and \nthe thing persevered in, are to be the ground and occasion for \nadmonition, or the commencement in some way of religious dis- \ncipline ; and (3) that instruction and admonition both resisted, \nand the thing still persevered in, are to constitute the ground and \noccasion for excommunication. This I hold to be the general \nrw/e, admitting possibly of exceptions, but of none save such as \ncould be admitted in regard to the other cases named, and on the \nsame proof or grounds as in respect to them. And this 1 hold \nnot on the alone ground of the sinfulness of slaveholding in all \ncases (though I believe that), but on the broader, and what might \nbe the common, ground of all parties, that it is justly, in this day, \nan occasion of reproach and an appearance of evil from which \nevery follower of Christ is bound, at all hazards, to abstain \xe2\x80\x94 in \nother words, that if not sinful in itself, it is, to quote the Presb. \nBook of Discipline, something \' in the principles or practice\' of a \nman, fitted to \' tempt others to sin, and mar their spiritual edifica- \ntion\' \xe2\x80\x94 not, in a word, walking orderly. \n\n\n\n164 THE COLLISIOX. \n\nThe point, however, to which I wish particularly to call your \nattention, is that of instruction and admonition previous to ex- \ncommunication \xe2\x80\x94 making the final excision not for the mere fact \nitself, hut for the fact persevered in against such instruction and \nadmonition. In this view, the mere fact is not excision. It only \nraises the question of character and becomes the occasion and \nground for instruction. It puts the man on the proof of his char- \nacter. That is all. If he can prove his case an exception to the \ngeneral rule, very well ; then, just as in the other cases, let him \nstand in the church, not according to the rule, but a confessed, \nand everywhere understood, exception to it." \n\nMr. Phelps assures me tliat he regards this \'^ qua- \nlification of his position," for so he calls it, as " very \nimportant." But I must confess it does not strike \nme as affecting at all the position which he and the \nAnti-Slavery Society are understood to hold. If \nanybody had imputed to Mr. Phelps and his col- \nleagues an intention of \xe2\x80\xa2\' exscinding" all slavehold- \ners from the church, in violation of all the rules and \nforms of church discipline, as an accidental majority \nin the Presb3^terian Assembly of 1837 " exscinded" \nsome 60,000 church members in Western New York \nand Northern Ohio \xe2\x80\x94 then this qttalification of his \nposition would have been important. In reference \nto the actual question, the ^\'qualification" is alto- \ngether irrelevant. The question is not whether the \nmaster of a slave shall have the privilege of being \ninstructed and admonished, privately, and by the \nchurch, (according to Christ\'s precept, Matt, xviii. \n15-17,) before the final sentence of excommunica- \ntion ; but w^icther tlie admonition shall be for the \nmere fact that he sustains the relation of a master, \nor for the very different fact that in the exercise of \nthe power v\\4nch that relation confers upon him he \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 165 \n\nhas been guilty of some specific injustice toward the \nslave. Mr. Phelps\' position is, that the relation it- \nself is the crime \xe2\x80\x94 that the man is to be admonished \nfor having" the power to do wrong \xe2\x80\x94 that if, under \nadmonition, he does not repent and ^\' bring forth \nfruits meet for repentance," by immediately abdicat- \ning that power " at all hazards ^^^ he is to be excom- \nmunicated. The only exceptions to this rule which \nhe would admit, are such exceptions as w^ould be \nadmitted in regard to drunkenness, falsehood and \ngaming. In other words, there is to be no exception ; \nfor that Mr. Phelps can imagine a case in which a \ndrunkard, a liar, or a gamester, who refuses to re- \npent and reform after due instruction and admoni- \ntion, ought not to be excommunicated, is what my \nrespect for him will not permit me to believe. \n\nTo prevent any misunderstanding it seems proper \nto say expressly, that Mr. Phelps\' letter was written \nwith no view to publication, and w^ith no intention \nof engaging in a reply to these articles of mine. I \nhave made this quotation \xe2\x80\x94 not without first asking \nand obtaining liis permission \xe2\x80\x94 because I knew not \nin what other way I could so properly render what \nhe regards as justice to him. I have added the ex- \nplanation of my own view^s because it seemed no \nmore than justice to myself. \n\nDismissing, tlien, this mutual explanation between \nMr. Phelps and m3^self, I proceed to consider more \ndistinctly the general question Avhich has come up \nbetween the Anti-Slavery Society and the Board of \nMissions, and which is urged as a practical question \nupon all the churches in the United States. What \nis the natural and legitimate action of Christianity \n8* \n\n\n\nIQQ THE COLLISION. \n\nagainst slavery ? What should he done on this suh- \nject by the churches, administering and applying \nthe principles of Christianity to determine the ques- \ntion of the visible Christian character of individuals \nclaiming recognition of Christ\'s followers 1 In other \nwords : What has church government to do with \nslavery ? \n\nLet us take this question as it actually arises in \nthe United States. Let us look at " slavery as it is" \nin our own country, w4iere after all we have far \nmore to do with it than we have to do with slavery \nin any other country. Tt may be presumed that \nwhen we have answered the question in relation to \nour ow^n country, so as to be sure that our answer \nrests upon the right principles^ it will be easy enough \nto answer the same question in regard to any other \ncountry. \n\nIn fifteen of the twenty-eight States of this Union, \nthere exists in the structure of society a certain ar- \ntificial relation between man and man, a relation of \npower on the one hand and of dependence and sub- \njection on the other, which is the subject matter of \nour present inquiry. The population of those States \nis divided into two great classes, the free and the \nenslaved, with a smaller intermediate class whicli, \nunder the established policy of most of those States, \nis rapidly diminishing. The free are those of un- \nmixed European blood, or of what passes for such. \nThe enslaved are of another race ; the great majority \nbeing of pure African descent, and those of mixed \nblood being counted with their African kindred. A \nfew of the enslaved race have acquired an imperfect \nand precarious freedom hedged in with various dis- \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. \n\n\n\n167 \n\n\n\nabilities, and they constitute an anomalous class be- \ntween the bond and the free. \n\nThe theory of society in ail that portion of the \nUnion, is that the state consists only of one class, \nthe free ; and that the enslaved race have no rights, \nno being, as members of the body politic. The \nstate is considered as having its existence in and for \nits white inhabitants only. Laws are enacted, \nmagistrates are chosen, justice is administered, so- \nciety itself exists, not with the remotest reference \nto the welfare of the negro as an end, but only for \nthe protection and the interests of that part of the \npopulation which belongs to what naturalists call \n\'^ the Caucasian variety\'^ of the human species. If \ncertain forms and degrees of cruelty are prohibited \nby the laws, it is not on the ground that the negro \nhas any human rights, but only as \'^ cruelty to ani- \nmals" is prohibited by the laws of every civilized \ncommunity, because it is offensive to human sensi- \nbilities, and because it tends to brutalize the temper \nand manners of the people. The theory of society \nthere regards the black population as in the state \nbut not of it. The state does nothing for their im- \nprovement or elevation ; it cares not for their morals ; \nit takes no^cognizance of any of their wants as hu- \nman beings. With the inconsiderable exception of \nthe anomalous class of free blacks, it knows them \nonly as property like other cattle. In the theory of \nsociety \xe2\x80\x94 in the laws \xe2\x80\x94 and generally in the admin- \nistration of law \xe2\x80\x94 they are regarded not at all as per- \nsons, but only as chattels. In Virginia, I believe, \nand perhaps under some other jurisdictions, the \nstate does not even hang a negro for murdering his \n\n\n\n168 THE COLLISIOX. \n\nmaster, without first buying- him of the master\'s \nheirs, and so making him public property for that \npublic use. \n\nAccordingly, the law, throughout those States, \npresumes every black man to be somebody\'s pro- \nperty, till his exemption from the rule is made out \nby positive evidence; just as elsewhere every horse, \nevery cow, every pig is presumed to have an owner, \nand whoever pretends to be the owner is so unless \nanother claimant appears with superior evidence of \nlegal ownership. In most of those slave States, the \nmost stringent regulations make it well nigh impos- \nsible for a slave to become a freeman ; and generally \nthe free individuals of the enslaved race were made \nfree long ago, before the present policy was fully \nestablished. If a master abdicates his power over \nhis slave, the state concerns itself immediately to \nput that slave under another master, by requiring \nthe sheriff to sell him sub hasta. \n\nIn other words, the structure of society through- \nout that portion of the Union is such, that the state \nrefuses to take the African population under its pro- \ntection or government. That entire moiety of the \npopulation the state regards not as citizens, nor \neven as its own subjects, but only as property be- \nlonging to citizens. It insists that every black shall \nhave a master, as his proprietor, and therefore his \nprotector and governor ; it guaranties to the master \nall the physical force necessary to keep his slaves \nin subjection ; it allows him to inflict almost any \npunishment short of death at his own discretion ; it \ninterferes between him and his slaves only to prevent \ncertain extreme cruelties on the one hand, and on \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 169 \n\nthe other to foihid those acts of indulgence and \nbeneficence which are considered inconsistent with \nthe permanence and security of the system. For \nall that protection which every subject has a right \nto expect from the government that is set over him, \nand for nearly all that salutary control which it is \nthe business of civil government to exert over the \nactions of its subjects, the black man must look not \nto the state, but to his master. The master upon \nhis plantation is a petty monarch, with the powers \nof an African or Oriental despot ; the negroes upon \nhis soil are his subjects. If he needs a military \nforce to suppress an insurrection of his subjects, or \nto compel their obedience, the state comes to his \naid. If one of his slaves commits some crime par- \nticularly dangerous not to him only or tojiis planta- \ntion, but to the public considered as consisting of \nwhite men, the state takes the work of trial and \npunishment into its own hands. If his administra- \ntion of his power becomes in certain particulars too \noppressive, or in certain particulars too lax and \nbeneficent, the state counteracts that \'^ evil exam- \nple \'\' by the infliction of penalties upon him. If he \nabdicates his power, the state will commit that \npower to some other person. The state considers \nthe blacks as a barbarous hostile population which \nit utterly refuses to take under its protection ; and \nit tolerates their existence within its boundaries \nonly on the condition that all the most essential \nduties of government, in respect to them, shall be \nperformed by individuals sustaining towards them \nthe relation of proprietorship. \n\nSuch is the system of society\xe2\x80\x94 the structure and \n\n\n\n170 THE COLLISION. \n\narrangement of civil relations\xe2\x80\x94 which in fifteen of \nthese United States is established under the name \nof slavery. The institution is entirely and essen- \ntially barbarous. No form of government on earth is \nmore at war with every just conception of the nature \nof man and of liis rights as a member of society. \nAll that I know of the ordinary operation of this \nform of government, in its influence on industry, on \nmorals, on all the interests of the individual and of \nthe commonwealth, is in harmony with its theory. \nAnd in proportion to the progress of civilization \namong the enslaved portion of society, the intrinsic \nwickedness of that mode of government becomes \nmore glaringly evident, and more offensive to the \nmoral sensibilities of mankind. The system of ar- \nrangements for the government of the negroes was \nestablished long ago, Avhen the ancestors of those \nnegroes, captured in the ambushes and fights of \nhostile tribes on the banks of the Zaire and the \nGambia, were introduced by crowded shiploads into \ndependent and feeble colonies under the relentless \nlegislation of the mother country. In that age those \narrangements might have seemed to be excused by \nthe plea that there was no other way of dealing with \nsavages so desperate, under the sense of recent en- \nslavement, and so ignorant even of the language of \ntheir masters; though even then they must have \nbeen condemned, by a thoughtful sense of justice, \nas inexcusable. But now the atrocity of those ar- \nrangements stands out in strong relief against the \nsky before the gazing world ; for now the negroes \nare as native to the soil as their masters ; and not- \nwithstanding that tyrannical opposition to their im- \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 171 \n\nprovement and progress which is kept np by the \nstate and generally by the individual masters, they \nare slowly but steadily rising towards a level with \nthe superior race in all the essentials of civilization, \nand are already as unlike the barbarians that were \nbrought from Africa, as the high-bred Virginian \nlady, than whom, perhaps, there lives no specimen of \nwomanhood more admirable, is unlike her fair an- \ncestor, warranted ^\' incorrupt,\'^ who was sold to a \nplanter husband some two hundred and thirty years \nago, for one hundred and twenty pounds of tobacco. \nThe question before us is not whether the politi- \ncal system which puts the black population of the \nsouthern States into the power of individual mas- \nters, absolute and irresponsible, and which studious- \nly withholds from them all human rights, is con- \nsistent with the law of God. Nor is it the question \nwhether the free people of those States, in their \nsovereignty, ought to enter at once upon the long- \nneglected work of reforming their barbarous institu- \ntions. Nor are we to inquire here respecting the \nduty of the slave \xe2\x80\x94 whether he owes any allegiance \nto the state which refuses to protect him or to re- \ncognize him as a man \xe2\x80\x94 whether in all circumstances \nhe retains the right which our national legislation, \nour diplomacy, and our last war with Great Britain \nhave challenged for all mankind, the right of expa- \ntriating himself and renouncing his allegiance to the \ngovernment under which he was born \xe2\x80\x94 whether, or \nin what circumstances, he may rise up with his \nbrethren in bondage to throw off the yoke, to assert \ntheir freedom, and to form a new constitution. Nor \nhave I any occasion here to answer the question \n\n\n\n172 THE COLLISION. \n\nwhether I may rightfully give shelter, andfoodj and \nclothing to a fugitive from Virginia, and money to \nhelp him on his way to Jamaica or to Canada.* \nThe only question is, What has Christianity to do \nwith the reformation of this whole order of things, \nwhich is known by the name of slavery? And, in \nparticular, what has Christianity, in the form of \nchurch government, to do in the business of setting \nright the wrongs of so wicked a system of social \norder ? \n\nOne of the embarrassments incident to this mode \nof communicating with the public, is the necessity \nof breaking np a discussion of an important and \ncomplicated subject into weekly chapters, and thus \nseparating parts that ought to be presented in close \n\n\n\n* An anonymous friend, who writes to me from New York, says, \n" At this moment, I am called upon to aid a poor fugitive with his wife \nand five children, who have escaped the were relation, having arrived \nfrom Virginia last evening. As this is a case of frequent occurrence, \nwill Dr. Bacon please to indicate my duty in the next Evangelist 1" \n\nThe proposer of this case of conscience is probably capable of seeing \nthat his question has no bearing whatever on the subject of the present \ndiscussion. Yet, that I may not seem to treat even the writer of an \nanonymous letter with neglect, I will answer his question frankly. If \na " fugitive with his wife and five children" were to come to me with \nthe confession that he had run away from the mere relation of servitude, \nand not from any unkind, oppressive or unchristian treatment on the \npart of his master, and should ask mc to help him with money, I should \nprobably esteem that fugitive a shiftless vagabond ; I should tell him \nthat by his own showing he had no occasion to run away, and that if \nhe had expressed a reasonable desiie to emigrate to some other coun- \ntry, his master would doubtless have put him in the way of helping \nhimself instead of depending on charity : and I should probably reserve \nmy sympathy and my aid for those fugitives who run away from actual \nand specific oppression. And if I should find that the case of this fu- \ngitive from the mere relation of servitude is "a case of frequent occur- \nrence," I should think much better of the masters, and much worse of \nthe slaves, than I now do. \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 173 \' \n\nconnection with each other. But to this disadvan- \ntage I submit, for the sake of speaking to thousands \nat once. The further discussion of the question, \nthis week, would make too long an article. I can \nonly indicate, as with a word, the intended course \nof the discussion, asking the reader to wait patiently \ntill he is sure he understands me. \n\nWhat has Christianity \xe2\x80\x94 what has the church to \ndo with slavery? JVothing \xe2\x80\x94 and yet everything. \nIn one sense \xe2\x80\x94 in one mode of action \xe2\x80\x94 nothing* In \nanother sense, and by another kind of influence, \neverything. \n\n\n\nNO. IV. \n\nWHAT HAS CHURCH GOVERNMENT TO DO WITH SLAVERl^ \n\nThe question respecting