REVIEW
REV. MOSES STUART'S PAMPHLET ON
SLAVERY,
CONSCIENCE AND THE CONSTITUTION,
By RUFUS "wT CLARK, A. M.
PASTOR OF THE NORT0 CHURCH, PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Originally published in the Boston Daihi Atlas]
BOSTON:
PUBLISHED BY C. C. P. MOODY,
01(1 Dickinson OflSce, 52 Wasliington Street.
1850.
NOTE.
A desire having been verj generally expressed, that the Re-
view of Professor Stuart's work on Slavery, which appeared in
the Atlas, should be published in a pamphlet form, and one gentle-
man, of great intelligence and liberality, having kindly offered to
defray the expense of an edition of three thousand copies for
gratuitous circulation, the author has been induced to accede to
this desire, with the hope that a more extended circulation of the
Review might promote the cause of human freedom.
XJutv. of Micb-
OCT 14 1933
CoPf Z
CONTENTS.
1 . Preliminary Remarks, 5
2. Professor Stuart's Introduction, 10
3. Is Slavery a "Malum in sc " an evil in itself ? 18
4. The bearing of the Old Testament upon Slavery, 23
5. Gradual Emancipation^ 28
6. The Old Testament upon the Fugitive Slave Question, 34
7. The Prophets and Slavery, 49
8. The bearing of the New Testament upon Slavery, 53
9. Mr. Webster and the Constitution, 65
10. Views of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Patrick Henry, &c. on Slavery, 72
11. The direct Question, 80
12. The Texas Question, 88
13. Concluding Remarks^ • 97
EEVIEW.
I. — PRELIMINAKY REMARKS.
It is worthy of remark, that the general and intense agitation of
the Slavery question, throughout our country at the present time,
is mainly attributable to the slave States themselves. By their
zeal for the prosecution of the Mexican war, for the purpose of ex-
tending slavery, and the consequent annexation of a large territory
to our domain, they have called into existence the State of Cahfor-
nia, whose free constitution, has not only thrown into confusion their
plans for the extension of slavery, but has aroused a degree of
feeling, and a spirit of discussion, which will not, we apprehend,
very soon abate. With all their anxiety to prevent agitation,
especially within the halls of Congress, they have been instru-
mental, indirectly, in rendering the slavery question the all-absorb-
ing topic, of at least, one session of Congress, and of directing
tow^ards its investigation, the highest order of talent in the land.
All the readable speeches that have come to us from Washington,
during the last six months, have been upon the slavery question.
The tariff, post-office reform, internal improvements, private claims,
and the Cuba expedition, have been almost lost sight of, in the
deep excitement which this subject has awakened. Reporters have
written upon little else than slavery, and thus our commercial and
political newspapers have been made the channels for communi-
cating slavery arguments and facts, p-o and eon, through every
city, town, and village in the Union. The stream of discussion,
which, but a short time since, was confined to a few newspapers
and societies, has suddenly overflowed its banks, and is now enter-
ing other channels, and employing them for the purpose of reaching
the masses of the community, upon whom the former narrow tide
was making but little impression. Matter, which but a few years
6
since, was pronounced incendiary in its character, is now gravely
embodied in speeches, made before our national Senators and
Representatives. Divines, editors, lawyers, and merchants too,
are entering the field, and the Constitutional and Scriptural argu-
ments, as well as the evils and political bearings of slavery are
freely discussed, in cars, steamboats, hotels, in the shop, at the fire-
side, upon the farm, — wherever newspapers are read, or the claims
of humanity are felt.
Nor do we see any prospect of this agitation being arrested,
while the evils of slavery exist, and especially while there is so
strong a disposition manifested by the friends of the system to extend
it over soil that is noiv free. To behold California knocking at the
door of our Union, and so long refused admittance, simply because
she presents herself in the pure white robes of liberty, with no
chain in her hand, and no curse upon her lips, with her countenance
radiant with the beauties of philanthropy and love, adorned with a
•wreath in which are inwrought the stars of our national banner,
without the stripes, is a spectacle upon which the free, intelligent
Christian citizen of this Christian Republic, cannot gaze without
emotion, dee]), strong, intense emotion. To see, too, those who
have so earnestly contended for State rights, — who have so
eloquently and vehemently advocated the doctrine that each State
should manage its own domestic institutions, standing at the door,
and saying to this fair suppliant, — You shall not enter, — saying,
as some have done, — This Union shall be shattered into a thou-
sand fragments, before our votes shall sustain this free Constitution,
— is certainly enough to awaken a spirit of agitation, which cannot
easily nor speedily be allayed.
Mr. Webster and Mr. Stuart appear before us, as professed
pacificators in the fiery conflict of opinion which is raging. They
come with their Constitutional and Rible arguments, confident that
their words will hush the storm, and reconcile the hostile parties.
But this agitation is the natural and inevitable result of the genius
of our institutions. While we are educating so many thousands of
thinking men and women, with consciences ; while our sympathies
are so often called forth in behalf of the oppressed and suffering of
other nations, while we are moved by appeals to send the blessed
Gospel to tlie miUlons who are dwelling in darkness, we cannot but
be keenly alive to the injustice, the inhumanity of American
slavery. We cannot educate our sensibilities to feel for one form of
oppression, and not for another. We cannot have hearts that throb
with intense sympathy for the struggling Hungarians, the oppressed
Poles, the vanquished Greeks, and yet remain unmoved under the
spectacle of three millions of our own citizens, laboring to rend-
asunder their chains. We cannot heap execrations upon the
Emperors of Russia and Austria, and weep over the misfortunes of
Kossuth, and yet have no pity for the panting fugitive in our own
land, whose only crime is, a desire to be free.
Scheming politicians may succeed in this, but the mass of the
people cannot. They are unable to reach such a depth of hypoc-
risy, as to regulate the exercise of their humanity by the locality
of the suffering or oppression, and be full of emotion, and over-
whelmed with indignation for wrongs committed at a distance, and
ice-hearted under scenes of distress that are at our own door. Nor
will compromise bills, speeches on the Constitution, or a labored
exegesis of scriptural authorities upon slavery, produce this result.
There is not a statesman or professor in the land, who has adroit-
ness and power enough, to give this tone to the humanity and
conscience of these Northern States. Neither is their one who has
sufficient skill to solve the problem, as to how we shall keep slavery
in the bosom of the intelligence, and light, and liberty, and Christi-
anity of this nation, and mahe it lie there quietly ; how we shall
enable two such diametrically opposing elements as American
slavery and American liberty, to harmonize and dwell together
peaceably.