what Christianity, and \nparticularly the Christian church, has to do with \nforms of civil government, and with those relations \nof man to man which exist in the structure of soci- \nety \xe2\x80\x94 is, at the present day, at least as important as \nthe question respecting what the state has to do with \nChristianity. What the state has to do w^ith the \nchurch, is pretty well understood in this country, \nand is in the way to be understood throughout the \nworld. What the church has to do witli the state \nis not, in all quarters, so well understood. And yet, \nis it not self-evident that if, as we hold, the state is \nto let the church alone, the church on the other \nhand must let the state alone 1 The views which \nI have been led to entertain on this subject, are \n\n\n\n174 THE COLLISION. \n\nsubmitted to the public with diffidence, as my con- \ntribution to the discussion of a great and comprehen- \nsive question. \n\nMoses, as God\'s messenger to a chosen race, es- \ntabhshed, in the name of God, a system not of \nmorals merely, nor of religion, but of political order \nand government. There is no religious institution \nin the Old Testament which is not also political. \nLessons of morality, and of faitli and devotion, not \nonly in the Pentateuch, but generally in the Scrip- \ntures of that dispensation, are given in the closest \ncombination with national history and municipal \nregulations. The idea of a church distinct from the \ncivil state is not in the Old Testament. Conse- \nquently, the system of the Old Testament was a \nsystem incapable of extension in the world. It \nwas constructed for one nation only, and could not \nbe imparted to another. It was designed not for \nman as man, but only for man as an Israelite in the \nland of Israel ; and he, of any other race, who would \nembrace the system and enjoy all its privileges, \nmust renounce his country and nation and become \nan Israelite by adoption. The reasons of this di- \nvine arrangement would be an interesting subject \nof inquiry ; but the fact is all that concerns us at \npresent. \n\nThe Old Testament, then, is a political book ; as \nreally so, though not as exclusively, as the Federal- \nist, or Hallam\'s Constitutional History. Is the New \nTestament, in this respect, like the Old? Does the \nNew Testament contain anything of the nature of \ncivil regulation? Does it lay down any principle \nor rule with reference to political sul)jccts, such as \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. I75 \n\ntlie structure of the state, the liberty of tlie indi- \nvidual members of societ}^, the distribution of politi- \ncal powers, the responsibility of rulers to the peo- \nple ; \xe2\x80\x94 or does it take all these things as it finds them, \nand leave them, as it leaves the physical sciences \nand arts, to take their chance with the general pro- \ngress of human improvement ? Did Christ set him- \nself up \xe2\x80\x94 was he announced by his apostles \xe2\x80\x94 as a \nlegislator for society, and a reformer of political in- \nstitutions ? On the contrary, is it not one of the \nmost wonderful of the divine wonders in the char- \nacter and history of our Saviour, that, pressed as he \nwas on every side by the politicians of that day, \nPharisees, Herodians, Sadducees ; by all the nation- \nal feelings and impulses of the Jewish peoj)le, and \nby the universally understood identity of politics \nand religion \xe2\x80\x94 he so carefully and skillfully avoided \ncommitting himself on any political question what- \never. Is not the same thing in the conduct of the \napostles, and the primitive churches under their di- \nrection, almost equally wonderful ? Christ\'s king- \ndom, as announced by himself and his apostles, was \nnot of this world. The church had nothing to do \nwith the social or political relations of its members. \nIt had no concern with any movement towards the \nre-organization of society. \n\nI do not suppose that I am propounding a novelty, \nor that what I am now saying is likely to be con- \ntradicted by any for Avhom I write. And yet I \nwould have the reader dwell upon this peculiarity \nof Christianity and of the Christian church, till he \nshall see it with the same sense of its importance \nwhich has been impressed upon my mind. The \n\n\n\n176 THE COLLISION. \n\nNew Testament shows us no Moses, standing before \nPharaoh to demand the emancipation of an oppressed \npeople \xe2\x80\x94 no Joshua, conquering a land of promise \nand dividing it among the conquerors \xe2\x80\x94 no Samuel, \nframing\' new constitutions, and anointing kings in \nGod\'s name. But it shows us Paul in chains, now \nreasoning with Felix, now answering before Nero ; \nand Jesus of Nazareth, at the bar of Pilate, testify- \ning to the truth, and declaring, ^\' My kingdom is not \nof tliis world." Had Pilate been converted, would \nChrist have required him to throw up his commis- \nsion of procurator of Judea? Had Nero been con- \nverted, would Paul, before admitting him to baptism, \nhave required him to abdicate his imperial power, \nand to leave the nations of the Roman empire to \nconstitute themselves, if they could, into a great fed- \neral union of free republics ? \n\nThe system of the New Testament is, therefore, \ncapable of universal extension. It addresses itself \nnot to sovereigns or states as such, prescribing to \nthem new laws and political institutions, and sum- \nmoning them to launch upon the sea of revolution, \nbut to individuals, calling them to repentance. \nAll that it demands of states and governments, as \nsuch, is toleration for itself \xe2\x80\x94 " freedom to worship \nGod." Thus it goes out into all the world, preach- \ning to every creature that will hear, commanding all \nmen everywhere to repent, and leaving all political \nrelations and institutions to adjust themselves as \nthey may \xe2\x80\x94 and as under God\'s providence they must \n\xe2\x80\x94 to that altered state of things which exists wherev- \ner the gospel prevails. \n\nThis is not only a distinction between Christiani- \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 177 \n\nty and the system of the Old Testament ; it is equal- \n1}^ a distinction between Christianity and all the \nschemes of human wisdom for the redemption of the \nworld from misery. St. Simonism, Fourierism, So- \ncialism, and all other isms of that kind, propose the \nre-organization of society as their object ; for they \nregard all the evil that is in the world as the effect \nof bad S3^stems of government, bad laws, bad social \narrangements ; and they, therefore, have no doubt \nthat human nature will do well enough if it can be \nrelieved from the pressure of disadvantageous cir- \ncumstances. Christianity bears no resemblance to \nthese projects. It simply proposes to make men bet- \nter \xe2\x80\x94 individual men \xe2\x80\x94 by inspiring them with new \nideas and new principles of action, so that instead of \nbeing selfish they shall be benevolent, and instead \nof wronging and oppressing one another they shall \nrecognize each other as brethren, and delight to do \neach other good ; and it leaves these new ideas and \nprinciples to work out their own effects upon the \nstructure of society. \n\nChristianity, then, at the beginning, as announced \nby Christ himself and his apostles, had nothing to \ndo in the way of interference with politics and le- \ngislation. It did not undertake to reform or change \nany man\'s condition as a member of society. And \nyet that gospel which we find in the sermon on the \nmount, in the Epistle to the Romans, in the story of \nthe crucifixion, was destined, and was in one sense \ndesigned, to effect the greatest changes in the struc- \nture of society throughout the world. In the ideas \nand principles proclaimed by Christ and his apos- \ntles, and put on record in the Scriptures of the New \n\n\n\n178 THE COLLISION. \n\nTestament, there came into the world a power, the \nprogress of which from age to age, and from land to \nland, is the path of revolution. ^\' Behold," saith \nGod in reference to the diffusion and victories of \nthe gospel \xe2\x80\x94 \'^ Behold I make all things new." The \nkingdom which is not of this world was destined to \nchange the world that knows it not ; as the changes \nof unconscious nature, the tides, the winds, the sea- \nsons with their bloom and their decay, are all effect- \ned by influences that are not of earth, but radiate \nfrom other spheres. The propagation of those ideas \nwhich constitute the gospel, their progressive ascen- \ndency in the minds of men, their dominion over the \npublic sentiment of nations and of the world, was \nto work out in the end the universal re-organization \nof society \xe2\x80\x94 the recognition of the brotherhood of all \nmankind as the only just basis of legislation \xe2\x80\x94 the \nabolition of all unrighteous laws and of all those in- \nstitutions founded on force and maintained by fraud, \nwhich withhold from labor its due recompense \xe2\x80\x94 the \nannihilation of all artificial restrictions upon indus- \ntry and commerce \xe2\x80\x94 the breaking of every yoke of \nbondage \xe2\x80\x94 the subversion of every aristocracy and \nevery throne. \n\nTo some readers, all this may seem entirely aside \nfrom the subject in hand. I feel that the complete \nillustration and expansion of the suggestions I have \nbeen making would require a volume instead of a \nnewspaper article ; and I can only hope that these \nviews will fiad some further explanation as I pro- \nceed. \n\nIt is notorious that when the apostles went abroad \nthrough the Roman empire preaching the gospel \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. I79 \n\nand gathering converts into churches, slavery \xe2\x80\x94 \nthat is, labor without wages, the bondage of the \nlaborer to the employer, labor performed under the \nauthority and power of a master \xe2\x80\x94 slavery involving \nthe master\'s property in the servant \xe2\x80\x94 was every- \nwhere the ordinar}^ form of service. If that system \nof slavery, as a system recognized and regulated by \nlaw, was in some respects less atrocious than the \nsystem which exists in our southern States, it was in \nother respects more so. It was at once less atro- \ncious and more atrocious than the system with which \nw^e have to do, because the power of the individual \nmaster was more nearly absolute, the state not troub- \nling itself to prevent either kindness or cruelty on \nhis part. The master could emancipate his slaves \nif he pleased, and society did not refuse to receive \nthem as freemen. Or, Avithout emancipating them, \nhe could educate them to any extent to which either \nkindness or avarice might prompt him; and, when \nthey were educated, he could turn their talents and \nacquirements to account in almost any employment. \nOn the other hand, if he was disposed to be cruel, \nthere was no severity which he might not practice \ntowards those who, in the unpitying eye of Roman \nlaw, were to him just what the captive is, by the \nlaws of savage war, to his Indian ca ;ior. The slave \nwas liable to any torture upon any caprice of suspi- \ncion \xe2\x80\x94 liable to death in any form at his master\'s will, \nwithout even the allegation of a crime. And as to \nthe numbers of the slaves, it is enough to remember \nthat the poor could sell their children or themselves \nfor bread \xe2\x80\x94 that kidnapped children and women, not \nnegroes only, but of every language and complexion, \n\n\n\nISO THE COLLISION. \n\nif carried to any considerable distance, could be sold \nwith almost certain impunity \xe2\x80\x94 that every swoop of \nthe imperial eagles, every plundered city, every con- \nquered province swelled the myriads of the en- \nslaved \xe2\x80\x94 that no triumph moved in glittering pomp \nfrom the Campus Martius to the Capitol, which did \nnot glut the market with fresh herds of captives, ^i \nHow did the apostles, and the churches under \ntheir personal instruction, conduct in respect to such \na structure of society? Did they demand directly, \neverywhere, in God\'s name, the immediate and \nuniversal abolition of slavery? Did they exclude \nthe master from communion simply for being a mas- \nter? Was the relation of a master to a bond-ser- \nvant, without any consideration of the master\'s con- \nduct in that relation, counted and treated as a crime? \nI answer, without the least hesitation, J\\\'o. I have \ngiven some serious attention, at various times, to the \narguments of those who try to answer. Yes ; but I \nmust confess, that whatever ingenuity there may be \nin them, and whatever respect may be due to the \ngood intentions of their authors, they produce no \nconviction on my mind. The evidence that there \nwere both slaves and masters of slaves in the churches \nfounded and directed by the apostles, cannot be got \nrid of without resorting to methods of interpretation \nwhich will get rid of anytliing. The violence put \nupon the sacred records by High Churchmen, or by \nUniversalists, | does not exceed the violence with \nwhich these men, to whom 1 would impute no lack \nof reverence toward the Word of God, torture the \nScriptures into saying that which the anti-slavery \ntheory requires thejn to say. \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. jgj \n\nHow then (many an anti-slavery reader will be \nready to ask) do I avoid the conclusion that the \nBible warrants and sanctions slavery? How? \xe2\x80\x94 \nSimply by the all-sufficient consideration that the \nBible, not being given to the world as a book of \npolitics, and not undertaking at all to reform the \nworld by prescribing forms of government, or by rec- \ntifying those political and civil relations which con- \nstitute the structure of society, seeks only to recon- \ncile men to God, illuminating them from on high, \nand inspiring them one by one with principles of \nrighteousness and love, and leaves the whole matter \nof civil and social improvement to the common sense \nof men thus enlightened and renewed. The fact \nthat the Bible does not contradict the vulgar astrono- \nmy of the ages in which it was written, is impotent \nif urged against tlie demonstrations of Newton and \nLaplace. The fact that Jesus of Nazareth drafted \nno declaration of independence for Judea, is impo- \ntent as an argument against the self-evident truths \nof the American Revolution. The fact that Paul \nheld no conventions, and uttered no protests, against \nthe political system under ^which, in his days, the \nworld was groaning, is impotent to prove that the \nRoman empire was not a system of outrage against \nright, and its history a history of inexpiable robbe- \nries and slaughters. Even so the fact that Christ and \nhis Apostles did nothing in the way of denunciation \nor direct interference to abolish the relation of master \nand slave, and to introduce the better system of free \nlabor for wages in its stead, is equally impotent to \nprove that the enslaving of millions of human beings \nin these United States, and their conversion by law \n9 \n\n\n\n132 THE COLLISION. \n\ninto mere chattels, robbed \xe2\x80\x94 so far as the state can \nrob them\xe2\x80\x94 of every human right, is not an atrocity \nfouler than the wrongs of Pharaoh against Israel, \nand worthy to be \xe2\x80\x94 as it is \xe2\x80\x94 the scorn and indigna- \ntion of the Avorld. \n\nIf it is the slaveholder who asks me how I avoid \nthe conclusion that the Bible warrants and sanctifies \nslavery, I return the question to him. I put the in- \nquiry to Governor Hammond and his associates in \nthe task of vindicating \'^ the peculiar institutions" \nof the south \xe2\x80\x94 Do you believe that the Bible warrants \nand sanctions the slavery which exists in South Caro- \nlina 1 Does your belief in the Christian religion \nrequire you to believe that the system which con- \nstitutes one-half of your human population mere \nmerchandise \xe2\x80\x94 chattels\xe2\x80\x94 things incapable of suffering \nany injustice \xe2\x80\x94 is right before God, and ought to es- \ncape all censure from the moral sense of Christen- \ndom 1 Why ? This is the only answer \xe2\x80\x94 Slavery \nexisted in the Roman empire ; the apostles admitted \nmasters of slaves to communion in their churches ; \ntherefore slavery was right then ; therefore slavery \nis right now, right in principle and right in the de- \ntails ? Do you believe this, Mr. Hammond ? Then \nyou believe that the slavery which the Apostles saw \neverywhere was right, for in this argument your be- \nlief that the slavery which now exists at Charleston \nis right, is only an inference from the righteousness \nof the slavery w^hich existed eighteen hundred years \nago at Antioch and at Rome. You believe that \nChristianity gave its Divine authority to sanction a \nsystem by which all captives in war were slaves in \nthe hands of the captors, and were sold after a vie- \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. jgg \n\ntory like sheep in the market; \xe2\x80\x94 a system which en- \nslaved not negroes only but men of every complex- \nion ; not savages only but men of the most civilized \nraces \xe2\x80\x94 the Jew with all the glory of his history and \nhis hopes, the Greek Avith all the beauty of Apollo \nin his face and form, as well as the painted Briton \nor the fair-haired Saxon ; not the degraded only, \nborn and trained to drudgery, but the refined and \ncultivated, artists, poets, men of letters, as well as \n\'\' field hands" and \'^ house servants." You believe \nthat if Napoleon, when his armies were sweeping \nEurope, had brought back with him to Paris from \neach vanquished country, myriads of miserable cap- \ntives to be sold as so much plunder, and among those \nmyriads high-born ladies prized for their deli- \ncate and graceful beauty, [nobles torn from their \nancestral halls to be footmen on the carriages, and \ncup-bearers at the banquets of the victors, artists \nfrom the academies, and scholars from the universi- \nties, as well as mechanics from the towns and labor- \ners from the fields \xe2\x80\x94 that slaver}^ would have had its \nwarrant from the precepts of the gospel of love.* To \nbring the argument nearer home \xe2\x80\x94 you believe that \nif, in the contingencies of another conflict w^ith Great \nBritain, your State should fall for a time into the \npower of the enemy, and the prisoners hurried to \nthe ships from your cities and plantations, should be \ntransported to London and sold there as you sell \n\n\n\n* This argument from the character of Roman slavery, and this par- \nticular illustration, are presented with great force (if I remember aright \nwhat I read ten years ago) by Dr. Channing. I would have used his \nlanguage rather than my own, if his little work on slavery had been, at \nthe time of writing^ within my reach. \n\n\n\n134 THE COLLISION. \n\nnegroes, yonr wives and daughters for seamstresses \nand chambermaids and children\'s nurses, your judges \nand senators for attorne3^s\' clerks, your merchants \nand bankers for book-keepers and household ste\\v- \nards, your men of literature and science for private \ntutors, and your sporting gentlemen for grooms and \ndog-whippers \xe2\x80\x94 Christianity would warrant and sanc- \ntion the sale, and would rivet the chains forever upon \nthe limbs of all your chivalry. No ! you do not be- \nlieve that the gospel of the Anointed One, who came \nto preach glad tidings to the poor, deliverance to the \ncaptive, and the opening of the prison doors to them \nthat are bound, is the warrant of negro slavery ; \nand you deceive none but )^ourselves when you \nsay so. \n\nBut do I mean to say that the apostles, on the \nprinciple of not meddling with questions of a politi- \ncal nature, permitted men bearing the Christian \nname to treat their fellow-men as chattels, buying \nand selling them like cattle, and driving them like \ncattle with tbe whip? Do I hold that the apostles, \nand the churches under their teaching, recognized as \nbelievers and members of the body of Christ, men \nwho arbitrarily and violently separated children from \nparents and wives from husbands, or who in any \nway disregarded the human rights of those whom \nthe structure of society had placed as slaves under \ntheir control ? No ! \xe2\x80\x94 no ! \xe2\x80\x94 a thousand times, M ! \nEvery passage of the New Testament which shows \nthat there were slaves and masters in the churches \nof that age, and that the Apostles did not undertake \nto abolish the relation by authority, shows also that \nin that relation the master was to commit none of \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. Ig5 \n\nthese acts of wickedness. If I had reason to think \nthat what I am writing would find its way to the \nsouth, to any considerable extent, I w^ould go into \nthe particular examination of the passages referred \nto. But I am writing for readers who, I am sure, \nwill not challenge me to the proof when I say that \nin the primitive churches there was no more distinc- \ntion between the master and the slave, on account of \nthat relation, than there is in one of our churches \nbetween the householder and bis hired man, or be- \ntw^een the master mechanic and his journeyman ; \nthat a master who should be convicted of treating \nhis slaves, converted or unconverted, otherwise than \nas the law of God requires every man to treat his \nneighbor, would meet with prompt rebuke and cen- \nsure ; and that the question in regard to a master\'s \ngovernment and usage of his servants would be, not \nwhat does the law of slavery permit him to do, but \nwhat does the law of love plainly require him to do. \nThis, then, I understand to have been the apos- \ntles\' method of dealing with slavery. They sum- \nmed up the ethics of Christianity in the law of love ; \nbut many particular applications of that law were \nleft, as of course they must be, to the common sense \nof individuals. The man who, professing to believe \nin Christ and to be governed by Christian principles, \nshowed in his conduct that he was governed su- \npremely by selfish passions \xe2\x80\x94 whether the love of \npleasure or the love of gain, the love of ease or the \nlove of power \xe2\x80\x94 was disowned as not having the spi- \nrit of Christ. The rich man and the poor man, the \nmaster and the slave, w^ere tried by the same rule. \nNo sumptuary laws were prescribed to limit the ex- \n\n\n\n186 THE COLLISION. \n\npenditures of the rich ; no tithing or per centum wvis \nlevied on his income, in the name of charity, by rule ; \nhow he should spend, and how he should give, it \nwas for his discretion to determine ; but if his con- \nduct in these respects was such as to demonstrate a \nsupremely selfish disposition, he was of course re- \njected. It was not prescribed to the poor what stand \nthey should take for the assertion of their political \nrights, what employments they should follow, or \nhow many hours should be a day\'s work ; but if the \npoor attempted to throw themselves upon the church \nfor support, and to live in idleness and as scandal- \nmongers, under pretence of devotion and religious \nzeal, the rule was, \'\' He that will not work, neither \nlet him eat." The slave was not instructed nor \nstimulated to run away and try his capacity of self- \ngovernment and self-support ; nor was he told that \nthe gospel was his master\'s warrant for oppressing \nhim ; but he was expected to act, even in his servi- \ntude, from Christian principles, glorifying God, and \nif his conduct toward his master, or toward any other \nperson, betrayed the dominion of a selfish spirit, \nChrist and the church had no part in him. So the \nmaster was not required to begin his Christian pro- \nfession by dissolving the relation between himself \nand his slaves, renouncing his authority and tutel- \nage over them, and placing them out of his govern- \nment and protection\xe2\x80\x94 though that was practicable \nunder the Roman law ; hut if, retaining them under \nhis power, he treated them as his cattle rather than \nas his fellow-men, immortal and responsible like \nhimself, and like himself redeemed with the blood \nof Christ \xe2\x80\x94 if they were to him the mere instruments \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 137 \n\nof his indolence, his luxury, or his gains \xe2\x80\x94 if he did \nnot consider h\\s power over them as a trust ratlier \nthan a possession, commiUed to him, in the arrange- \nments of Providence, for their present and eternal \nwelfare rather than for his worldly weahh \xe2\x80\x94 if his \nconduct toward them indicated the ascendency of \nselfishness over conscience and love \xe2\x80\x94 then for those \nspecific things, whatever they were, which were the \nindications of an unchristian character, he was liable \nto censure in the form of admonition and rebuke; \nand when admonition and rebuke were ineflfectual \nupon him, he became to the brotherhood \'\' as a \nheathen man and a publican." \n\nI give out no challenge. I have no expectation \nof being drawn into a vindication of my suggestions \nin these essays, against any unfavorable judgment. \nBut I am confident that this representation of what \nthe Apostolic Christianity had to do with slavery, \nis that which accounts for all the phenomena of the \nNew Testament records on the subject, and is that \nwhich neither the defenders of slavery on the one \nhand, nor the asserters of the anti-slavery formula \non the other, can set aside. In this view of the New \nTestament teachings, I think we have the key which, \nif rightly used, will unlock the difficulties of the \nsubject. The example of the apostles is our safest \nguide in the administration of church government \nover the masters of slaves. \n\nNot to be misunderstood in any quarter, is more \nthan I dare to hope for. Yet let me ask the impa- \ntient reader, ready to denounce me for daubing with \nuntempered mortar, not to be too impatient, but to \ncontain himself, if he can, till next week, and read \n\n\n\n188 THE COLLISION. \n\n\n\nNO. \n\n\n\nSHALL WE FOLLOW THE APOSTLF^S IN THEIR ADMINISTRATION OF \nCHURCH GOVERNMENT OR SHALL WE TRY TO DO BETTER ? \n\nIt is plain to me that in some particulars the con- \nduct of the apostles respecting slavery, is not an ex- \nample for us. Our political position, as citizens, \nauthorizes us to act as the apostles did not act, and \nas they could not act consistently with common \nsense. They, as subjects of the Roman government, \nhad no political power or responsibility ; and they \nacted accordingly. If we were situated as they were, \nit would be wise to do as they did. But we call our- \nselves freemen, in a free country. We may demand \nof our fellow-citizens, whose equals we are, and with \nwhom we share in the sovereign power of the State \nin which we reside, such measures, Avithin the legiti- \nmate power of the State, as are suited to effect the \npeaceful abolition of slavery at the earliest practica- \nble date. We may demand of the government of \nthe United States, in which we have a voice as citi- \nzens of the Union, that in all its legislation, in all \nits diplomacy, and in all its judicial and administra- \ntive proceedings, so far as its legitimate powers ex- \ntend, man shall be recognized as man, w^ithout re- \ngard to his complexion. We may demand that \nwhere the jurisdiction of the United States is abso- \nlute and " exclusive," as in the District of Columbia, \nand in territories not yet organized with legislative \nbodies of their own, all those law^s which constitute \nthe system of slavery, and by the force of which a \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. Ig9 \n\nportion of the population are made mere chattels in \nthe possession of irresponsible masters, shall be swept \naway. We may demand that the custom-house \nshall recognize no human being as a piece of mer- \nchandise, and that no slave, as such, shall be entered \nupon the manifest of a ship\'s cargo. We may de- \nmand that all slaves passing forth, upon the high \nseas, with their masters\' consent, beyond the juris- \ndiction of the local laws that make them slaves, shall \nbe free b}^ the laws of the Union, as they are free by \nthe law of nations. And in a country like ours, \nwhere thought and speech are free, where every- \nthing may be brought to the ordeal of discussion, \nand where the deliberately formed opinions of the \npeople, as shaped by free inquiry and debate, are \nsure to control, in time, the course of legislation and \nof government, we may address ourselves to the \npublic in behalf of such an object, singly or in as- \nsociation, through the press or in the popular assem- \nbl}^, or in any way in which we can obtain a favor- \nable hearing. We, as American citizens in this nine- \nteenth century, have many things to do which the \napostles, in their age, and in their position as sub- \njects of the despotism by which the world was gov- \nerned, could not dream of doing. \n\nBut some will ask. Is not the conduct of the apos- \ntles, in this respect, an example for ministers of the \ngospel, though not for men in other employments ? \nUndoubtedly, so far as ministers of the gospel are in \npolitical relations like those in which the apostles \nacted, they will do well to follow the example of the \napostles. If a minister of the gospel is called to perform \nhis ministry in a country where he is a mere subject, \n9* \n\n\n\n190 THE COLLISION. \n\nand not a citizen, and where he has no political rights \nor functions, it will be best for him not to meddle \nwith political questions at all. But if he is a free \ncitizen of a republic, and as such shares in the re- \nsponsibility of popular sovereignty, the example of \nthe apostles in abstaining from questions of legislation \nand politics, is obviously no example for him. His \nduty as a citizen, and how it is modified by his duty \nas a minister of the gospel, he must ascertain for \nhimself, by the light of general principles, in the ex- \nercise of his own common sense. \n\nIt is not to be supposed that the apostles, in their \npreacliing, meddled at all with any political question, \nor any point of legislation. We have no reason to \nthink that their oral discourses differed in this re- \nspect from their epistles. They required of masters, \nnot kindness merely, but \xe2\x80\x94 what is of far more sig- \nnific^ncy\xe2\x80\x94 justice, toward their servants.* They \nrequired of servants fidelity towards their masters. \nBut in respect to the abolition of slavery, and in re- \nspect to measures and arrangements tending towards \nthat end, they said notliing. Are we, therefore, who \nare now ministers of the gospel in the United States, \nbound to keep silence on the subject of slavery, save \nas we reiterate the teachings of the apostles on the \nrelative duties of masters and slaves? I think not. \nWe are American citizens ; and our hearers are \nAmerican citizens. Not only do we stand in a dif- \nferent position from that in which the apostles stood, \n\n\n\n* A man may be kind, as language is ordinarily used, toward his \ndog, or his horse ; he can he just only toward his fellow-men ; for just- \nice implies rights. \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 19ji \n\nbut our hearers live, as it were, in another universe \nfrom that in which the hearers of the apostles lived. \nOur hearers are men to whom is entrusted the wel-\' \nfare of their country, and all coming generations ; \ntheir moral and intellectual character as affected by \nthe ministration of the Word of God, is one element \nof the power that controls laws and institutions, and \ndetermines all questions of public policy. So far as \npolitical questions are at the same time moral \xe2\x80\x94 ques- \ntions of right and wrong, questions of the application \nof the law of love \xe2\x80\x94 so far it will be impossible for a \nfree and faithful minister of Christ, rightly dividing \nthe word of truth, entirely to avoid them. To keep \nsuch a question as that of slavery out of the pulpit, \nin such a country as this, must be impossible, as long \nas the pulpit is faithful to its trust in quickening the \nmoral sensibilities, and in forming and guiding the \nmoral judgments of those who sit under its influence. \nIn a country where the question of war and peace, \nin a given emergency, is to be determined by the \nvoices of the citizens, if the pulpit does not breathe \ninto the minds of those who sit under it a just Chris- \ntian abhorrence of war as a means of settling inter- \nnational disputes, the pulpit virtually defiles itself \nwith blood. So in a country of free speech and \nthought, where millions of human beings are con- \nverted by law into chattels, and are treated as having \nno human rights, if the pulpit never, in any way, \nleads the hearers of the gospel to feel that, as citi- \nzens partaking in the sovereignty of the republic, \nthey have something to do for the reformation of \nsuch injustice, it is so far recreant to the ends for \nwhich it exists ; it abandons a great moral question \n\n\n\n192 THE COLLISION. \n\nto be determined by the low influences of selfish par- \ntisan politics. The preaching is not worth much, \nwhich does not help men to understand and feel \nwhat God would have them do in all their moral re- \nlations. \n\nIt is not necessary for me here to remark the limi- \ntations which a sound discretion imposes on the dis- \ncussion of such questions in the pulpit. The man \nwho has not common sense enough to avoid, in the \npulpit, the agitation of certain questions of mere \npolicy, which the legitimate application of the law \nof love leaves undetermined \xe2\x80\x94 still more the man \nwho has not common sense enough to avoid ques- \ntions merely personal, such as the merit or demerit \nof particular candidates for office \xe2\x80\x94 the man who \nmakes his pulpit a place for repeating on the Lord\'s \nday, the substance of what he has been reading \nthrough the week in a partisan newspaper \xe2\x80\x94 the man \nwho has a political hobby-horse which he rides in \nevery sermon \xe2\x80\x94 will hardly learn much from any- \nthing that I can say to set him right. What I am \ninsisting upon is not that ministers shall make them- \nselves leaders in the strifes of political partisanship \n\xe2\x80\x94 not that the people shall go to church on Sunday \nto learn which ticket they must vote on Monda)^ \xe2\x80\x94 \nbut only that the absolute silence of the primitive \npreachers of the gospel, respecting the legislation \nand policy of the Roman empire, imposes no obliga- \ntion on their successors in the United States, at the \npresent day, to maintain the same silence respecting \nthe legislation and policy of this country. We are \nnot bound to follow even the apostles, blindly, but \nonly as we see the principles on which they acted, \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. jqq \n\nand tlie application of those principles to our duties, \nin our relations. Cliristianity is not a religion of \nforms, or of merely specific regulations, but a religion \nof affections and of principles. \n\nHow is it, then, in regard to the administration of \nchurch discipline ? Is the example of the apostles, \nin this respect, obligatory upon us 1 I answer. The \nprinciples upon which tlie apostles, and the churches \nunder their personal direction, acted in respect to \nthe admission and exclusion of individuals asking \nto be recognized as Christians, are principles which \nwe cannot refuse to follow without rejecting the \nauthority of the apostles. What are those princi- \nples ? And in particular, what are the principles on \nwhich they acted in respect to the admission of mas- \nters and slaves to membersliip in the church ? If \nthey acted upon the principle that the mere relation \nof a master to his slaves, without considering his con- \nduct in that relation, is irreconcilable with a Chris- \ntian profession, and is therefore to be renounced \'^ at \nall hazards ;" then we must adopt that principle and \nact accordingly, or else we must deny their authori- \nty. If, on the other hand, they evidently rejected \nthat principle \xe2\x80\x94 if they recognize masters of slaves as \nbelievers \xe2\x80\x94 if when insisting on the duties of a master \ntoward his slaves they never insist on an immediate \nlegal emancipation \xe2\x80\x94 then it is quite plain to me that \nthe master of a slave, simply for being such, if that \nis all that can be alleged against him, ought not to \nbe excluded from communion in our churches, unless \nwe can do better than the apostles did. \n\nCan we, then, do better than they did 1 Setting \naside their example, as not binding us to do likewise \n\n\n\n194 THE COLLISION. \n\n\xe2\x80\x94 admitting that, through ignorance or inadvertence, \nor under the pressure of peculiar circumstances, the \napostles and the churches under their personal direc- \ntion may possibly have done that, in relation to sla- \nvery, which we ought not to do \xe2\x80\x94 let us inquire for \nourselves, whether there is any sufficient reason, on \nwhat we recognize as Christian principles, for ex- \ncommunicating every master of slaves, simply be- \ncause he is a master. \n\nAt the risk of becoming wearisome by so much \niteration, I must once more ask the reader not to \nmisunderstand me, for I have the best reason to \nknow that there are readers who have not yet ap- \nprehended the palpable distinction