Stop the tide of intelligence that is flowing from our systems
of education — extinguish the light of the Gospel, that shines with
such intensity upon the community from the American pulpit, sub-
ject humane, noble-hearted editors to an Austrian censorship, anni-
hilate three-quarters of our literature, which is so thoroughly
pervaded with the spirit of universal liberty, and then will a calm
spread over this nation, such as reigns over the Dead Sea. Then,
and not till then, can the slave-dealer listen to the music of clank-
ing chains, with none to disturb the serenity of his mind. Then,
8
and not till then, will propositions before Congress, to extend this
evil over free soil, cease to clog the wheels of government, and con-
vulse the nation.
It 13, therefore, with no spirit of false compromise, nor with any
hope of pouring oil upon the troubled waters, that we approach our
subject. Gladly would we, were it in our power, remove the evils
that disturb the peace of the nation, and endanger the stability of
the Union. Most gladly would we behold harmony pervading our
national councils, and this perplexing question put forever at rest.
But, unless it is the design of Providence, that liberty and slavery
are to run on in parallel lines in the career of this nation forever,
then the time must sooner or later come, when, under the natural
growth of liberty, and the progress of civilization, freedom must
gain upon slavery, and thus the balance of power, between
the two, be destroyed. This crisis in the life of our nation, we be-
lieve to be near. While civilization is advancing in every other
part of the world, while the despotic systems of Europe are receiv-
inc^ successive shocks, from the successive revolutions upon that
continent, and while even heathen nations are throwing open their
iron gates for the reception of Gospel truth, we do not behove that
this nation is to stand alone, deprived of the benefits of a progres-
sive civilization, and doomed forever to purchase every inch of free
soil, with an inch of slave soil. This crisis, therefore we must meet
— meet in the spirit of sincere patriots, conscientious freemen, and
devoted Christians. And though dangers thicken around us,
though the glorious fabric of our national government tremble, yet
we would repose in perfect security upon that overruling Provi-
dence, that guides the nations, and controls the destiny of every
creature.
But without further preliminary remarks, we hasten to our work.
Professor Stuart's pamphlet is entitled " Conscience and the
Constitution, with remarks on the recent speech of the Hon.
Daniel Webster, on the subject of Slavery." After a careful
perusal of what Mr. Stuart has written, and observing how few
pages are devoted strictly to " Conscience and the Constitution,"
we should give the pamphlet the following title : " A plea for
American Slavery, based upon Scriptural Authorities, with expres-
9
sions of admiration for Mr. Webster; the whole interspersed with
arguments and declarations, which overthrow all that is adduced in
favor of Slavery."
This is no caricature, as we shall endeavor most abundantly to
prove ; and here I would remark, once for all, that I shall studi-
ously guard against saying any thing, that may be regarded as dis-
respectful or unkind. Nothing is gained to any cause by indulging
in vituperation, unjust sarcasm, or personal abuse. Our business is
with arguments and facts, not with persons.
Mr. Stuart devotes the first twenty-two pages of his pamphlet
to a somewhat tedious narration of his personal political history, and
towards the close of his introduction, administers what he designs
for a severe rebuke to those who have taken the liberty to dissent
from Mr. Webster. He then (§2) considers " the attitude of
slavery, as presented by the Old Testament," and under this head
endeavors to prove, that slavery is not a " malum in se," and in the
course of his reasoning, manifests strong opposition to those who
maintain the contrary opinion.
In section third, (pp. 43-56) he presents his views of " the
attitude of slavery in the New Testament," and contends that
« AVliile almost every prevailing sin of the day is expressly and strongly de-
nounced by the Saviour, he does not once touch on the abuses of slavery. Not
even in his Sermon on the Mount, has he brought this matter into view."
In bringing his scriptural authorities to bear againsts the oppo-
nents of slavery, and especially against those who have conscien-
tious scruples in regard to delivering up fugitives, he manifests a
zeal " to make out a case," and he writes in a tone of triumph,
which we regret to see. If the Bible sanctions slavery in any of
its forms, it would have been more befitting an author to have pre-
sented his arguments in a tone of sorrow, rather than of triumph.
In section fourth, Mr. Stuart remarks upon " the influence
which Christian princi[)les should have upon our minds, in relation
to conscience, and to the agitated question of the day." Under
this head he takes up several points in Mr. Webster's speech of
March 7th, which he defends with much warmth ; and although he
states at the outset, that it is his purpose to present the scriptural
*1
10
view of slavery, yet lie wanders into the political arena, whither ^Ye,
after revi wing his Bible arguments, propose to follow him.
Towards the close of his pamphlet, he addresses to slaveholders a
very faithful exhortation upon the evils of slavery ; an exhortation,
however, which, after they have fortified their consciences, with the
arguments, and imbibed the spirit that precedes, we imagine they
will be in no favorable mood to receive.
II. — PROFESSOR STUART'S INTRODUCTION.
Although we have much matter here which has little relevance,
to the question at issue, yet there are some points that deserve our
attention, before we enter upon the main arguments. AYhat the
Professor says with reference to his right to discuss the subject of
slavery, and give his views to the public, receives our cordial
approval.
" It lies," he says, page 4, " ■witbin my proper sphere of duty to hold up be-
fore the -Nvo Id, the declarations and doctrines of God's eternal word ; for I
have been a preacher of the Gospel, according to the best of my knowledge
and ability, for more than forty-five years. More than forty of these have
been spent in the study of the Bible; and the consequence has been, that this
book has taken a paramount place in my reverence, and in my sense of duty
to obey it."
In reference to his right to sound " the words of prophets and
apostles in the ears of our great community," he adds :
" I claim that right. I expect, however, to be condemned by some, and
perhaps maligned by others, for exercising that right. No matter. It is but of
little consequence what becomes of me, if the teachings of ' the glorious Gos-
pel of the blessed God ' may come in their simplicity, and power, and authority,
before the public in any manner that will attract their attention."
This same right we claim, and surely we have no stronger desire,
than that " the teachings of the glorious Gospel of our blessed
God," may not only receive the attention of the community, but
also may convince their understandings, and sanctify their hearts.
And if Mr. Stuart claims the right of agreeing with Mr.
Webster, and of giving his reasons for so doing, we equally claim
11
the rlglit of disagreeing Tvitli liim, and of giving our reasons for so
doin^^. Indeed, while reading that remarkable speech, I could not
but be reminded of the many forcible and splendid passages of the
former speeches of the great statesman, wherein he so nobly eulo-
gizes the cause of liberty, and so carefully instructs us in reference
to our duty in guarding the citadel of freedom. In his speech on
the President's Protest, he says :
" "We have been taugbt to regard a representative of the people as a sentinel
upon the watchtower of liberty. Is he to be blind, though visible danger
approaches ? Is he to be deaf, though sounds of peril fill the air ? Is he to be
dumb, while a thousand duties impel him to raise the cry of alarm ? Is he not
rather to catch the lowest whisper that breaths intention or purpose of en-
croachment on the public liberties, and to give his voice, breath, and utterance at
the first appearance of danger ? Is not his eye to traverse the whole horizon
with the keen and eagle vision of an unhooded hawk, detecting through all dis-
guises, every enemy advancing in any form towards the citadel he guards."
These noble sentiments were lingering about my memory, while
I read in Mr. Webster's slavery speech such passages as the
following :
" As far as the new acquisitions are concerned, I am disposed to leave them
to be disposed of as the hand of Nature shall determine. It is what I always
have insisted upon. Leave that portion of the country more natural to a non-
slaveholding population to be filled by that description of population, and leave
that portion into which slavery would naturally go, to be filled by a slave-
holding population — destroying artificial lines ; though perhaps they may be
better than none."
" Therefore, I repeat, sir, and I repeat it because I wish It to be understood,
that I do not propose to address the Senate often on tliis subject. I desire to
pour out all my heart In as plain a manner as possible ; and I say again, that if
a proposition were now here for a government for New Mexico, and it was
moved to insert a provision for a prohibition of slavery, I would not vote for it."
Again, in the same speech, on the President's Protest, Mr.
Webster says :
" The spirit of liberty is indeed a bold and fearless spirit ; but it is also a
sharp-sighted spirit ; it is jealous of encroachment, jealous of power, jealous of
man. It seeks for guards ; it entrenches itself behind strong defences, and for-
tifies with all possible care, against the assaults of ambition and passion."
12
Yes, under tlie tuition of such sentiments, we have been taught
to guard the spirit of hberty. This spirit has entrenched itself in
the philanthropy and Christianity of these Northern States, and
there we believe it is fortified " with all possible care against the
assaults of ambition and passion," — even the ambition of him who
has so suddenly left the watchtower of Liberty, to become the
guardian of Slavery.
It is with the keenest regret that we, in common with thousands
and tens of thousands of others, feel called upon to dissent from the
views and doctrines which Mr. Webster has advanced in his
slavery speech. We cannot forget his past invaluable services
in the councils of our nation, his patriotic defence of our free insti-
tutions in the hour of peril, his amicable settlement of the boundary
question with Great Britain, — a deed for which he deserves the
thanks of the civilized world. But we have not been such unfaith-
ful scholars, in the school of the great New England statesman, as
now to repudiate the lessons which he has taught us. We have
not listened to his thrilling eloquence so inattentively, we have not
looked at his noble principles, and patriotic sentiments, so cursorily,
as now, even at the dictation of the master himself, to do violence
to the dictates of conscience, and the promptings of humanity.
We may, indeed, be told that the design of Mr. Webster in his
speech was to present the constitutional argument upon the slavery
question, and thus allay the intense excitement which pervaded the
nation, and that he is not to be condemned until his arguments are
refuted. Mr. Stuart remarks (page 22) : " It is my sober con-
viction that very much less of excitement would now exist, did not
the array of Mr. Webster's arguments appear so formidable."
Without wishing to anticipate, here, the considerations of these
arguments, which we shall take up in the order in which they are
noticed in the pamphlet before us, I cannot yet forbear remarking,
that the warmest friends and ablest defenders of Mr. Webster can
not deny that this speech is thoroughly pro-slavery in its character.
The spirit of slavery runs through it from the beginning to the
end. We look in vain for one breath of humanity, for one bright
spot to relieve the total darkness. Even the few cold thoughts
that he tells us, he designed to utter respecting the unjustifiable
13
imprisonment of our free citizens in South Carolina and otiier
Southern States, are forgotten in his overwhelming zeal to protect
the peculiar institution; and thej come in afterwards, to claim their
place in the published reports of the speech.
Had Mr. Webster risen in the Senate with his soul filled with
indignation at the wrongs that the North has suffered from the
South, would this subject have been forgotten ? Would he have
remembered so much on the other side of the question, and have
allowed this httle fragment for freedom to have escaped his
memory ? *
When upon the Wilmot Proviso, he seemed most tenderly alive
to the delicate sensibilities of the South, and would on no account
wound their pride. And this speech comes from his lips when they
are scarcely cold from those warm and sympathetic utterances
which have gone forth in behalf of the vanquished, oppressed
Hungarians. Yes, after weeping over a fleeing Kossuth, and heap-
ing the most crushing anathemas upon the Emperor of Russia, for
demanding, in violation of the laws of nations, the laws of con-
science, and the laws of God, that the Turkish government deliver
him up, he enters the American Senate Chamber and pronounces
this speech ! Had these three millions of slaves been in the heart
of France, or within the confines of Great Britain, or on Mexican
soil, would not at least one burning word have reached and cheered
their hearts ?
But we may be met with the inquiry, what right have you to call
in question the words or measures of public men ? I reply, the
very right that the great statesman himself contends for in the
following declaration :
" The more I perceive a disposition to check the freedom of Inquiry by ex
travagant and unconstitutional pretences, the firmer shall be the tone, in which
I shall assert, and the freer the manner, In which I shall exercise It. It Is the
ancient and undoubted prerogative of this people to canvass public measures
and the merits of public men. It Is a ' home-bred right ; ' a fireside privilege
* From all the evidence we can gather, wc have reason to believe that Mr.
Webster had a note of this topic in his minutes, and designed to allude to it,
but his mind was so full of the v:ronqs that the South has suffered from the
North, that he forgot it ! ! Unfortunate, indeed !
u
It hath ever been enjoyed in every house, cottage, and cabin in the nation,
It is not to be drawn into the controversy. It is as undoubted as the ri'dit of
breathing the air, or walking on the earth. Belonging to private lile as a
right, it belongs to public life as a duty ; and it is the last duty, which those,
whose representative I am, shall find me to abandon. Aiming at all times to be
courteous and temperate in its use, except when the right itself shall be ques-
tioned, I shall then carry it to its extent. I shall place myself on the extreme
boundary of my rights, and bid defiance to any arm that would move me from
my ground. This high constitutional privilege I shall defend and exercise
within this house, and without this house, and in all places, in time of war, in
time of peace, and at all times. Living, I shall assert it , dying, I shall assert
it ; and should I leave no other inheritance to my children, by the blessing of
God, I will still leave them the inheritance of free principles, and the example
of a manly, independent, and conscientious discharge of them." — Speech in
Congress, 1814.
Under this broad shield we shall proceed with our work.