upon which I \nam insisting in all these articles. My doctrine is, \nthat if the master of slaves refuses to recog-nize \nthose slaves as his brethren of the human famil}^ \xe2\x80\x94 \nif he regards them and treats them not as his fellow- \nmen, for whose welfare he is in God\'s providence \nresponsible, but as his property merely, his chattels, \nwhich he has a right to use as he pleases \xe2\x80\x94 if he does \nnot use his power over them conscientiously, as a \ntrust committed to him for their good \xe2\x80\x94 he is to be \nrejected by the church, because he does not deal with \nhis servants according to the spirit of the law of love, \nand the positive precepts of the New Testament. \nThat my doctrine is sound, so far as it goes ; that \nthe church has a right \xe2\x80\x94 nay, that it is bound to act \nupon my doctrine \xe2\x80\x94 is not in dispute. The question \nis whether the church has a right to go farther, and \nto demand of the master, under pain of excommu- \nnication, that he, shall ** at all hazards" dissolve \nthe connection between himself and his slaves, shall \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. I95 \n\ndivest himself of all power to govern or protect them, \nand shall leave them wholly and immediately to \ntheir own capacity of self-control, and to the tender \nmercies of a State that regards them as barbarians \nand as enemies. \n\nOn this question, I hold the negative ; and the \nAnti-Slavery Society, as popularly and naturally \nunderstood, holds the affirmative. To put the ques- \ntion, and the reasons why I hold the negative, in a \nclear light, I will state not an extreme case, nor an \nimaginary one, but an actual instance of slavehold- \ning. I have in my mind\'s eye a slaveholder whom, \nas I understand his character, no church has any \nright to exclude from its communion. There are \nobvious reasons why it should be improper for me \nto name liim, or identify him before the public in \nany such way as would make him a subject of dis- \ncussion in this part of the country or of jealousy \namong his neighbors. I know that such slaveholders \nas he are rare ; but I would hope that there are \nmore than one ; and I trust that no individual will \nbe designated, either here or at the south, as the \nonly man between the Potomac and the Gulf of \nMexico to whom my description can be applied. \n\nThe gentlemam whom I have in view found him- \nself, on coming of age, the lord of a plantation, and \nthe master of (we will say) a hundred slaves. The \nplantation was his birth-place and the scene of his \nchildhood ; but he had been absent many years, as \nis often the case with southern young men sent to \nthe north for an education ; and at the age of twen- \nty-one he returned to his home to take the control of \nhis property, with a mind enlarged by liberal studies, \n\n\n\n196 THE COLLISION. \n\nand with a heart quickened, I doubt not, by the \ngrace of God. Thong-h a hereditary slaveholder, he \ninherited from his parents no passion for the vindi- \ncation and maintenance of slavery ; and his educa- \ntion in classical literature, his familiarity with history \nand with the lessons of political and moral science, \nhis intercourse with liberal and enlightened men, \nand his personal observation of the effects of freedom \nupon the industr}^, intelligence and morals of the \npeople, had inspired him with an intelligent and \ndetermined dislike of the system with which his birth \nhad connected him. His mother and sisters had \ntheir rights in the estate when it came into his pos- \nsession, but there was nothing in their views that \nwas likely to embarrass him in any desire or attempt \nto do justice to the slaves. \n\nGreat was the joy of the negroes at seeing their \nown master among them ; for they trusted that they \nwere no longer to be under the control of adminis- \ntrators, or agents, or \'\' hirelings whose own the sheep \nare not." Many were the greetings of old women \nwho had borne him in their arms when he was an \ninfant or had fanned him as he slept in his cradle \xe2\x80\x94 \nof old men who had been the confidential servants \nof his father long before \'^ young master " was born, \nand of young men with whom he had played when \nthey were little children together. But to him it \nwas a day of sad and serious thought. What would \nGod have him to do? \xe2\x80\x94 was the question. Had it \nbeen in his power to convert those slaves into a free \npeasantry, he would have done so, but that it was \nimpossible for him to do. The State, in all the \npower which it had given him over those people, \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. iQ\'j \n\nhad given him no power to confer such a blessing \nupon them. What, then, was he to do? He had \ndehberated in his thoughts on the plan of removing \nthem to some northern State, or to Africa, that \nthere they might be free. But, while he felt that in \nthat way he could soon rid himself of a painful care \nand burthen, and while he knew that the sale of his \nlands without the slaves would enable him to live \nin easy circumstances at the north ; he was not \nconvinced that the welfare of the slaves, or the wel- \nfare of the country, would be promoted on the \nwhole, by such an arrangement. His conscientious \nconclusion was that the law of love \xe2\x80\x94 duty to those \nslaves\xe2\x80\x94 duty to his neighbors and their slaves\xe2\x80\x94 duty \nto his native State and to his country at large\xe2\x80\x94re- \nquired him to accept the trust which in the provi- \ndence of God had been devolved upon him, and to \nfulfill that trust to the best of his ability. Accord- \ningly he remains a slaveholder to this day. \n\nI have been upon that man\'s plantation, and have \nhad various means and opportunities of becoming \nacquainted with the system on which he is acting, \nand with his views in pursuing that system. It \nmight not be right for me, without his consent, to \nattempt a description of the system in its details ; \nand indeed my memory, unaided by any written \ndocument, might not be sufficiently exact for that \npurpose. A mere outline of the principles by which \nhe is guided in performing Avhat he regards as his \nduty will be sufficient. The idea which lies at the \nbasis of his conduct in respect to his slaves, is not \nthe idea that they are his chattels, and that he may \nuse them as a northern farmer uses his oxen, for his \n\n\n\n198 THE COLLISION. \n\nown ends without an}^ regard for tlieir welfare ; it is \nthe contrary idea tliat they are liis fellow-men, de- \npendent on him for all that protection and control\' \nwhich a good government ought to exert over suh- \njects so weak and helpless as they are. If the State \nwould have permitted him to pay them wages for \ntheir work, and then to require them to provide their \nown supplies, I have no doubt he would have done \nso long ago. But not being able to do what he would \nhe did the best that he conld. Each family on his \nplantation has its house, with a certain amount of \nsuitable furniture; its little plot of ground to be cul- \ntivated by the members of the family for their own \npleasure or profit ; its regular supplies of provisions, \naccording to the number of the family ; its new suits \nof clothing, at stated intervals, for man, woman and \nchild ; and its medicines and medical aid in sick- \nness. In lieu of all that the free operative would \npay for these accommodations out of his wages ; and \nin lieu of all militia service, and all town, county \nand State taxes, each slave \xe2\x80\x94 for to them the master \nstands in the place not only of landlord and employ- \ner, but of town, county and State government \xe2\x80\x94 per- \nforms a certain daily task amounting to something \nmore than half a day\'s labor. The remainder of the \nday they employ at their own discretion in their gar- \ndens or their houses, or in a field whicli the men are \npermitted and encouraged to cultivate in common on \nthe plan of a joint stock company. The products of \nall this portion of tlieir labor are their own\xe2\x80\x94 their \n\'peculium ; and when they have anything to sell of \ntheir own raising, they have their choice to sell it to \ntheir master, if he wants it, or to send it to a neigh- \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. I99 \n\nboring market town. Their money, thus acquired, \nthey expend for what they value as hixurics or com- \nforts, or they hoard it for some future use they know \nnot what. Their master told me that if in any \nemergency he should want to borrow a thousand dol- \nlars, and should be sure of being able to repay it \nspeedily, he had no doubt he could raise that amount \nupon his personal credit among his slaves. \n\nAll the arrangements which I have mentioned \nwere made, not in mere good nature towards the \nslaves, nor simply as the most economical system of \nmanagement, but as part of a system of measures \nand influences for their improvement. There was \nmuch pains-taking by their master and by the ladies \nof the family, to inspire the people with the tastes \nand wants of civilization. There was a school for \nthe children, where they had been taught to read, till \nsome alarm in the country had compelled the teach- \ners to confine themselves to other methods of instruc- \ntion. Every evening, at a stated hour, the people \nof the little village were assembled in a room which \nserved as chapel, where their master read the Scrip- \ntures to them and led them in worship. Once every \nweek, besides the Sabbath services in which the \nwhites and blacks of several plantations were united, \nthe pastor of the church in the neighborhood preach- \ned to my friend\'s people in a style suited to their \ncapacity ; and they were even then beginning to like \nhis preaching better than the noisy rant they had \nbeen used to, because it was instructive, or because \nin their phrase, they could get hold of it better. Their \nlabor was stimulated, as I have shown, not by the \nslavish incitement of fear, but by the manlike im- \n\n\n\n200 THE COLLISION. \n\npulses of hope and gain. The obedience required of \nthem was felt to be obedience to salutary laws rather \nthan to despotic will. Punishment, of whatever kind \nor degree, was inflicted, not as the master\'s wrath \nbecause his interests were neglected, but as the exe- \ncution of law against what the conscience recognized \nas crime. Nor were crimes punished without the \nformality of a trial. And to develop and strengthen \nthe sentiment of justice among the slaves some rudi- \nments of trial by jury had been introduced into the \nadministration of government over tliem. \n\nEnough has been said, perhaps, for my purpose, \nbut I want the whole case fairly stated. It is to be \nacknowledged, then, that the people on my friend\'s \nplantation do not consider themselves free ; they are \nnot free, they are slaves. The discipline on his \nplantation is not lax, but strict ; his people are in \nevery respect orderly, and are obliged to be so. It is \nto be acknowledged, also, that he makes money out \nof the labor of his slaves \xe2\x80\x94 more than most masters \nmake on the same soil, who treat their slaves like \ncattle \xe2\x80\x94 though much less, I doubt not, than the China \nmerchants of New York make out of the labor of \ntheir seamen, and less than the manufacturers on \nthe Naugatuc make out of the labor of their well-paid \noperatives, and less than he might make if he should \nsell them all, and invest the proceeds in stock of the \nproposed railway between New York and New Ha- \nven. If it be asked whether he communes with his \nservants at the Lord\'s table, I am compelled to con- \nfess that he docs not, for the reason that he is a \nPresbyterian, and they being Baptists, will not admit \nhim to communion. \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. \n\n\n\n201 \n\n\n\nHere, then, is a slaveholder \xe2\x80\x94 a voluntary slave- \nholder \xe2\x80\x94 one, who in the exercise of his free agency, \naccepts and sustains \'\'the relation of master to those \nwhom the law makes slaves;" and the question is. \nShall he be cut off from the church simply because \nhe stands in this relation ? \n\nIt may be argued that this man\'s policy is alto- \ngether mistaken \xe2\x80\x94 that by the kindness and justice \nof his administration, as a master, he is doing nothing \nfor the anti-slavery cause, but is enabling such men \nas I am to \'apologize for slavery \' \xe2\x80\x94 that if he would \nembrace the doctrine of immediate emancipation, \nand make his slaves free by a formal act at all haz- \nards, or if he would remove them to the north or \nwest, and make them free in a land of strangers, he \nwould do much more good than he is now doing \xe2\x80\x94 \nthat if he were to treat his slaves w^ith the utmost \ncruelty, starving them into skeletons, scourging them \nto laceration, washing their stripes with aqua-fortis, \nhunting them out of their refuges with bloodhounds, \nhe would be actually doing more than he is now \ndoing to hasten the downfall of the system. I will \nnot go into that argument, for it is not at all to the \npurpose. Admitting that the man errs in judgment, \nyou cannot prove that he errs guiltily. Whether he \nis wise or unwise, he is, beyond dispute a believer in \nChrist ; he takes the Holy Scriptures for his rule of \nfaith and practice ; the law of love is written on his \nheart by the spirit of God : whatsoever he would \nthat men should do to him, he is doing even so to \nthem. He has found these black "neighbors" who \nlong ago, on the highways of this wicked and plun- \ndering world, had fallen among thieves, and had suf- \n\n\n\n202 THE COLLISION. \n\nfeied divers grievous wrongs, and bad been left more \nthan balf dead ; he is treating them with compassion, \nbinding up their wounds, and pouring in oil and \nwine ; he is putting them upon his own beast, and \ntaking them to the inn. You may denounce him as \na Samaritan because he rejects your formula ; you \nmay say that his treatment is not judicious, that his \nsurgery is old-fashioned, and will never result in a \ncure ; that he ought to use your patent nostrums, your \nhydropathic bandages, your homeopathic powders, \nyour \'magical pain extractor,\' and that if you had \nthe patients in hand, you would cure them all in \nhalf an hour. All this may be as you say, I will not \ndispute it ; but after all the man is a good Samari- \ntan ; he is neighbor to the poor negroes that had \nfallen among thieves ; and there is neither principle \nnor rule, in the New Testament, which authorizes \nany church to exclude him from communion. \n\nI need not deny that the cause of human liberty \nand of human happiness \xe2\x80\x94 the great cause of God in \nthe world \xe2\x80\x94 would be more promoted, if the man of \nwhom I am speaking should follow the example of a \nfriend of his in the same county, who has removed \nhis slaves to a free State, and has discharged him- \nself of all further responsibility in respect to them. \nBut is this so plain and certain, so infallibly revealed, \nthat the man who does not see it may be censured \nby the church, and excommunicated for not seeing \nitl Who has not known many an instance in \nwhich a patient, who might have recovered with \ncompetent medical attendance, has died before his \ntime, because his friends had more confidence in \nsome advertising quack than in a scientific and skill- \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 203 \n\nful physician ? Yet the church does not excommu- \nnicate such persons. Why not 7 Because, plain as \nthe matter is to others, it is not plain to them ; and \nit is not the province of the church to settle such \nquestions. The friends who called in the quack were \nhonest in so doing ; they did it in pure love for the \nsufferer; they did it, praying for God\'s blessing; and \nthough life was sacrificed, the church does not in- \nterpose with its censures. Questions of medical \npractice are not to be decided by the clergy, or by a \nchurch meeting. The Bible does not reveal God\'s \nwill upon that subject. Clear as it may be to some of \nus that the policy which the man of v/hom I speak \nhas adopted is erroneous, there is no infallible judge \nthis side of Rome, to decide the question against his \nconscientious judgment. \n\nI say, then, charge upon the slaveholder some spe- \ncific crime, and prove it. Show that he treats his \nservants as mere property ; show that he does not \nrespect or guard their domestic relations ; show that \nthe chastity of their wives and daughters is not pro- \ntected under his government ; show that he keeps \nthem in ignorance of God and of God\'s Word ; show \nthat he permits them to steal, to quarrel, to break \nthe Sabbath, so that they do not injure him ; show \neven that he runs in debt on the credit of what they \nwould sell for if seized by the sheriff; and for any \nsuch thing he may be admonished by the church, \nand if he will not hear the church he may be ex- \ncommunicated. But where has Christ given the \nchurch authority to decide upon forms of govern- \nment, to proscribe political institutions, to adjust the \nrelations between rulers and subjects 1 \n\n\n\n204 THE COLLISION. \n\nNO. VI. \n\nCHRISTIANITY AND THE CHURCH COUNTERACTING SLAVERY. HOW? \n\nSuppose the gospel to be preached for the first \ntime in a civilized slave state \xe2\x80\x94 civilized in the same \ndegree in which the slave States of this Union are \ncivilized \xe2\x80\x94 civilization being carried as far as is com- \npatible with a structure of society so essentially bar- \nbarous. Suppose tliat the gospel, as a revelation of \nGod\'s character and moral government, of the way \nin Avhich sinners may be forgiven and saved, and \nof those divine truths by the sj^iritual perception of \nwhich the soul is renewed to holiness \xe2\x80\x94 is preached \nwithout any particular exposition of its bearings on \nthe political institution of slavery, or even on the re- \nlative duties of masters and slaves. On tlie one \nhand, the consciences of the people have not been \nsophisticated with atrocious arguments in defence \nof slavery ; on the other hand, the intrinsic injustice \nof the institution and the mischiefs which it works \nupon the morals, the intelligence and the industry \nof the community, have never been pointed out to \nthem. To that people the gospel is preached in its \nprinciples \xe2\x80\x94 " repentance toward God and faith to- \nward our Lord Jesus Christ.