Mr. Stuart, in the latter part of his Introduction, alludes to the
objectionable company in which the judicious and Christian dissent-
ers from Mr. Webster find themselves, classing them, though not
associating them, with the ultra and fanatical abolitionists. He
sajs, " it is an unblest, unnatural union — this union of these with
those — one of the matches not made in heaven, that has brought
together such reputable men," and those who have heaped upon
him abuse, &c. Now, I see not why Mr. Stuart should class those
whom he calls " men of intelligence, of patriotism, of integrity,
men adorned with every civil and social virtue," with the ultraists
referred to, any more than they should class him and Dr. Woods,
and Prof. Emerson, who signed the Webster letter, with the fanati-
cal and infidel defenders of slavery, with slave drivers and men
stealers. For one, I have too much respect for these honored and
conscientious Professors to associate them with such men. They
stand infinitely above them, in point of moral excellence, integrity,
patriotism, and every Christian virtue. Their characters are
unblemished. Their piety is undoubted. The services they have
rendered in their several departments of Biblical literature, didactic
theology, and ecclesiastical history, entitle them to the lasting
gratitude of the American church.
But we would say, that of a very large proportion of their com-
pany, these gentlemen who dissent from Mr. Webster have no
15
reason to be asliamed. If they stand on this question with Jeffer-
son, Patrick Henry, Channing, Barnes and Wayland, of our own
country, with Clarkson, Sharp, Macaulay and Wilberforce, who
headed the anti-slavery movement in England, with Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia,
as they stood, or a large portion of their inhabitants at least, as far
back as 1791, when they sent in memorials to Congress for the
abolition of slavery ; — if they stand with the members of the
Legislatures of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and Ohio, all of whom
expressed strong anti-slavery views at their last sessions, they have
no reason to be ashamed of their company.
In order to shoAV the extent to which the views prevail, which
have been advanced by the Boston Atlas, by the members of Con-
gress and the masses of intelligent and patriotic citizens in Massa-
chusetts, who have dissented from Mr. Webster, I will quote from
the action of some of these Legislative bodies. To go back, how-
ever, first to the memorialists of 1791.
In the memorial from Connecticut it is stated :
" That the whole system of African slavery is unjust in its nature, impolitic
in its principles, and in its consequences ruinous to the industiy and enter-
prise of the citizens of these States."
The memorialists from Pennsylvania say : —
" We wish not to trespass on your time by referring to the different declara-
tions made by Congress, on the inaUcnahle right of all men to equal liberty,
neither would we attempt in this place, to point out the inconsistency of
extending freedom to a part only of the human race."
Hear, however, the voice that sixty years ago was uttered by
Virginia : —
" Your memorialists believing that ' righteousness exaltetb a nation,' and
that slavery is not only an odious degradation, but an outrageous violation of
one of the most essential rights of human nature, and utterly repugnant to the
precepts of the gospel, which breathes ' peace on earth, and good will to men,'
they lament that a practice so inconsistent with ti'ue policy, and the inalienable
16
rights of men, should subsist in an enlightened age, and among a people pro-
fessing that all mankind are hy nature equally entitled to freedom."
These memorials were not only read in the House of Representa-
tives, but were referred to a select committee.
The following are some of the resolutions passed by the States
referred to : —
MAINE, (July 6, 1849.)
" Whereas, The people of Maine regard slavery with feelings of profound
abhorrence, as conflicting with the great principles of freedom and free gov-
ernment, detrimental to political progress ; that it ought not to be upheld or
sanctioned in the capital of our glorious Union, the very sanctuary of liberty ;
therefore,
" Resolved, That our Senators and Representatives in Congress be requested
to use their utmost influence to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the
District of Columbia by all constitutional means."
MASSACHUSETTS, (April 27, 1850.)
" Whereas, The people of Massachusetts, acting under a solemn sense of duty,
have deliberately and repeatedly avowed their purpose to resist the extension
of slavery into the National Territories, or the admission of new slave States
into the Union, and for these ends, to apply, in every practical mode, the
principles of the Ordinance of 1787; also, to seek the abolition of slavery
and the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and the withdrawal of the
power and influence of the General Government from the support of slavery,
so far as the same may be constitutionally done ; and whereas, the important
questions now before the country, make it desirable that these convictions
should be reaffirmed. * * * *
" Resolved, That the integrity and permanence of American power on the
Pacific Ocean, the increase of our commerce and wealth, the extension of our
institutions, and the cause of human freedom on this continent, require the
immediate admission of California into this Union, with her present constitu-
tion, without reference to any other question or measure whatever.
" Resolved, That the sentiments of the people of Massachusetts, as expressed
in their legal enactments, in relation to the delivering up of fugitive slaves,
remain unchanged ; and, inasmuch as the legislation necessary to give effect
to the clause of the Constitution, relating to this subject, is within the exclu-
sive jurisdiction of Congress, we hold it to be the duty of that body to pass
sueh laws only, in regard thereto, as will be sustained by the public sentiment
of the free States, where such laws are to be enforced, and which shall espe-
cially secure to all persons, whose surrender may be claimed, as having
escaped from labor and service in other States, the right of having the validity
of such claim determined by a jury in the State where such claim is made.
17
" Resolved, That the people of Massachusetts, in the maintenance of these,
their well known and invincible principles, expect that all their officers and
representatives will adhere to them at all times, on all occasions, and
under all circumstances.
The above passed the Senate with only four dissenting voices,
and in the House unanimously.
NEW HAMPSHIRE, (July, 1849.)
In substance as follows :
1. That the people deeply regret the existence of slavery in this Union, as
a great social evil, and fraught with danger to the peace and welfare of the
nation. 2. That both the opponents of slavery and slaveholding communities,
have in periods of excitement, resorted to measures they have opposed and
censured, and slaveholding communities have resorted to measures equally de-
serving of the severest condemnation. 3. That they will respect all the rights
which the Constitution guarantees to the slave States. 4. That they are firmly
and unalterably opposed to the extension of slavery over any portion of
American soil now free.
VERMONT, (Nov. 12, 1849.)
Resolved hj the Senate and House of Representatives, That slavery is a
crime against humanity, and a sore evil in the body politic, that was excused
by the framers of the Federal Constitution as a crime entailed upon the
country by their predecessors, and tolerated solely as a thing of inexorable
necessity.
Resolved, That our Senators and Representatives in Congress be requested
to resist, by all and every constitutional means, the extension of slavery in any
manner, whether by the annexation to slaveholding Texas, of territory now
free, or by the admission to the Union of Territory already acquired, or which
may be hereafter acquired, without any prohibition of Slavery.
NEW YORK, (Feb., 1850.)
In substance as follows :
1. That laws should be passed that will effectually and forever put an end
to the slave trade in the District of Columbia. 2. That they will oppose, by
all constitutional means, the extension of slavery over the territory acquired
from Mexico. 3 That the extension of human slavery, or the jurisdiction of
Texas over any part of New Mexico, shall be firmly resisted. 4, That Cali-
fornia should be admitted into the Union, with her present Constitution. 5.
That the people of New York will oppose all attempts to effect a dissolution
of the Union.
2
18
OHIO.
The Democratic Convention passed the following resolution,
January 8, 1850
Resolved — That the people of Ohio, now, as they always have done, look
upon the institution of slavery In any part of the Union, as an evil, as un-
favorable to the full developement of the spirit and practical benefits of free
institutions ; and that, entertaining these sentiments, they will at the same time
feel It to be their duty to use all power clearly given by the national compact,
to prevent its increase, to mitigate, and finally to eradicate the evil.
The Whig State Convention, on the 6th May, 1850 :
Resolved — That in all territorial governments hereafter organized by Con-
gress, we here reiterate the principle declared by the Whig State Convention
of 1848, " that there shall be neither slavery nor Involuntary servitude therein,
otherwise than for the punishment of crime."
I have before me, also, the action of more than twelve of our most
influential ecclesiastical bodies, that have passed resolutions similar
to these. Some of these I shall have occasion to quote in connec-
tion with other points.
Besides, there is a vast amount of hostility to this system, in the
Northern, Western, and even some of the Southern States, which
has never been expressed beyond private circles, because of the in-
judicious and denunciatory course of the extreme ultraists upon this
question. These thousands have been and continue to be silent,
from the fear of being charged with being parties to " an unjust
and unnatural union," such as Mr. Stuart refers to.
NO. m. — IS SLAVERY A "MALUM IN SE"— AN EVIL IN
ITSELF ?
In § 2, Mr. Stuart discusses this question, and takes the ground
that slavery is not a malum in se, and appeals to the Bible to prove
the correctness of his position,
" One leading position of the anti-slavery party," he says,
(p.22,) " a thousand, thousand times repeated, is, that slavery, on
the part of the master is a crime of the first magnitude, — a real
19
malum in se — a crimen capitis — a misdeed to be placed by the
side of murder, adultery, robbery, treason, and the like."
Now, this language or form of putting the question I do not
appear here to defend, neither am I called upon to defend those, if
they are such, who use this language. As I belong to no anti
slavery party, or society, I have nothing to do with their phraseo-
logy, except to remark, that it is often of such a character as to
impede the progress of the cause that they espouse, and seriously
embarrass the action of the mass of judicious, though decided and
earnest opponents of the system of slavery.
It is sufficient, therefore, in order to meet fairly and fully our
author's reasoning, to take the position that slavery is a sin, a " ma-
lum in se," and as such has no warrant in the Holy Scriptures. If
I understand Professor Stuart, he denies this. At the close of his
Old Testament argument, he says, (p. 42) : " It will not do here
to alledge that the Hebrews were permitted to hold slaves, because
they were an obstinate and rebellious people. It is only in matters
less strenuous than this, (I mean such as were not mala in se,')
that any indulgence of this kind could be granted. *****
Slavery, therefore, under the Jewish dispensation, by purchase from
the heathen, was not one of these crimes."
In opposition to this, I affirm that slavery, or the subjecting of
our fellow men to involuntary servitude, and forcing them to labor
for our benefit, is semper et ubique, always and every where a sin,
a direct violation of our obligations to man and our duties to God.
The guilt of this sin, however, is not in all cases equal, but varies
according to the light that the slaveholder enjoys, and the civil
laws under which he lives. Should Professor Stuart, or the Hon.
Daniel Webster, purchase and own slaves they would be vastly
more guilty than Senator Foote or the delegates to the Nashville
Convention would be, should they do the same thing.
In some parts of the South, there are many circumstances that
greatly mitigate the guilt of this sin, and I rejoice to acknowledge,
that some masters and mistresses treat their servants with great
kindness.
Before subjecting the position which we have assumed to the test
of the Bible, it will aid us, in our discussion, to define the meaning of
20
the phrase malum in se. The word malum, as used by latin authori.
ty, sometimes means simply an injury or hurt, without any moral
quality pertaining thereto. Cicero thus uses it in the passage " ma-
Imn mihi videtur esse mors.'''' (see Stuart's Ed. of Select Classics,
vol. 1, p. 17, § 6.) At other times it is used in the sense of moral
evil. Our author designs, no doubt, to use this term in his pamph-
let, in a very definite sense ; and, yet, in a letter Avhich he wrote
to Dr. Fisk, under date of Andover, April 10, 1837, which letter
was published, he said, in speaking of the sin of slavery, " The abuse
of it is the essential and fundamental wrong. Not that the theory
of slavery is right in itself. No. ' Love thy neighbor as thyself.'
But the relation, once constituted and continued, is not such a
malum in se as calls for immediate and violent disruption at all
hazards."
" Not such a malum in se''' Then, it seems, in the view of our
author, that there are different kinds of mala in se, but which kind
slavery is he does not inform us. " But the relation once consti-
tuted and continued, is not such," &c. Then, if we understand
this language, the sin and guilt of slavery lessens after the relation is
constituted and continued ; that is, the longer a man holds his
slaves, the less is his guilt ; a doctrine which it would certainly not
be very safe for us to apply, from the pulpit to other sins. If I
steal my neighbor's horse, the relation of thief, " once constituted
and continued," would not, I think, lessen the sinfulness of the
act. But the Professor says too, " Not that the theory of slavery
is right in itself." If now, the theory of slavery is not right, it is
obviously wrong, and morally wrong.
Indeed, Professor Stuart acknowledges on the very next page,
after given the leading position of his opponents, respecting the sin-
fulness of slavery, (page 23,) that " slavery for the most part, ori-
ginates in violence, and has its deepest foundation in the simple,
but utterly unjust principle, that " miglit is right:' Now, if it " ori-
ginates in violence, and has its deepest foundation in the uttcrhj un-
just principle, that might is right," is it not properly termed a mor-
al evil, a " real malum in se? " Can that which rest upon an utter-
ly unjust principle, be right under any circumstances ?
I dwell thus upon this point, because it is a fundamental point
21
in our argument, and because Professor S. devotes a large portion
of his pamphlet to prove from the Bible that slavery is not a malum
in se. Indeed, this opinion is the great " quietus " to the con-
sciences of Christian slaveholders, and its fallacy should be exposed.
There is one important distinction, however, to be made between
the nature of sin, and the guilt of sin. One may " offend against
right," or transgress a moral law of God, ignorantly, and not be
chargable with guilt ; while another with greater light and know-
ledge, may commit a similar act and grossly sin.
This distinction with reference to the terms, " ??«orflZ eyj7 " is
brought out with great clearness and force by President Wayland,
(see letter to Dr. Fuller, page 2-1) whose authority as well as words, I
am happy to quote. He says : " The term moral evil may be used
to designate two ideas, widely dissimilar from each other, and
depending upon entirely different principles. In the one sense it
means wrong, the violation of the relations which exist between the
parties, the transgression of the moral law of God. In the other
sense, it signifies the jjersonal guilt, which attaches to the being
who does the wrong, violates the obligation, or transgresses the law.