^\' The all-comprehend- \ning law, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with \nall thy heart, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as \nthyself," is clearly announced as God\'s law for the \nuniverse. The character of God, who \'\'hath made \nof one blood all nations of men," and who "now \ncommands all men everywhere to repent, because he \nhath appointed a day in which he will judge the \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 2Q5 \n\nworld in righteousness " \xe2\x80\x94 is exhibited in all the illus- \ntrations of its glory, which the gospel affords. Christ \nis " set forth evidently crucified," as \'^ a propitiation \nfor the sins of the whole world." It is proclaimed \nthat \'^ if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature," \nand that in Christ \xe2\x80\x94 in the bonds of allegiance and \nlove to him, in the unity of communion with him \xe2\x80\x94 \nall the distinctions which divide men, whether dis- \ntinctions of race or language, of nation or condition, \nare merged, and all are on one footing. These prin- \nciples, we will suppose, find audience ; and, by the \ngrace of God, they enter into some hearts with a \nquickening power. How will they operate in re- \nspect to slavery 1 \n\nThe first effect of Christian principle on the mind \nof a master toward his slaves, is to make him recog- \nnize those slaves as his brethren of the human race, \nwho, though they may not be his equals in the eye \nof the state, are his equals at the tribunal of God. \nNot only is that natural instinct strengthened and \nelevated, which prompts him to treat his servants \nkindly, as he Avould his dogs or his cattle, because \nthey are his ; but he is made to feel that these ser- \nvants, placed under his power and protection, are, \nlike himself, the subjects of God\'s government, ra- \ntional and responsible ; that like him they are made \nfor immortality ; that like him, involved in the ruin \nof a common apostacy from God, they are tiie ob- \njects of God\'s care and compassion, and of the re- \ndeeming love of One who gave himself a ransom for \nall. He feels that in the sight of God he and the \nmeanest of his slaves are equal \xe2\x80\x94 equally worthless \nas sinful creatures, equally precious as immortal \n10 \n\n\n\n206 THE COLLISION. \n\nsouls. He feels, within, the movement of the Spirit \nof God\'s love, writing upon his heart and breathing \ninto his soul\'s life the law, " Thou shalt love thy \nneighbor as thyself." The first impulse upon his \nmind is that these poor people are his neighbors, and \nmust be treated accordingly ; that he must do them \ngood to the extent of his opportunities ; that he must \nby all means make them acquainted with God and \nwith the way of salvation ; that the first of all his \nduties to his fellow-men, is his duty to these wronged \nand helpless creatures whose entire destiny, from \nthis time onward, is so much within his power. Can \nhe any longer treat these persons as things which, \nhaving no rights, can suffer no injustice? Can he \ntreat them as merchandise, property, creatures made \nto be bouglit and sold 1 Can he leave them in tlie \npower of a mere hireling, a low and brutal overseer? \nCan he refuse to acknowledge and protect the do- \nmestic relations and affections which nature, too \nstrong to be entirely subverted by oppression, has \nestablished among them ] Must he not begin to \ntreat them in all respects as men having the com- \nmon rights of human nature? Must he not begin \nto treat them in all respects as men made in God\'s \nimage, and redeemed from the wrath to come by \nChrist\'s atoning sacrifice ? I am not speaking of \nhow a man may act, who has received Christianity \nas a dead tradition including a divine warrant for \nenslaving the "\xe2\x80\xa2 cursed race of Ham." I am not \nspeaking of how a man may act who knows the gos- \npel only under the forms of a " hard-shell " Antino- \nmianisQi. I am not speaking of what a Christian \nman may do contrary to the principle of Christian \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 207 \n\nlove, through inadvertence or under the power of \nsome special temptation. I only ask the reader to \nimagine for himself the spontaneous operation of the \n" new heart and new spirit " in a master of slaves ; \nand I say that to him thus renewed by the gospel, \nthose slaves are no more things , inferior creatures, \nwhom he may use for his own pleasure or gain with- \nout any regard to their welfare, but fellow-men who \nare of as much worth in the sight of God as he is, and \nwhose welfare he is bound by God\'s law to value as \nif it were his own. \n\nLet us now extend our view somewhat. Instead \nof a solitary master receiving the gospel and acting \nunder its impulses, without any aid or sympathy \nfrom other minds around him, we have \xe2\x80\x94 let us say \n\xe2\x80\x94 a dozen families living in habits of frequent ami- \ncable intercourse. Into each of these families, dis- \npersed to some extent among families of a very dif- \nferent character, the gospel has entered with some- \nthing of its renewing power. These families con- \nstitute a Christian congregation. The heads of these \nfamilies, sustaining similar relations to the enslaved \npeasantry on their several plantations, as well as to \ntheir several household circles, are under each \nother\'s influence ; and as fellow-believers, they are \nAvatching over each other " to incite to love and good \nworks." In their conferences and consultations, \ntheir duties in the various relations of life come into \ndiscussion, and are made the subject matter of mu- \ntua exhortation, and among the rest, not last nor \nleast, their duties as masters, individually and col- \nlectively. As Christian men, moved by the spirit \nof Christ, they talk with each other about those slaves \n\n\n\n208 THE COLLISION. \n\nof theirs, what shall be done for them ; and in all \ntheir debates the slaves, instead of being regarded, \naccording to the theory of the laws, as inferior crea- \ntures, beings without rights, mere property to be use^ \nfor the benefit of their owners, are regarded as men \nwhom God made in his own image, for his own ser- \nvice, and for immortal blessedness, and whom Christ \nhas redeemed. And in this way, the influence \nwhich the gospel has on each individual apart, to \nmake him feel that the slave is his brother and must \nbe treated accordingly, and to make him ask, ^\' He \nthat loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how \ncan he love God whom he hath not seen?" is \nstrengthened by the association and Christian sym- \npathies of the individuals with each other. Thus \nw^e begin to see some rudiments of the legitimate \naction of Christianity and the church against sla- \nvery. Christianity and the cliurch recognize the \nslave as a man, an immortal spirit, a creature hav- \ning rights, his master\'s equal before God. \n\nAnd as Christianity and the church extend them- \nselves, slaves too begin to experience the quickening \npower of the gospel. Here we have a new element. \nIn the church, tlie slave is not only a brother by the \ntie of a common humanity, but a brother in Christ. \nThe master and the servant share in thoughts and \nemotions, in experiences of infirmity and deliverance, \nin joys and hopes, which place them on one level. \nBoth walking in faith and love, and breathing the \nsame spirit of adoption, both are alike the servants \nof Christ and tiie freemen of the Lord. Consequent- \nly a new feeling of respect and affection springs up \nin the mind of that master toward that servant. Nov \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 2Q9 \n\nIS this all. As religions instruction is communicated \nto the slaves upon one plantation and another, and \nas the fashion of teaching slaves the truths and duties \nof Christianity spreads in the communitVj not only \nis there an effect upon those who experience the full \npower of the truth, but others partake in the move- \nment. The servants of Christian masters first, and \nthen to some extent the enslaved as a class, rise \ngradually, but steadily, in the scale of intellectual \nand moral being. And as they rise ; as they be- \ncome more intelligent, more cultivated, more civil- \nized ; as their higher human nature, in distinction \nfrom their merel}^ animal instincts, is developed ; \ntheir brotherhood in the human family is more dis- \ntinctly felt on all sides, and demands a more formal \nrecognition. While this process of reformation in \nthe ideas and sentiments of the people is going for- \nward, the moment is steadily approaching in which \nthe laws will chronicle the change, and will acknow- \nledge the slave as a man, for whose welfare the State \nis bound to provide, and whose inalienable human \nrights the State is bound to protect. Whenever that \nmoment arrives, a new order of things \xe2\x80\x94 which had \nbeen preparing itself as silently perhaps, and per- \nhaps as unsuspectedl}^, as some great process of cre- \native nature \xe2\x80\x94 makes its appearance. The motion \non the dial-plate was slow \xe2\x80\x94 nay, imperceptible to \nhasty and impatient eyes ; but meanwhile the unrest- \ning pendulum within, and the weights and wheels, \nwere doing their office unobserved. At last the clock \nstrikes twelve ; midnight is past, and though dark- \nness still lingers, the hours of a new day begin to be \nnumbered. \n\n\n\n210 THE COLLISION. \n\nBut such a result will not be attained, or at least \nwill be indefinitely postponed, unless Christianity is \ndispensed and exhibited in the form of church disci- \npline. A lax administration of church discipline, in \nrespect to the conduct of masters towards their ser- \nvants, will accomplish, more speedily and effectually \nthan can be done in any other way, the complete de- \ngradation of Christianity, and will especially and \nprimarily counteract its legitimate operation against \nslavery. Let us observe, then, how church discipline \nwill be administered in a slave State like that pre- \nsented in our hypothesis \xe2\x80\x94 a state in which the gos- \npel has begun to be preached without an}^ pro-sla- \nvery or anti-slavery commentary, and in which there \nhave begun to be believers, both masters and ser- \nvants, who have received the gospel, not as a tradi- \ntion of dogmas and regulations, but as life in Christ \nand in the Spirit of God. The answer, I think, can- \nnot be difficult to any man who understands what \neffect the gospel produces on a mind regenerated by \nits power. All will agree with me in affirming that \nthe administration of church discipline, in the cir- \ncumstances represented by our hypothesis, will in- \nclude the following particulars. \n\n1. Members of the church, if they are masters of \nservants whom the law regards as property only, and \nwhom the law therefore treats as having no personal \nrights, will not be allowed by the church to regard \ntheir serv^ants as the law regards them, or to treat \nthem as the law treats tliem. The master who buys \nor sells his fellow-men for gain, or out of regard to \nhis own convenience merely, will be admonished, \nand if he does not repent Avill be excommunicated ; \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 21J_ \n\nand the consideration that the law permits him to do \nso will no more be admitted as a justification, than \nthe parallel fact that the law of New York refuses \nto recognize fornication or adultery as a crime, would \nbe admitted as a reason why the church may not \ncensure those who are guilty of such offences. The \nmaster who disposes of his servants just as he would \ndispose of any other property \xe2\x80\x94 giving- them away, \nhiring them out, or otherwise using them simply for \nhis own ends, without regard to their wishes and \ninterests \xe2\x80\x94 will be admonished like any other offender, \nand if admonition is ineffectual, will be excluded \nfrom the communion of the saints. The master \nwho, because the law regards slaves as incapable of \nacquiring or possessing property, will not allow his \nservants to have anything which under his protection \nand government they can call their own, who per- \nmits them to have no time that is theirs, no earnings \nor savings that are theirs, and who treats them in \nno other way than as a humane man treats his cat- \ntle, Vv^ill be dealt with by the church as one who \ngives no evidence of being actuated by the spirit of \nChrist. \n\n2. The relation of master to servant, where ser- \nvants are slaves, is one whicli involves constant \ntemptation to acts of passion and of injustice in the \nadministration of power. For all such acts a mas- \nter who professes to be a believer is accountable to \nthe church. The master of a ship at sea is intrust- \ned, necessarily, with a despotic power over the sail- \nors. All men know how liable that power is to be \nmisemployed, how many acts of cruelty are perpe- \ntrated on shipboard, in passion or caprice, or by the \n\n\n\n212 THE COLLISION. \n\ndeliberate abuses of the power committed to the mas- \nter. All men know, too, that if a shipmaster is a \nmember of a church, and there comes to that church \nthe report of any such offence on his part, the matter \nwill surely be investigated, and the offence, if proved, \nw^ill be visited with appropriate censure. Just so in \na church which contains masters of slaves, and in \nwhich Christianity has not become a tradition cor- \nrupted by the expositions of such rabbis as Gov. \nHammond, every instance of passion or injustice in \nthe administration of the master\'s government, will \nbe the subject-matter of church censure. The church \nwill no more permit cruel or unjust punishments to \nbe inflicted on slaves whose master is responsible to \nthe church for whatever concerns his Christian char- \nacter, til an it would permit a passionate and cruel \nmaster to inflict the same punishments on hired ser- \nvants or apprentices. \n\n3. The church which goes to this extent in watch- \ning over such members as sustain the relation of \nwhich we were speaking \xe2\x80\x94 and to this extent it must \ngo if it does not utterly dishonor the name of Christ \n\xe2\x80\x94 will necessarily go farther. There are some ob- \nvious positive duties, which a master in fellowship \nwith the church cannot be permitted to neglect. It \nis not enough for him to abstain from direct personal \nacts of cruelty and oppression ; the slaves have a right \nto look to him for the blessings of good government \nand protection, so far as it is in his power to dispense \nsuch blessings ; they have a right to look to him, for \nthey can look nowhere else. The first of all their \nrights as human beings living in society, a right \nwhich transcends even their right to personal liberty, \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 213 \n\nis their right to he governed, and well governed, \nand to have all that protection from their own evil \npropensities, and from the evil propensities of other \nmen, which good government affords. He can \nhardly be guilty of a greater wrong against them, \nthan that which he commits, if through any neglect \nof his, they are not protected as men and governed \nas men. If, then, he fails to place them under such \na system of regulations as is suited to promote their \nindividual and social well-being \xe2\x80\x94 if he does not care \nfor and protect their persons, their little possessions \nand their morals\xe2\x80\x94 if he neglects to guard, as a ma- \ngistrate, the chastity of females, or to uphold the \nsanctity and permanence of the marriage tie \xe2\x80\x94 if he \nneglects to restrain them from petty larcenies against \neach other, and from quarrels and fightings \xe2\x80\x94 if he \nallows or connives at drunkenness and rumselling \namong them \xe2\x80\x94 if he does not require them to keep \nthe Sabbath by resting from unsuitable occupations \n\xe2\x80\x94 his brethren in the church will not fail to admon- \nish him, and when admonition has been found inef- \nfectual, they will disown him. \n\n4. Nor will this be all. The relation which he \nsustains to his servants, as being to them in the place \nof the State, involves only a part of his positive du- \nties towards them. As a Christian man looking upon \nthe ignorance and debasement of these his depend- \nent neighbors, he is bound to care for their entire \nwelfare as spiritual and immortal beings. He is \nbound \xe2\x80\x94 and by all the movements of the Spirit of \nChrist within him he is impelled \xe2\x80\x94 to provide instruc- \ntion for them, and especially to make them ac- \nquainted with God and with the way of salvation \n10* \n\n\n\n214 THE COLLISION. \n\nthrough Christ. If he neglects this duty, if his ser- \nvants are permitted to live and die in heathenish ig- \nnorance, if he does not labor in the spirit of self-de- \nnying love to win them to God, and to train them \nfor God\'s service and for immortal blessedness, the \nchurch will strive to bring him to a sense of his du- \nty, and thiding him incorrigible, will declare that he \nhas not the spirit of Christ and is none of his. \n\nSuch being the administration of church discipline \nin the community vvljich we have supposed, it is evi- \ndent that there the slaves of \'\' believing masters" \nwill be treated, and their masters will be required by \nthe church to treat them, in effect, as if they were \nhired servants, or apprentices, under the protection \nof law. How obvious is it that such an administra- \ntion of Christianity will tell, gradually perhaps, but \ninfallibly, on the entire character of that community, \nquickening and guiding the moral sense of the whole \npeople. How obvious that in that community the \nhuman sentiment which recognizes the slave as a \nman, and which acknowledges his human rights \xe2\x80\x94 \nthe sentiment which when it comes to assert itself \nthrough the forms of legislation, will speedily work \nout the abolition of slavery \xe2\x80\x94 cannot but be making \npiogress. How obvious that in that community not \nonly the slaves of \'\' believing masters," but the \nwhole of the enslaved population, Avill be continual- \nly and irresistibly rising in tlieir intellectual and \nmoral character, and commanding more and more \nof the respect of the ruling class. How obvious that \nChristianity, thus administered, will spread itself in \nthat community, and will act with a power continu- \nally increasing, till every fetter is brokeH, and the \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 215 \n\nsoil, no longer exhausted by the curse of slavery, \nshall brighten into beauty like Eden, and shall give \nup its riches freely, to fill the hands of free and hap- \npy industry. Where Christianity is clearly and faith- \nfully preached as the law of the spirit of life in Jesus \nChrist, and where it is administered in the form of \na legitimate and fraternal church discipline, slavery \nmust be a transient institution, for slavery belongs \nentirely to that order of things which the ascendency \nof Christianity annihilates. Christianity civilizes, \nall its tendencies are towards the highest possible \nforms of social order and improvement : slavery is \nessentially barbarous. Christianity humanizes, it \ndevelops the faculties and affections of true manhood \nin every individual whom it reaches : slavery brutal- \nizes. The genius of Christianity is love and good \nwill : the genius of slavery is violence and fear. \nChristianity makes all men equal in God\'s regard, \nequal before the dread bar of justice, equal at the \ncross, equal at the throne of grace, equal in the \nchurch : slavery abhors the idea that every man is, \nin respect to rights, the equed of his fellow-man ; it \nrejects the law of thought which makes justice and \nequity (or equalness) convertible terms in every hu- \nman language. Christianity is light, it quickens \nevery mind into intelligence, it pours upon all souls \nan illumination from the skies : slavery is of the \ndarkness, it hates and dreads the light, it seals up \nthe souls of men in ignorance, it gathers around itself \nnight deep and murky, for darkness is its element. \nChristianity and slavery, wherever they co-exist, \nmust needs be like the Ormuzd and Ahriman of the \nPersian mythology \xe2\x80\x94 the opposite principles of light \n\n\n\n216 THE COLLISION. \n\nand darkness \xe2\x80\x94 forever contending each to subdue the \nother. If Christianity continues to hokl forth its \nhght, in that h\'ght slavery must decay and perish. \nIf Christianity yields, obscures its light, and enters \ninto a confederacy with darkness, it decays and dies \nin the chains of its captivit}^ \n\nI dare not ask for another column in this week\'s \npaperj and therefore, though I am anxious to bring \nthe discussion to a close on my part, I must post- \npone the application which I intend to make of \nthese remarks, till I can have another hearing. \nMeanwhile it will not have escaped the reader\'s \nnotice, that though I commenced with a review of \nthe action taken by the Board of Foreign Missions, \nand though the general title with which I began has \nbeen retained for the sake of marking the continuity \nof the series, I have in view not merely the specific \nmissionary question touching the Cherokee and \nChoctaw churches, but that more comprehensive \nand momentous ecclesiastical question, with refer- \nence to which the debates at Brooklyn were con- \nducted. The time has come, when the ministers of \nthe gospel and the professed followers of Christ, in- \ndividually and in their various ecclesiastical assem- \nblies, are called to inquire calmly yet earnestly, whe- \nther the churches in the slaveholding States, with \nwhich they are respectively in communion and cor- \nrespondence, are really acting in conformity with \nChristian principle towards such of their members as \nare owners of slaves. The reports are such concern- \ning the administration of discipline on this subject in \nthe southern churches \xe2\x80\x94 the extent to which those re- \nports have gained belief throughout the Christian \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 2_[7 \n\nworld is such \xe2\x80\x94 that, in the absence of any authentic \ndenial of their truth on the part of those churches, \nthe question, What ought we to do in this ^natter ? \nmust come up in all the ecclesiastical bodies with \nwhich those churches are in correspondence. It is \nwell known what arrangements are in progress to \nurge this question effectually upon the notice of the \nTriennial Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, now \nsoon to meet. It is equally well known that the \nsame question will be introduced again \xe2\x80\x94 as it has \nbeen heretofore under one form and another \xe2\x80\x94 in \nthose Congregational bodies of New England which \nare in correspondence with the two divisions of the \nPresbyterian Church. This question ought not to \nbe evaded or postponed ; nor can it be much longer. \nThose who have favored me with letters, anony- \nmously or otherwise, proposing particular points for \nmy consideration, will probably find their inquiries \nanswered, either formally or informally, before I \nclose. Every communication which in any way \nhelps me to know how far I am understood or mis- \nunderstood, is thankfully accepted, though it may \nnot be in my power to make any other than this \ngeneral acknowledgment. \n\n\n\nNO. VII. \n\nDUTY OF THE CHURCHES IN THE FREE STATES. \n\nThe idea of communion among Christian church- \nes, or between confederacies of churches, implies \nsome degree of responsibility in regard to the main- \ntenance of church discipline. Much more is this \n\n\n\n218 THE COLLISION. \n\nimplied, where communion takes ilie form of a set- \ntled correspondence and regulated intercourse. Such \nmutual responsibility, necessary as the basis of mu- \ntual recognition, is not inconsistent with mutual \nindependence and mutual equality of powers. In \nthe language of the Cambridge Platform, (ch. xv. \n\xc2\xa72,) illustrating this principle, \'\'Paul had no author- \nity over Peter, yet when he saw Peter not walking \nwith a right foot, he publicly rebuked him before \nthe church. Though churches have no more au- \nthority one over another than one Apostle had over \nanother, yet as one Apostle might admonish another, \nso may one church admonish another, and yet with- \nout usurpation." I quote this not as " authority," \nbut as good common sense well expressed. \n\nI need not, then, spend any time in showing that \nthe churches in the free States have a right to con- \ncern themselves with the manner in which discipline \nis administered, or not administered, in the Southern \nchurches. The only questions are, whether there is \nIn existing facts an occasion for the exercise of this \nright ; and if so, in what form and by what pro- \ncedure shall the right be exercised 1 \n\nTo the first of these questions, the existing facts \nare a sufficient answer. A " common fame" has \nspread through this land, and has been sounded out \nto the ends of the world, which charges upon the \nsouthern churches, indiscriminately, a scandalous \nneglect of Christian discipline. It is charged upon \nthose churches that members in full communion, \noffice-bearers, ministers, commit, uncensured, and \nhabitually, crimes which cause the name of Christ \nto be blasphemed. It is charged upon them that \n\n\n\nTHE COLLlSIOi\\, \n\n\n\n219 \n\n\n\ncommunicants, elders, pastors, preachers of what \npretends to be Christianity, are tolerated in treating \ntheir servants, whom barbarous Laws have put into \ntheir power, as mere property, to be bought and sold \nfor gain, or at the convenience or caprice of the \nbuyer and seller. It is charged that masters in \nthe communion of those churches are tolerated in \ngoverning their servants and dealing with them, not \nas human beings having human rights, but as cattle \ndriven to their labor with the whip, moved by no \nhuman impulse to industry, and having no more in- \nterest in their own labor than the muzzled ox \'\' that \ntreadeth out the corn." It is charged that the ser- \nvants of such masters live and die without the know- \nledge of God\'s illuminating and quickening Word > \nwith no advantages or means for the development \nof their nature as intelligent beings created in God\'s \nimage; borne down under an oppression heavier, in \nthis most vital respect, than that which degrades the \nsubjects of Russian or Austrian despotism, more \nunchristian than even that which keeps down the \nslaves of Antichrist himself within the immediate \ncivil jurisdiction of Rome. It is charged that ser- \nvants of such masters, when their masters might \nprotect them, are robbed of God\'s primeval institu- \ntion of marriage; that instead of being permitted to \nlive together, husband and wife, in a relation which \ncan be dissolved only by death, or by crime on their \npart, they live, male and female, in a temporary pair- \ning unsanctioned by religion, unprotected by powder, \nand liable to be dissolved at the convenience of the \nmaster. It is charged that the chastity of female \nservants, under such masters, has no protection \n\n\n\n220 THE COLLISION. \n\nagainst the frauds or the violence of licentiousness. \nIt is charged that hy the authority of such masters, \nchildren are torn from the fathers and mothers to \nwhom God gave them, and are sold as merchandise. \nI do not make these charges against the southern \nchurches ; nor do I take it for granted that these \ncharges are all true. What I say is, that these charges \nare uttered by "common fame" \xe2\x80\x94 are believed \nby millions \xe2\x80\x94 are carried abroad to the farthest out- \nposts of civilization in every quarter of the world \xe2\x80\x94 \nhave never been disproved \xe2\x80\x94 have never been met \nby those churches with anything like an adequate \nand authentic denial. \n\nIn the existence of such facts there is, beyond con- \ntroversy, an imperative occasion for the exercise of \nthat right of inquiry and admonition on the part of \nother churches, which is inseparable from the idea \nof communion. If these charges, so widely pub- \nlished, and so widely believed, are not a sufficient \nreason for putting the churches of the slaveholding \nStates upon their defence, nothing can be. The im- \nputations against their Christianity are not less seri- \nous than if they were charged with tolerating in \ntheir communion the rationalism of Germany, the \nfooleries of Oxford, and the impostures of Rome and \nof Nauvoo. In some way they should be sum- \nmoned, as churches, to answer for themselves \nwhether these things are so. And if they refuse to \nmeet the inquiry, or fail to vindicate themselves ; or \nif, admitting that the matters of fact alleged against \nthem are true, they do not repent under admonition, \nthen the communion between those churches and \nthe churches of the north and of the west must end. \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. ^21 \n\nThe light of every northern ecclesiastical body to with- \ndraw communion, in such a case, from the southern \nchurches, would be too manifest to be questioned. \n\nIn what form, then, and by what course of pro- \ncedure, may this right of inquiry and of ultimate \nnon-communion be most advantageously exercised? \nOn this point, it will be sufficient to advert to tlie \nestablished relations and formal correspondence be- \ntween the southern churches of various denomina \ntions, and those churches in the free States with \nwhich they agree in the forms of doctrine and of \nworship. \n\nThe General Assembly of the Presbyterian church \nexercises, by the terms of its constitution, a general \nsuperintendence over all the affiliated synods, pres- \nbyteries and congregations. Every subordinate \njudicatory is responsible to the assembled represen- \ntatives of the whole communion, for all its errors or \ndeficiencies in respect to the administration of dis- \ncipline, and is, accordingly, liable to be admonished \nor instructed by the General Assembly. Such being \nthe fact, can there be any doubt as to what the \nGeneral Assenjbly \xe2\x80\x94 whether Annual or Triennial \n\xe2\x80\x94 can do, and ought to do, in reference to the ^fama \nclamosa^ of which I have spoken 1 Let the Gene- \nral Assembly take notice of this \' crying fame\' which \nso dishonors, not only the Presbyterian church as a \ngreat confederacy of Christian congregations, but \nalso the name of Christ himself; and by that su- \npreme judicatory let it be enjoined on all presbyte- \nries and church sessions, to inquire whether any of \nthe ministers or members under their care are guilty \nof the sins thus charged \xe2\x80\xa2 upon the Presbyterian \n\n\n\n222 THE COLLISION. \n\nchurch, to visit such offenders with due censure \nwherever they may be found, and to report liere- \nafter, at each General Assembly, whether such \ncrimes are indeed tolerated or winked at within their \nrespective jurisdictions. It is in the power of each \nsynod in the free States, nay, of each presbytery or \nchurch session, to address the General Assembly \nwith reference to so great a scandal, and to demand \nsome decisive action for the removal of the reproach. \nThe Congregational bodies in New England, and \nin the other northern States, have no cliurches in \nthe slaveholding States, and therefore are not \ndirectly implicated in these charges. Yet their \necclesiastical intercourse with the Presbyterians of \nthe south is so intimate, that it could hardly be \nmore so if the two denominations Vv\'ere fused into \none. Church members and ministers pass from one \ncommunion to the other continually, as easily as \nthey pass from one part of the country to another. \nAs far as New England is concerned, the various \nCongregational organizations maintain communion \nwith each of the two great divisions of the Presb)^- \nterian church by an interchange of delegates. Thus \nthe Congregational body in each of these five States \nhas a stipulated right to speak to tlie General \nAssembly in the same way in which one Congre- \ngational church, according to the Cambridge Plat- \nform, may speak to another. If then, at the \napproaching sessions of the General Assembly, that \nbody \xe2\x80\x94 either of the two bodies bearing that name \n\xe2\x80\x94 shall neglect to take some efficient measures for \nthe removal of the great scandal, which for some \ntwenty years has been continually growing, till it \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 223 \n\nhas become offensive to the moral sense of Chris- \ntendom, it will remain for the New England Con- \ngregational Associations and Conventions, at their \nmeetings immediately following, to take np tlie \nsubject, and separately or jointly to expostulate with \nthe General Assembly on its unchristian neglect of \nChristian discipline. Then, if at the end of another \nyear such admonition shall not have been duly \nnoticed \xe2\x80\x94 if the scandal remains untouched by the \njudicatory immediately responsible for it to the \nChristian world \xe2\x80\x94 if the one Assembly shall have \nbeen too much occupied with the scandal of young \npeople\'s dancing, to attend to such a scandal as this \n\xe2\x80\x94 if the other Assembly shall have been so engrossed \nwith the question whether the Rev. Mr. McQueen \nshall or shall not violate the law of North Carolina \nby putting away his wife, that it can do nothing \ntowards refuting or removing the imputation which \nmakes it responsible for innumerable acts of oppres- \nsion \xe2\x80\x94 it will be for these Congregational bodies to \ntake another step, and by a solemn act and declara- \ntion before the world, to dissolve all the existing \nrelations of intercourse and correspondence with the \nGeneral Assembly \xe2\x80\x94 which ever it may be\xe2\x80\x94 that has \nproved recreant. From that time forward, the way \nwill be plain for every Congregational church in \nNew England, to withhold all acts of communion \nfrom every southern church which does not dis- \ntinctly clear itself from this scandal. \n\nIf, on the other hand, the General Assembly, or \nrather the two Assemblies, should take decisive \nmeasures in relation to the scandal of which I am \nspeaking \xe2\x80\x94 if orders should go down from Philadelphia \n\n\n\n224 THE COLLISION. \n\nnext May, requiring all tlie presbyteries and church \nsessions south of Pennsylvania to take notice of \ncertain specifications alleged by common fame \nagainst their administration of church discipline, \nand enjoining upon them an immediate and un- \nshrinking attention to every instance in which a \nmaster does not render to his servants strictly, so far \nas his power over them extends, that which is just \nand equal \xe2\x80\x94 what would the result be in relation to \nthose churches\'? Of course, it is impossible to \nforetell. The worst that could happen would be the \nimmediate withdrawal of those presbyteries and \ncongregations from all connection with the Presby- \nterian body. And if that event should come to pass, \nfrom such a cause^ few would regret it ; for such \naction on the part of those churches, in such circum- \nstances, would be an unqestionable demonstration \nthat the common fame of which I have spoken is \ntrue \xe2\x80\x94 too true to bear investigation. And what \nbranch, I will not say of the Presbyterian church, \nbut of the universal church of Christ, is that which \nwould desire to retain in its connection congregations \nso defiled with the guilt of inhuman oppression, \nand so obstinately and passionately resolved upon \ncleaving to that iniquity? My own belief is that \nthis would not be the result ; that in certain districts \nof the south, the churches would rejoice in such \nan opportunity of defending themselves against the \nimputations under which they suffer; that in those \nchurches the administration of discipline would be \ngreatly invigorated ; that on the other hand, such \nchurches as proved contumacious, would be dis- \ngraced even in their own consciences and in the \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 225 \n\ne3\'es of oppressors around them, and if not utterly \nabandoned to delusion and sin, would presently \nbegin to reform themselves ; and that the legitimate \nliving power of Christianity and the church to \ncounteract slavery, and to effect its abolition by \neffecting a change in the sentiments and habits of \nsociety, would soon begin to be manifested through- \nout the south. In this way I should expect to see \nthe principle introduced into the southern churches \nand gradually propagated there, that the holding of \na slave is prima facie evidence of wrong-doing, that \nit creates some presumption of guilt on the part \nof the master, and puts upon him the burthen of \nshowing that he is actually loving mercy, doing \njustly, and walking humbly before God. This \nprinciple has been proposed and urged more than \nonce, with great power, by Dr. Robert J, Breckin- \nridge. If he will carry this principle through, and \ncause it to become law in the synod of his native \nState, sit mihi magnus Apollo, Thenceforth let all \nthat he has said and done against New England be \nforgotten. \n\nIt remains to show what I regard as the advan- \ntages of this course of procedure, over that which is \ncommonly understood to be proposed by the Anti- \nSlavery Society. The proposal of the Anti-Slavery \nSociety, as language is ordinarily understood, is that \nslaveholding itself \xe2\x80\x94 the simple relation of a master \nto those whom the law of the State regards and