In the first sense, moral evil depends upon the immutable rela-
tions which God has established between his moral creatures.
In the second sense, meaning personal guilt, it depends upon
light, knowledge of duty, means of obtaining information on the
subject, and may be different in different persons, and at different
times."
He also adds : — "It has seemed to me that much of the mis-
understanding which has existed on this subject has arisen from the
want of attention to this obvious distinction. We at the North,
have considered too exclusively the first, and you, at the South, as
exclusively the second of these meanings of the term moral evil. The
one party has shown that slavery is always a violation of right, and
has inferred, that, therefore, it always involves equal guilt.
The other party has urged the circumstances in which they and
their slaves are placed, and has aimed to show that in their present
condition they are not necessarily chargeable with guilt, and hence
have inferred that slavery is not a wrong, or the violation of any
moral law."
2*
22
President Wayland then goes fully into his reasons for regarding
slavery as a moral evil, after making the following declaration : "I
believe it to be a wrong, utterhj and absolutely at variance with the
relations which God has established between his moral and intelli-
gent creatures."
Mr. Stuart accuses the enemies of slavery of calling it " a sin of
the first magnitude." How many degress below this will he place
it ? In his classification of sins, where will he in insert this, that he
acknowledges rests " upon an utterly unjust principle," that he
would sooner " cut off his right hand " than vote for, that " turns
the image of God into goods and chattels.,'
The truth is, that Mr. Stuart has so much conscientiousness, so
much Christianity in his heart, that he cannot prevent the scintilla-
tions of his humanity and sense of right, from bursting up through
the frame work of his cold arguments.
Throughout his pamphlet, as we shall soon see, there are scatter-
ing these columns of light that cheer on the reader in his pilgrim-
age through this waste of exploded theories, and serve to reveal the
fallacy of all the arguments that are adduced in favor of slavery.
The Hon. Mr. Webster is unfortunate in having so conscientious
a defender. Would he obtain solid and lasting comfort under his
present trials, he must go elsewhere than to the Theological Semi-
nary at Andover. Where all* three of the Professors who signed
the letter of approval, to rush to his rescue, I apprehend that they
would not be able to render him any very essential service. Men
who have been studying all their lives such passages as " Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself," " Whatsoever ye would that men
should do unto you, do ye also unto them," are not able to render
consolation adequate to the present case.
In succeeding numbers we shall bring slavery to the test of
scripture authority, and endeavor to show that it is a malum in se,
or more definitely, a moral evil.
* It is due to the reputation of the venerable and highly respected Theolo-
gical Institution at Andover, to state, that only one of the Professors officially
connected with the Seminary signed the letter of approbation that was sent to
Mr. Webster.
23
IV. THE BEARING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT UPON
SLAVERY.
Does the Bible sanction slavery in any of its forms, or under any
circumstances ?
This is the question now before us, and we wish to meet it fairly
and honestly. We have no disposition to turn or twist any passage
out of its obvious meaning to suit our views, neither shall we soften
down any testimonies or denunciations that we find recorded against
this great system of iniquity.
We allow that slavery is an institution of great antiquity. It ex-
isted before the flood — in the times of the patriarchs — under the
Mosaic dispensation — when the prophets wrote — and at the time
Christianity was established. Under the patriarchs, however, the
system existed under many modifications, which rendered it less se-
vere and rigorous than it is in our own land. Moses found the in-
stitution in existence, and at once enacted laws for the regulation of
master and slave, and to ameliorate the condition of the slave. He
provided that Hebrew men should be held in slavery only six years,
and that on the seventh year the^ should go free. Mr. Stuart
gives us a view of the manner in which men became slaves, and of
their condition among the Hebrews, which is substantially the same
view that is given by Yahn, in his Biblical Archreology, by Home,
in his Introduction to the critical study of the Holy Scriptures, and
by Commentators in general.
I will sketch briefly the ways in which men became slaves, and
the treatment they received, using in part the language of Yahn,
as translated by Professor Upham, in order that the whole subject
may be fairly before us, and that we may be able to compare He-
brew slavery with American slavery.
Men became slaves :
1. Bi/ being taken captives in war. Some supposed this to have
been the origin of Slavery. — Deut. xx. 11, xxi. 10.
2. By debts- These, as well as captivity in war, became an oc-
casion of slavery, when they were so large that the debtor was una-
ble to pay them. — 2d of Kings iv. 1. Isaiah 1. 1.
3. Bg theft, when the thief was too poor to repay the amount
that he had stolen.
24
4. By man stealing. Against this crime, Moses enacted laws of
very great severity. — Exodus xxi. 16. " He that stealeth a man,
and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be
put to death."
Upon this passage, the Rev. Albert Barnes, one of our most dis-
tinguished scholars and ablest critics, makes the following remarks
in his " Scriptural views of Slavery," p. 118.
" The place which this solemn prohibition occupies in the Mosaic system, and
the circumstances of the Hebrew people at the time, deserve to be attentively
considered. It is among the first of the precepts which were uttered after the
giving of the ten commandments on Mount Sinai. It was designed to stand
among the precepts which were regarded as elementary. * * * * The
crime referred to in this law of Moses, is stated in a three-fold form — stealing,
selling and holding a man. All these are put on a level, and in each case the
penalty was the same — death. This is, of course, the highest penalty that can
be inflicted, and this shows that Moses ranked this among the highest crimes
known to his laws. It is worthy of observation, also, that Moses distinguishes
this in the strongest manner from all other kinds of theft. In no other case in
his laws, is theft punishable with death."
5. By birth., when the parents were slaves.
6. By voluntary sale, as when a man oppressed by poverty sold
himself.
7. By purchase, by one master of another.
This was the most common method of obtaining them. The price
of a slave was different, at different times, varying with the age, sex,
health, skill, &c., or of the individual sold.
Let us now consider the condition of slaves among the Hebrews.
The great and redeeming feature of this system was that the
seventh year, and especially on the year of jubilee, all the Hebrew
slaves ivere permitted to go free. But, besides this, Moses required :
1. That servants or slaves should be treated with the greatest
humanity.
2. That the master Avho slew a servant, of whatever origin, with
a rod or by means of blows, should be punished according to the
will or pleasure of the judge.
3. He also enacted if the master injured the servant by destroying
an eye or a tooth, that is, according to the spirit of the law, by injur-
25
ing any member whatever, the servant, in consequence of this,
should receive his freedom. See Exodus, xxi. 26, 27.
4. That the servants, on every Sabbath, and on all festival occa-
sions, should enjoy a cessation from their labors. Exod. xx. 10 ;
Deut. V. 14.