treats \nas slaves \xe2\x80\x94 shall be the subject matter of admonition, \nand then, if not abandoned, of excommunication. \nOur proposal, on the other hand, is that the exercise \nof a despotic power, in any specific form of injustice \n\n\n\n226 THE COLLISION. \n\nor oppression, shall be the subject matter of censure. \nOur proposal admits that, inasmuch as the possession \nof despotic power is ordinarily accompanied by some \nwrong-doing in the acquisition or in the use of it, it \nmay be a reasonable rule of discipline to regard the \nmere possession of such a power as \'prima facie evi- \ndence of sin, and as constituting at least an occasion \nfor investigation. The other proposal regards the \npower itself as sin, and excommunicates the master \nsimply for standing in that relation. \n\nThe first advantage of our proposal is, that all who \nlove justice and mercy, and really desire the aboli- \ntion of slavery, can unite upon it. Men whose reve- \nrence for the Scriptures forbids them to adopt the \nanti-slavery formula, and who yet love righteousness \nand hate oppression, can act in this procedure. Nor \ndo I see how any anti-slavery man can refuse to con- \ncur in it so far as it goes. He may find fault with it \nbecause it does not go far enough ; but how can he \nlift his voice or his hand to oppose it ? He may hold \nhis own distinctive principle uncompromised, and yet \nvote to enforce the discipline of the church against all \nthose definite specific sins which are none the less \nsinful if his principle is true. But on the other hand, \nthere are multitudes of men in the churches and in \nthe ministry, this side of Maryland, Avho do not \nadopt, and cannot be made to adopt, the mode of \ndiscipline recommended by the Anti-Slavery Society. \nIt is easy to denounce these men as actuated by the \nmost unchristian motives, and to imagine that they \ncan be coerced into conformity, but after all they are \nneither fools nor rogues. It is easy to say of them, \nas an anonymous ^^fellow-sinner \'^ of mine, who \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 2^ \n\nAvrites to me from New York, says, in the fervor of \nhis spirit, " Hell never enacted upon our miserable \nearth a species of wickedness too base to find clerical \ndefenders and apologists. War, murder, inquisi- \ntions, drunkenness, despotism, and lastly, that sum \nof all villanies, slavery, have never wanted advocates \namong the clergy." But after all, the men of whom \nI speak are conscientious in standing off from the \nAnti-Slavery Society, and the men of the Anti-Sla- \nvery Society know it, even while denouncing them. \nDoubtless such men as Jeremiah Day, Noah Porter, \nLyman Beecher, Leonard Woods and Moses Stuart, \nnot to extend the catalogue, are as \'\'grasshoppers," \nin the eyes of the Anti-Slavery Society ; but after \nall, in any attempt to secure the application of church \ndiscipline to the masters of slaves, it is better to have \neven such men with you, if thereby you can do some- \nthing without compromising any principle, than it \nwould be to insist upon a course in which they can- \nnot follow you. \n\nAnother advantage which our proposal has, is that \nit presents an issue upon which slaveholders cannot \nsophisticate their consciences as they do in their ar- \ngument with the Ami- Slavery Society. \' Slavery, or \nslaveholding,\' says the Society, \'is necessarily, and \nin all circumstances, the sin of the slaveholder, and \ntherefore the slaveholder, if after admonition he does \nnot renounce his authority, at all hazards, is to be \nexcommunicated as an incorrigible sinner.\' \'No!\' \nsays the slaveholder, \'the Bible is not written on \nthis principle ; in the Old Testament, and in the \nNew, the Scriptures recognize servitude as an ac- \ntually existing relation; nor did Christ or his apes- \n\n\n\n228 T^E COLLISION. \n\nties enjoin on masters any duty of immediate eman- \npation, at all hazards, as a condition of salvation, \nor as a condition of membership in the church.\' \nHaving thus met the issue raised by the Anti- \nSlavery Society, and having answered their position, \nas it is easy for him to do to his own entire satisfac- \ntion, he feels that the Bible is on his side; if "the \nAbolitionists" are wrong, he, of course, is right; \nslavery is therefore all right, and he has nothing to \ndo in the case but to support himself by the labor of \nhis slaves if he can, or by selling them if their labor \nproves too unproductive. But our proposal presents \nanother issue, and one which the slaveholder can- \nnot get rid of so easily. It comes to him with the \nquestion, What are you doing for those poor neigh- \nbors of yours, over whose Avelfare for time and for \neternity the providence of God has given you a \npower so full of awful responsibility 1 How are you \ntreating them \'? Do you pretend that God has given \nto you the dominion over them, as over the beasts of \nthe field? Do you treat them as if they were your \ncattle ? Or do you treat them as your fellow-men, \nyour equals before God, and according to the law, \nThou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself? Is their \ntoil for you, uncompensated toil ? Or is the power \nwhich you have over them so administered by you, \nthat the relation between you and them exists, in fact, \nfor their benefit, rather than for yours ? If you rob \nthose helpless beings of their human rights \xe2\x80\x94 if you \ndo not render to them that which is just and equal \xe2\x80\x94 \nyour pretence to be a Christian is a foul dishonor to \nthe Christian name. \n\nIt is another advantage of our proposal that it is \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 22^ \n\nthe very thing which the Anti-Slavery Society pro- \nfesses to propose when it undertakes to define its \nown position. Since I began the publication of these \narticles, some one has sent me the Anti-Slavery Re- \nporter for July, 1845, containing the official account \nof the proceedings of the Society at its last annual \nmeeting. Among the twenty-three resolutions adopt- \ned on that occasion, to many of which I could most \nheartily subscribe, the following is marked with a \npen for my special attention : \n\n*\' 10. Resolved, that by slaveholding this Society understands \nthe holding and treating of human beings as property ; and main- \ntains that to hold and treat a human being thus, is universally \nand always sinful, and ought to be everywhere immediately \nabandoned." \n\nLet us take this, then, as an authentic exposition \nof what the Anti-Slavery Society means when it \ndemands that the churches shall, by the proper \ncourse of discipline, exclude all slaveholders from \ntheir fellowship. " This sin," as they say in the \nresolution immediately following \xe2\x80\x94 the sin thus de- \nfined \xe2\x80\x94 \'^ the holding and treating of human beings \nas property"^^ \xe2\x80\x94 this, and not the sin of being a mas- \nter of slaves, \'^ is inconsistent with Christian char- \nacter and a regular standing in the church of Christ, \nand ought to be made the subject of remonstrance \nand discipline, according to each one\'s distinctive \nmethods of procedure, in every branch of that \nchurch." Need I say that this is just what I am in- \nsisting upon? This identical sin of holding and \ntreating men as property is one of those sins connect- \ned with slavery, for which I would have discipline \nadministered in all the churches. \n\n\n\n230 THE COLLISION. \n\nWhere then do I differ from the Anti-Slavery So- \nciety 1 Just on this point. I utterly repudiate their \ndefinition of slaveholding. I deny that they have \nany right to make such definition. Their attempt \nto do so is a fraud upon themselves and upon the \npublic. Such a definition is an abuse of words fit \nonly to juggle with. It is the fountain-head of a \nperpetual stream of sophistry. Words have a mean- \ning of their own which cannot be set aside by an \narbitrary definition. Words, and especially such \nwords as we have to do with in political and moral \ninquiries, are not like the arbitrary symbols of al- \ngebra Avhich bear any meaning we choose to put \nupon them for the particular operation in which we \nare using them. I have no right to say that Trinity \nchurch spire is surmounted by a Turkish crescent, \neven though I explain myself by saying that cres- \ncent means cross. \n\nMy objection to the resolution which I have \nquoted, is that it is not true. It is not true as a de- \nfinition ; neither is it true as an averment of what \n\'\' the Society understands by slaveholding." No \ndoubt the gentlemen of the Society think they mean \nby slaveholding what the resolution says they mean. \nNo doubt they think that by slaveholding they mean \nnot only the holding of slaves but the holding of \nthem as property ^ and the treating of them as pro- \nperty. No doubt they are perfectly unconscious of \nthe transparency w^ith which their cardinal sophism \nshines through the very language in which they \nwrap it up : \' Resolved, that by slaveholding we \nmean slaw eholdi7ig and a certain kind of treatment.\' \nThis very series of resolutions shows that in spite \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 231 \n\nof their unanimous resolve, they do not mean what \nthey intend to mean. In the eighteenth resohition \nthey declare ^\' that for missionary boards to appoint \nand support slaveholders as missionaries is a viola- \ntion of the spirit and teaching of Christ." What are \nthey talking about in this eighteenth resolution ? \nThe very thing that they have been talking about \nyear after year in their continued assault upon the \nAmerican Board of Missions respecting the case of \nthe Rev. J. Leighton "Wilson, lately of Cape Palmas \nand now at the Gaboon. Mr. Wilson is or was the \nmaster, the owner of certain slaves in Georgia, and \nis therefore, or was, a slaveholder in the legitimate \nmeaning of the word ; but to say of him that he \nholds and treats those men as property is a calumny \nfor which I cannot believe that the authors of those \nresolutions intended to be responsible. The fact is, \nthat by that word ^ slaveholder\' they understand just \nwhat other people understand by it, ^ the master of \na slave;\' and then from their arbitrary definition of \nslaveholding they derive the irresistible corollary \nthat every slaveholder holds his slaves as property \nand treats them accordingly. \n\nI have been for several years past not very familiar \nwith the current anti-slavery publications ; but I \nrarely light upon a newspaper of that class which \ndoes not contain some specimen of this sophistry. \nThus in a number of the ^\'Liberty Press," published \nat Utica, (Jan. 18, 1846,) which has happened to \nfall in my way, I find a communication commenting \non a paragraph from the ^\' Dayspring," descriptive \nof slavery and the slavetrade in Abyssinia. \'\' The \ngospel," says the Dayspring in that paragraph, \n\n\n\n232 THE COLLISION. \n\n^\' seems to be the only sure means to put an end to \nthese horrid customs." This sentence the writer in \nthe Liberty Press takes for his text, and after pre- \nmising that the Dayspring is published by the \nAmerican Board of Foreign Missions, he gives out \nin an interrogative form the slander that this is "the \nsame Board of Foreign Missions which, after solemn \ndeliberation and discussion, resolved to employ \nslaveholders as their agents in foreign countries to \npropagate that gospel." I call this a slander, for it \nis not only not true in the false and forced sense \nwhich the Society in its definition tries to attach to \nthe word \' slaveholding,\' but it is not true in any \nsense. But let us go on with this writer. "It would \nbe amusing," he says, "to hear one of these agents \npreaching, as Mr. Smith would say, gospel politics \nto the people of Abyssinia, whose overseer in Caro- \nlina was perhaps at that moment chaffering with a \nnegro buyer about the price of a handsome female \nslave for the New Orleans market." See the \nsophism ! If Mr. Wilson is, or was, a slaveholder, \nthen by the very definition of slavery, he holds and \ntreats human beings as property ; and of course he \nsells the female slave, high-priced because of her \nbeauty, for the New Orleans market. The writer \nadds, " There can be no doubt that a part of the \nfunds of this Board of Foreign Missions consists of \nthe avails of the sales of husbands, wives, parents \nand children, separately, to slaveholders in different \nand distinct parts of this extensive country." Of \ncourse there can be no doubt of it in the mind of a \nman who reasons in this way. Such calumnies \nthrown about " thick as leaves in Vallambrosa," are \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 233 \n\nthe natural product of the primal sophism, ^ slave- \nholding is slaveholding and something more.\' Such \na sophism assumed as a first principle, taken into \nthe soul and kept there till it affects the entire system, \nbecomes a disease of the intellect and of the moral \nfaculties, which shows itself in the passionate belief \nand the reckless utterance of w4iat any sane man \nwould know to be falsehood. When I see such \nthings, I cannot but be reminded of the language in \nwhich the prophet sets forth the morbid effect of idol \nworship on the intellectual and moral nature : ^^ He \nfeedeth on ashes ; a deceived heart hath turned him \naside that he cannot deliver his soul nor say. Is there \nnot a lie in my right hand 1" \n\nWhen I began this series of communications, I \nhad no expectation whatever of taxing to so great an \nextent the patience of the editors and readers of this \njournal. But having begun, I found myself con- \nstrained by a sense of duty to go on. Had I written \nfor the sake of writing, I should have written on \nsome other theme, on which I might write more \neasily and with less hazard to my own good name. \nMy experience heretofore has shown me that when \nI write on this subject, I must make up my mind to \nencounter reproach from the most opposite quarters. \nBut I have not suffered this, or any other considera- \ntion personal to myself, to restrtiin me from speaking \nwhat seems to me to be truth, important and timely. \nI have not written with a view of confirming what \nothers have written whose views I presume to be \ngenerally coincident with my own; for though I am \naware that Professor Pond has been writing in the \nNew England Puritan, and Dr. Edward Beecher in \n\n\n\n234 THE COLLISION. \n\nthe Boston Recorder, it has not been convenient for \nme to read either their articles or what Mr. Phelps \nhas written in reply ; and as for Dr. Woods\' two \ncommunications in the Puritan, which I have read \nwith great pleasure, I knew nothing of them till \nmost of my articles were written. At what seems \nto me a serious crisis in the history of our country \nand of Christianity, I have written to express my \ndeep and long-matured convictions, and thus to dis- \ncharge my own soul of the burthen which I felt that \nGod had laid upon me. \n\nWhat I have to expect from the organs of the \nanti-slavery party, it is not difficult to conjecture. \nA question will be raised about my motives; or \nrather my motives will be represented as unques- \ntionably selfish and base. Last autumn I had occa- \nsion, in reply to an assault from the south, to publish \na letter to the editor of the Pbiladelphia Observer, \nwhich the readers of the Evangelist may remember. \nThat letter was copied into the Emancipator, with \nsomething like a column of commentary in this \nvein :* \n\n" Some are trying to see how far they can carry their conces- \nsions in favor of slavery, without absolutely awakening pubhc \nindignation against themselves at the north. Others are with \nequal assiduity trying to see how far they can carry their con- \ndemnation of slavery, without actually cutting themselves off \nfrom religious association with the south. The former class are \nseeing how near they can come to the justification of slaveholding \nwithout being actually identified w\'ith slaveholders : the latter, \nhow near they can come to its condemnation without being actu- \nally identified with abolitionists. \n\n* I find this not in the Emancipator itself, but in another paper which \nwas put into my hands for another purpose. \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. \n\n\n\n235 \n\n\n\n"These latter gentlemen profess to hold the same views of \nslavery that they have always held. And perhaps, in many \ncases, they may he able to show where, ten or fifteen years ago, \nthey expressed the same condemnation of slavery that they do \nnow. The difference is, that formerly they came reluctantly to \nthe expression of these views, lest they should be taken for abo- \nlitionists\xe2\x80\x94now they do it eagerly, lest they should be deemed \napologists for slavery. Formerly, they put forth their anti- \nslavery sentiments as an apology for acting against abolition; now \nthey put forth their excuses for slaveholding as an apology for \nspeaking against slavery. \n\n" Of this class of theologians, no one has from the beginning \ncome nearer to abolition without hitting it, than the Rev. Leonard \nBacon, D. D., of New-Haven." \n\nTo such libels scattered broadcast over all the \nnorth, and proceeding from men who know me well, \nand who are known to have been once my friends, \nI expose myself when I utter my convictions on this \nsubject. It seems not to enter into the thoughts of \nthose writers, that a man who differs from them on \nthis most complicated theme, may possibly be honest. \nMy answer to their imputations is, Perhaps my \nmotives are important to the question of the sound- \nness of my arguments ; perhaps you know my mo- \ntives better than I do; yet God knows them better \nthan you do ; to my own master I stand or fall, and \n^\' with me it is a very small matter that I should be \njudged of you, or of man\'s judgment." \n\n\n\n236 THE COLLISION. \n\n\n\nNO. VIII. \n\nEXPLANATIONS. \n\n\n\nI thought I had finished, when I appended to my \nlast communication a postscript of condensed replies \nto those of my correspondents, known and unknown, \nwhose inquiries or suggestions might seem to them \nnot to have been sufficiently noticed heretofore. But \nas that postscript was not pubhshed in the last num- \nber of the Evangelist, and as the editors have thus \nleft me at liberty to continue the discussion for an- \nother week, it seems proper to draw out the postscript \ninto a concluding chapter of explanations. And \nthis is the more important as the publication of my \nlast week\'s essay brought me an immediate return \nof questions, some of which seem to show that my \nviews are not yet, in all quarters, perfectly under- \nstood. \n\nI. A correspondent in Ohio, who writes as a \nfriend, though his name is to me that of a stranger, \nasks me to re-examine one position. The passage \nto which he refers is that in my second communi- \ncation, which represents the burthen of proof as de- \nvolving upon those who shall hereafter bring certain \naccusations against our missionaries and churches \namong the Cherokees and Choctaws. This, he \nthinks, is a mistake. He says, \'^ The .fact of a man \nholding his fellow-man as property, on the face of it \nappears wrong. Let the Board, by proper explana- \ntions, show that these are cases of a peculiar char- \nacter that exonerate those who do it from the charge \nof guilt. The missionaries are not a set of felons \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 23-7 \n\nthat we are trying to convict. They are honest men, \nand we will give entire credit to their statements. We \nonly ask for facts, and will judge for ourselves. If \nwe think they and the Board mistake in regard to \ntheir duty, we will say it in all kindness as friends. \nWe shall not abandon the Board or the missionaries \ntill we find they adopt as a settled policy the practice \nof admitting slaveholders to communion and church \nfellowship." \n\nI have accordingly ^\' re-examined" my position, \nand I find that my correspondent has quite mistaken \nmy meaning. If he in his turn will ^^ re-examine," \nhe will see that what I say in that place is founded \nentirely on the explanations which the missionaries, \nand the Board as speaking in their behalf, have \ngiven. My position is this : Either the report made \nat Brooklyn, and since published, is entirely unwor- \nthy of credit as a representation of facts, or if there \nis in any church under the care of our missionaries \na master who buys or sells human beings as merchan- \ndise \xe2\x80\x94 who does not recognize, in respect to his ser- \nvants, the divine sanctity of their relations as hus- \nbands and wives, and as parents and children \xe2\x80\x94 who \npermits his servants to live and die in ignorance of \nGod and of God\'s Word \xe2\x80\x94 who does not render to his \nservants that which is just and equal \xe2\x80\x94 or who re- \nfuses to acknowledge their dignity and worth as \nreasonable and immortal beings for whom Christ \ndied \xe2\x80\x94 that master, upon being convicted of any such \nspecification, \'\' would be admonished by the church, \nand unless he should repent would be excommuni- \ncated." We have the dcjclaration of the Board to \nthis effect, founded upon the information received \n11* \n\n\n\n238 THE COLLISION. \n\nfrom their missionaries, and using to a considerable \nextent the very language of the missionaries them- \nselves. From this time forward those who shall as- \nsume the responsibility of affirming the contrary, are \nbound to prove what they affirm. \n\nBut my friend says, ^\' Give us the facts, in each \ncase of slaveholding, and we will judge for ourselves." \nTo me it seems that if we know the principles on \nwhich those missionaries and churches administer \ndiscipline, and if we have their comprehensive de- \nnial of all facts inconsistent with those principles, \ntbat is enough. Whether the facts in a particular \ncase are such as show that a man is, in the judgment \nof charity, a Christian, acting in a Christian spirit, \nis a question upon which none are so well qualified \nto judge as that man\'s Christian neighbors, the very \nchurch with which he is in covenant. If my corres- \npondent is charged with being a forger, on the ground \nthat inasmuch as he is a skillful penman he has it \nin his power to commit forgery upon a sufficient \ntemptation, and if I am therefore required to deny \nhim fellowship, his denial of the charge is enough \nto put all who repeat it upon the duty of proving it. \nIf the church to which he belongs is charged with \nadmitting forgers to communion because it admits a \nman who can forge if he chooses, it is enough for \nthat church to deny the charge and to demand the \nproof. Just so if a church is charged with admitting \noppressors to communion because it admits \'\' believ- \ning masters," who could oppress if they would, and \nwho would be oppressors if they were not believers, \nit is enough for that church to meet the charge with \na denial. Such is the position of the Cherokee and \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. ^39 \n\nChoctaw churches and of the missionaries there ; \nand such is the position of the Board. \n\nIt is to be observed here that the charge of admit- \nting slaveholders to communion is not denied ; but \nthe charge of admitting o^pre^^or^ to communion is \ndenied comprehensively and in various specifica- \ntions. So, in the case supposed, the church to which \nmy correspondent belongs does not deny the charge \nof admitting to communion a man who can commit \nforgery if he will ; it only denies the charge of ad- \nmitting one wdio does comn)it forgery. If I can find \nreason to believe that a church in a slaveholding \ncountry will rigidly administer discipline against all \nspecifications of oppression, I shall not doubt that \nthe influence of that church will be as efficient for \nthe promotion of freedom and of righteousness as if \nit were to excommunicate men simply for being \nslaveholders. As for the \'\' settled policy" of the \nBoard, I can only speak from my knowledge of the \nmen and of the churches ; but I think I may say \nthat two points are immovably settled ; \xe2\x80\x94 first, that \nthe missionaries are never to permit any sort of op- \npression, on the part of those under their care as \nconverts, to pass uncensured ; and secondly, that no \nconsiderations of expediency, either political or ec- \nclesiastical, will be deemed a sufficient reason for \nadopting a formula w^hich would exclude from the \nmissionary work the author of the first epistle to \nTimothy, and of the epistles to the Ephesians and \nColossians. \n\nII. The friend who writes to me from Maine, and \nwhose ingenuousness I cannot question, has miscon- \nceived (and therefore I presume that others equally \n\n\n\n240 \'-i\'i^^ COLLISION. \n\ncandid have also misconceived) the meaning of the \nnote in which I answered a case of conscience about \na slave who runs away from the mere relation of \nsubjection to a master\'s confessedly beneficent au- \nthority. In my understanding- of the case, the mas- \nter who conducts himself in that relation according \nto the impulses of a Christian spirit, would readily \npermit his slave to emigrate, if so disposed, and \nwould put him in the way of helping himself, so \nthat the necessity of the slave\'s running away to \navoid what might happen in case of his master\'s \ndeath, and the consequent necessity of his throwing \nhimself on the sympathies of abolitionists as a men- \ndicant, would not exist. \n\nIII. Another, writing from a village in Central \nNew York, wishes me to \'^ discuss two questions." \n^\' Does the law of love plainly require any master to \ncontrol the services of his servant, against liis will, \nwithout reward, during his (the servant\'s) lifel If \nnot, does the law of love plainly ijermit the master \nto control the services of his servant, against his \nwill, without reward, during his life 1" \n\nTo discuss these questions in detail might exhaust \nthe patience of those who are waiting to reply to \nme. I can only give my opinion. (1.) The law of \nlove requires every master to render to his slaves, \nin the best practicable form, a just equivalent for all \ntheir service. He may not be able to render that \nequivalent in the form of wages, and he may err in \njudging what wages he would have to pay them in \na state of freedom ; for the theory of fair wages sup- \nposes that the laborer and employer are at once \nmutually dependent and mutually independent ; \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 241 \n\nand the rate of wages, i. e., the price of labor, i. e., \nthe share which labor is to have in the division of \nwhat is the joint product of labor, skill and capital, \nis determined, just as the price of any other com- \nmodity is determined, by the state of the market. \nBut no conscientious man will consider himself enti- \ntled to use the services of his fellow-men, simply \nbecause he has power over them, without rendering- \nto them what he in his conscience regards as a just \nequivalent. Such equivalent may be rendered in \nthe form of food, clothing, house-rent, protection, \nand an accumulating fund as in a savings bank, \nwhich is ultimately to establish the slaves as free in \nsome free country. Or it 7rMy be rendered in some \nother^way. (2.) I hold that the law of love requires \nthe master to regard the relation between himself and \nhis slaves as a relation to be dissolved as soon as it \ncan be done consistently with the welfare of the \nslaves. If one slave and another dies before that time \narrives, it is analogous to the case of an apprentice \ndying in his minority. The master\'s right to main- \ntain the relation, for the protection and government \nof the slave, as long as the slave lives, unless the \nslave chooses to become free by emigration, is far \nless doubtful than his right to maintain it till his own \ndeath shall throw them into the hands of his heirs \nor of his creditors. \n\nIV. In my description of a case of actual slave- \nholding, there was a sentence which has excited a \nviolent curiosity in the mind of the "fellow sinner," \nwho, under various signatures, has favored me with \nseveral communications, the first of which was the \n\n\n\n242 THE COLLISION. \n\ncase of conscience. Of the master whom I described, \nI said, \'\' The discipline on his plantation is not \nlax, but strict ; his people are in every respect order- \nly, and are obliged to be so." These few words \nraise in my correspondent\'s mind *^ visions of over- \nseers and cowskins ;" and he desires me to tell him \nwhether I \'\'witnessed a Christian flagellation laid \non according to apostolical sanction." Frankly, then, \nI witnessed no such thing. And furthermore, in all \nthat I have said about applying \'\' discipline," "strict \ndiscipline," in the church, to those who are guilty of \ncertain offences, I do not mean such discipline as \nhas been used against heretics in Spain, nor do I de- \nmand that the offenders shall be flogged with \'\' cow- \nskins." And if, in describing the management of a \nChristian shipmaster, setting it in contrast with that \nof many a rough and brutal captain, I should say, \n"The discipline on board his vessel is not lax, but \nstrict ; his men are in every respect orderly, and are \nobliged to be so," I should not mean that he has no \nmethod of maintaining order and discipline, but by \nthe rope\'s end. Or if, in describing a schoolmaster \nas very unlike those of the tribe of Mr. Squeers, I \nshould say, " The discipline in his school is not lax, \nbut strict ; the boys arc in every respect orderly, and \nare obliged to be so," I should not mean that he is \nin tlic habit of whipping and kicking his pupils. \nDiscipline is not of course cruelty. \n\nV. From another correspondent I have received \nseveral inquiries \xe2\x80\x94 of which he says, " These are \npractical questions, and I presume there are many \nwho would like to know how you would answer \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 243 \n\ntliem." I will, therefore, answer his questions as \nbriefly as I can, in the order in which he proposes \nthem. \n\n1. He asks whether, if a clergyman from the \nsouth should come to New Haven, and should be \ncommonly reported to be a slaveholder, I would re- \ngard that reputation as prima facie evidence against \nhim, and would, on that account, refuse to invite \nhim to my pulpit. To this I answer, that as mat- \nters now stand, in respect to discipline in the south- \nern^churches, I should delay asking a slaveholder, or \none commonly reputed to be such, to preach for me, \ntill, either by friendly conference, or in some other \nway, I had obtained such knowledge of him as would \nenable me to believe that he is endeavoring honestly, \nand in the fear of God, to render to his servants that \nwhich is just and equal. But after obtaining satis- \nfaction on this point, I should have no scruple what- \never. The difficulty is, that as matters now are, the \nfact of a man\'s being a Presbyterian minister at the \nsouth in ever so high standing, is not of itself suffi- \ncient evidence, nor is it even prima facie evidence, \nof his being free from very gross sins ; such as mak- \ning merchandise of men, women and cliildren, who \nhappen to be placed helpless in his power ; or sun- \ndering the husl^and and wife, the parents and their \nchild ; or compelling them to toil for him all their \nlives long, without once asking himself conscien- \ntiously what he owes them for their toil ; or leaving \nthem to the tender mercies of a wicked overseer, who \ncares not for their welfare or their rights. There- \nfore, as in the case of a minister from Germany, the \nofficial certificates of his ordination and of his unim- \n\n\n\n244 THE COLLISION. \n\npeached standing would be no evidence of his not \nbeing a rationalist ; and as in the case of a minister \nfrom the Church of England, the official certificates \nof his ordination and of his unimpeached standing \nwould be no proof of his making any profession of \nwhat we call evangelical piety ; so in the case of a \nminister from certain regions of the south, the like \ncertificates would be no conclusive evidence of his \nnot being an oppressor of his fellow-men. I do, in- \ndeed, know a slaveholder who often preaches for me, \nand whose slaveholding is not the least scandal in \nmy eyes. If the south were well supplied with just \nsuch ministers as he is, we might hope to see great \nchanges there. \n\n2. My friend also inquires whether, if a layman, \nreputed to be a slaveholder, should offer himself for \nadmission to my church, I would admit him without \nan examination on the point of his slaveholding. I \nanswer, that in respect to occasional communion, we \nare not accustomed to make any examination of \nstrangers professing to be Christians, who happen to \nbe present in our assemblies. But admission to \nmembership is another affair ; and if one reputed to \nbe a master of slaves should offer himself, we should \ndesire to know how he performs his duties toward \nthose ignorant, unprotected, helpless men, so abso- \nlutely committed to his power. We should certainly \ndesire to know whether he is treating them accord- \ning to the law of love, or whether he is treating \nthem as property. \n\n3. Another question is, whether I would employ \nslaveholders as missionaries, either at home or in \nforeign countries. I think that when God qualifies \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 245 \n\nand calls a southern slaveholder to preach the \ngospel, he does not often call such a man to Africa \nor China. Let him preach at home, and if he will \npreach faithfully, and administer discipline faith- \nfully, so far as the administration of discipline is in \nhis hands, I see no reason why we should not help \nhim if he needs assistance. It is by the labor of \njust such men on their native southern soil that \nslavery is to be abolished. \n\nThere is one more point of explanation to which, \nin conclusion, I would ask the attention of the \nreader. Some may think that in my theory of how \nChristianity may and will operate for the extinction \nof slaver}^, a great amount of time is required, \nwhereas we want, and ought to have, some quicker \nprocess. Undoubtedly slavery ought to be abolished \nmuch sooner than it is likely to be ; but how can we \nabolish it? The problem of the abolition of slavery \nin this country is altogether unlike the now accom- \nplished problem of the abolition of slavery in the \nBritish colonies. The abolition of slavery was \nimposed upon Jamaica and Demarara, and the other \nBritish countries at this side of the Atlantic, by an \nextrinsic physical force which could not be resisted. \nHow long Avould the abolition of slavery in those \ncountries have been deferred if it had waited for the \nspontaneous action of the colonial legislative assem- \nblies ? Had Jamaica been an independent state \n\xe2\x80\x94 had its laws been simply the expression of the \njudgments and sentiments entertained by its white \npopulation, what could have been effected there by \npolitical and religious agitation in Great Britain \n\xe2\x80\x94 liberty tickets \xe2\x80\x94 Exeter Hall speeches \xe2\x80\x94 votes of \n\n\n\n246 THE COLLISION. \n\nthe Congregational Union or of the London Mis- \nsionary Society? The slaveholding States in the \nAmerican confederation, considered as States, are \nfree ; no Imperial Parliament can dictate laws to \nthem. The abolition of slavery can be imposed \nupon them from without by no other agency than \nwar \xe2\x80\x94 an agency which I do not believe the anti- \nslavery societies or their members expect to employ. \nIn those States, then, the abolition of slavery, if \neffected by any peaceful process, Avill take place \nonly as the result of a change in the people there \n\xe2\x80\x94 a change which shall make them recognize the \nslave as a man \xe2\x80\x94 a change Avhich shall make them \nunderstand and feel that a free black peasant, \nlaboring for wages and taking care of himself, is a \npracticable thing, and is every w^ay a better thing, \nmore sightly to the eye, more agreeable to the moral \nsense, more safe and profitable to the landholder \nand to the State, than a slave laboring under the \nlash of a driver, and taken care of as a horse is b}^ \nhis owner. The true problem for anti-slavery phi- \nlanthrophy is, how to effect that change in the \nminds and hearts of the southern people \xe2\x80\x94 that \nchange in their judgments and affections \xe2\x80\x94 out of \nwhich the legislative abolition must proceed. And \nto me it seems that either that moral and intel- \nlectual change must be despaired of entirely, or the \nchief agent in effecting it must be Christianity, \nunder such an administration of it as, in these com- \nmunications, I have attempted to describe ; \xe2\x80\x94 not \nChristianity in the form of law concerning itself \nwith outward civil relations, but the Christianity of \nlight and love \xe2\x80\x94 the Christianity of spiritual indi- \n\n\n\nTHE COLLISION. 247 \n\nvidual regeneration, recognizing as Christians all \nthose^ and only those, who give evidence of loving \nGodj and of loving their neighbors as themselves. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n^-^^ ^o^yl \n\n\n\n'