5. That the servants in accordance with an ancient law or cus-
tom, to which there is an allusion in Job xxiv. 10,11, were entitled
to, and should receive, an adequate subsistence from those to whom
they were subject. Deut. xxv. 4 ; comp. 1. Tim. v. 18; 1 Cor.
ix. 9.
6. Slaves who were Hebrews by birth were permitted to possess
a little property of their own, as may be learned from Lev. xxv.
49, compared with II. Sam. 9, 10.
Such, then, is a concise view of Hebrew slavery, in an age of
comparative ignorance and darkness. With regard, however, to
slaves obtained from among the Canaanites, I would remark, that
these were treated, in some respects, with more severity than the
Hebrew slaves. All, however, were required to be circumcised,
and were thus admitted to all the privileges of the Jewish religion.
But the inquiry now arises, if slavery is a moral evil, a sin, why did
God sanction it among his chosen people ? If, by the word " sanc-
tion," the inquirer means approve, I would reply, that God did not
sanction or approve of slavery, any more than he sanctioned or ap-
proved of polygamy, or concubinage, sins that were then prevalent ;
or any more than he approved of bloody and cruel wars, when he
allowed, and even commanded, the Hebrews to slay the idolatrous
Canaanites. If by sanction the inquirer means permission, then I
reply :
1. That God has seen fit to make to mankind a gradual revela-
tion of his will, aflfording more light to those living in patriarchal
times than to the antediluvians, more to those living under the Mo-
saic dispensation than to their predecessors, more to the Christians
than to the Jews, and he has permitted this and other sins because
of the people's " hardness of heart."
2. Had Moses at once abolished slavery, and the same remark
will apply to polygamy and divorce, the results might have been
destructive to his administration, and the whole Mosaic economy.
26
We should remember how obtuse were the moral sensibilities of those
with whom he had to deal, — how feeble was the light that they en-
joyed, and how difficult it was for him to keep the whole people from
faUing into the grossest idolatry. Had he, under such circumstan-
ces, positively forbidden these sins, his authority would doubtless
have been derided, and all his designs of gradually elevating and
instructing the people would have been defeated.
With regard to polygamy and divorce, we know that these are
violations of the principles which God has estabUshed between the
sexes, and contrary to his law. Yet Moses did not forbid these sins.
He not only allowed them, but estabUshed laws prescribing the man-
ner in which a wife should be put away, and the rights of the first
born be decided. The views advanced by our Saviour, in his dis-
cussion with the Jews on this point, as recorded by Matt. xix. 3 —
9, are worthy of our special attention.
" The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him : Is
it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause ? And he answered
and said unto them : Have ye not read that he which made them at the begin-
ning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave
father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh ?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath
joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, AVhy did Moses
then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away ? He
saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put
away your wives ; lut from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you
Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall,
marry another, commiteth aduUerr/, and whoever marrieth her which is put
away, doth commit adultery."
Here we see that an act that is permitted and regulated by Mosaic
laws, under one degree of light, is under another and higher degree,
pronounced, by the highest authority, adultery. Will not Professor
Stuart acknowledge that the sin of adultery is a malum in se ? If
he does acknowledge it, then he utterly destroys his whole train of
aro'ument, by which he endeavors to prove that slavery is not a
^^ malum in s*?." For he distinctly and repeatedly affirms, that if
slavery is a malum in se, God would never have sanctioned, or per-
mitted it ; and it follows that if adultery is a malum in se, God could
not have sanctioned or permitted this. Observe that our Saviour
27
does not say that the putting away of a wife, &c., is like adultery,
or as bad as adultery, but he that doeth this committeth adultery.
What kind of a sin, therefore, I ask Professor Stuart, is adultery ?
Let us hear his own words. On page 42, in summing up his old
testament argument, he says :
" I have but one question more to ask, and I shall then leave this part of our
subject. This question is very simple and plain : Did the God of the Hebrews
give permission to them to commit a malum in se ? Did he give unlimited
liberty to do that which is equivalent to murder and adultery ? To this point
the, matter comes. There is no shunning the question. It will not do here, to
alledge that the Hebrews were permitted to hold slaves, because they were an
obstinate and rebellious people. It is only in matters less strenuous than this,
(I mean such as were not mala in se,) that any indulgence of the kind could
be granted. Crimes mala in se cannot be transformed into no crimes, by heaven
or earth, Slaveiy, therefore, under the Jewish dispensation, by purchase from
the heathen, was not one of these crimes. The God of the Bible could never
sanction the commission of such."
Again, on page 22, he accuses his opponents of making slavery
" a misdeed to be placed by the side of murder, adultery, &c."
Now I wish to press this point with all the force that the case
demands. The " question is very simple and plain." Indeed it is.
" Did the God of the Hebrews give permission to them to commit a
malum in se .? " I answer, if he permitted them to do that, which
under a higher degree of light Christ pronounced adultery, and if
adultery is a malum in se, as Professor Stuart, by the plainest im-
plication acknowledges, (for he clasess adultery with murder, for
the express purpose of showing that it is a malum in se, and as
such a higher crime than slavery,) then God does give permission
to commit a malum in se, in the circumstances referred to. " To
this point the matter comes. There is no shunning the question."
There is indeed no shunning it. If Professor Stuart affirms, as he
has done, " that the God of the Bible could never sanction " or per-
mit a malum in se, and if Christ affirms, as he has done, that a form
of adultery (which sin Professor Stuart admits is a malum in se,')
was sanctioned by God on account of the hardness of the Hebrew
heart, then either Christ or our author is in the wrong. To which
shall we bow ? and what becomes of Professor Stuart's boasted ar-
gument ?
28
What too shall we say of one, standing as high as Professor Stuart
does, for putting into the minds of the slaveholders in our land, the
idea that the Bible does not condemn slavery as an evil in itself, and
thus strengthening, by a false exegesis, this gigantic system of ini-
quity ! ! In the name of the 3,000,000 of oppressed slaves in our
land, -who are interested, deeply, vitally interested in the truth or
fallacy of this reasoning, in the name of the tens of thousands who
are conscientiously asking. What says the Bible on this question
of slavery that is agitating the community ? I do solemly protest
against this perversion of God's holy word to sustain a system that
already has such strength, and is struggling with such violence to
extend itself over soil now consecrated to freedom.
If I, in my zeal for humanity should be betrayed into a false ex-
egesis, or a misapplication of scripture, I should hope, at the bar of
the American conscience, and at the bar of God, to be more readily
acquitted, than though I had been led into such errors to make out
a case in favor of slavery.
V. GRADUAL EMANCIPATION.
On page 29 our author refers to a circumstance in the legisla-
tion of Moses, in regard to slavery, which he employs as an argu-
ment against the doctrines of the immediate emancipationists of the
present day. The circumstance is this :
When a law was enacted by Moses, on coming out of Egypt, that
after six years' service, the slave should be free, it applied to male
servants alone, and not to female servants. As Mr. Stuart justly re-
marks, " Such was the universal feeling on the subject of slavery,
when he began to legislate that it would have been hazarding diso-
bedience and rebellion, if Moses had freed females, as well as males,
after six years' service." But at the expiration of forty years,
when the people had become in a measure prepared for it, he ap-
plied the law to females also, and required that on going free, they
should be (Deut. xv. 14,) furnished liberally out of the flock, the
floor, (granary) and the wine-press.
29
After presenting this case, our author submits the following re-
marks : —
" Why now did not Moses do this thing at Sinai '? He had both the power
and the right, for he was divinely commissioned. Why then did he not do it ?
Simply, I answer, because he had common sense and judgment enough to see,
that legislation could not change the established internal structure of a nation
or commonwealth In a day. There must be a preparation for obedience, be-
fore the law would (or morally speaking) could be obeyed. How different
such a policy was from that which Is trumpeted by the Immediate emaucipa-
tionlsts of our day, it needs no words of mine to show. However, the great
Jewish legislator seems to be a very Insignificant person In the view of many
of these zealous gentlemen. They think that his eyes were but half opened, if
indeed they were open so far. Of course, they let this matter of his alone, as
much as possible, and try to ignore It In all feasible ways. No wonder. It is
a precedent of frowning aspect on all heated rashness and extravagance, espe-
cially In respect to great questions where national and universal usages of long
standing and deep root are concerned."
Let US now inquire whether this precedent does not frown upon
the great mass of slaveholders in our country, who are doino- noth-
ing to meliorate the condition of their slaves, rather than upon those
who demand that the system of American slavery be at once abol-
ished. We see that in forty years, in the time of Moses, great prog-
ress was made in improving the condition of Hebrew slaves. We
live at the distance of more than 3000 years from the time of Moses,
and enjoy not only the institutions of the prophets, but the superior
light of Christianity. We have a system of slavery in the bosom of
one of the freest, most enlightened, most Christian nations upon the
face of the globe.
It is reasonable, therefore, to expect that this system will be as
superior in mildness to the Hebrew system, as that was to the sys-
tem of the antediluvians.
Let us compare them.
1. Under the Hebrews, the slave was held only for six years. I
speak now of the slaves of Hebrew origin, and not of foreign slaves.
The latter were held for life, and were subject to a more grievous
bondage. As the act of legislation now under consideration, relat-
ed to the Hebrew slaves, it is proper that we compare American
slaves with these, and not with the other class.
3
30
In our country, we all know that slaves are held for life ; and not
only are there no provisions for their future emancipation, but in
several States there are laws which are designed to perpetuate sla-
very. In Georgia, laws were passed in 1801 and in 1818, threatening
with severe penalties, those who should manumit their slaves, except
through the action of the Legislature. The law passed in 1801 is
as follows : (See Prince's Digest, 457.)
" If any person or persons shall, after the passing of this act, set free any
slave or slaves, in any other manner, or form than the one prescribed herein
(that is, by a special legislative act] he shall forfeit for every such offence two
hundred dollars, to be recovered, &c., and the said slave or slaves so manumit-
ted and set free, shall be still to all intents and purposes, as much in a stale of
slavery as before they -were manumitted by the party or parties so offending."
The law of 1818, (See Prince's Digest, 466,) is still more se-
vere, and forbids, by even heavier penalties, any one from giving
his slaves their freedom, by will, at his death. Such a will and
testament is declared " utterly null and void," and " each and ev-
ery slave or slaves in whose behalf such will and testament shall
have been made, shall be liable to be arrested, and be sold as a
slave or slaves by pubhc outcry."
A similar law was enacted by North Carolina, and in other States
manumitted slaves are required to be removed beyond the limits
of the States. Our laws upon this point are even more severe
than those of the Turks at the present day. For Lieutenant Lynch
remarks :
" By a law of the Ottoman Empire, no one -within its limits can be held in
slavery for a period exceeding seven years. . . - -
In Turkey, every colored person employed by the Government receives
monthly wages ; and if a slave, is emancipated at the expiration of seven years,
when he becomes eligible to any office beneath the sovereignty."
Were the Mosaic system to be applied to American slavery, it
would be, by the operation of those laws, very soon abolished.
2. If the Hebrew master destroyed an eye or a tooth of the slave,
lie was obliged by law to give him his freedom. Have we any such
law upon our statute books ? Judge Stroud has given us a view of
the slavery laws in the United States, published in Philadelphia in
31
1827, from wliich it appears that the severest cruelties may be com-
mitted by the master, Avhile the sUwe has no redress whatever.
" The master may at Us discretion inflict any species of punishment upon the
person of his slave." — Stroud, jy- 35.
Even for the murder of a slave, the murderer, in several States,
is subject only to a fine ; and if the slave die under moderate cor-
rection, the master is fully asquitted ! A law was passed to this
effect, in North Carolina, in 1798. It closes thus: "Provided
always, this act shall not extend to a person killing a slave outlaw-
ed, &c. or to any slave in the act of resistance to his lawful owner,
or to any slave dying under moderate correction." (See
Haywood's Manual, 530, as quoted by Rev. Albert Barnes, in his
" Scriptural Views of Slavery,") to whom I am indebted for sev-
eral of the laws here referred to.
I might cite other laws similar to this, which show that the Amer-
ican slaveholder can, not only destroy the teeth and eyes of his slave
lawfully, but can even murder him lawfully, if he does it in cool
blood, and while moderately correcting him. In 1740 the following
act was passed in South Carolina :
" In case any person shall wilfully cut out tlie tongue, put out the eye, or
cruelly scald, burn, or deprive any slave of his limb, or shall inflict any other
cruel punishment, other than by whipping or beating with a horsewhip or cow-
skin, or by putting irons on, or confining or imprisoning such slave, every such
person shall for every such offence forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds."
[See 2 Brevard's Digest, 241.]
Here we see that for the paltry sum of one hundred pounds, a
slave may be seriously injured, and rendered wretched for life ; and
if it be proved that the injury was not cruelly inflicted, no penalty is
required. How different is this law from that of Moses, which de-
manded that the slave should be set free, if deprived only of a sin-
gle tooth !
3. Hebrew slaves enjoyed every religious privilege, were required
to be circumcised, were invited to the national feasts and festivals,
and were regularly instructed in the duties of morality and religion.
In this land, the laws of Virginia, Georgia, and South Carolina,
positively forbid the assembhes of slaves for religious purposes, or for
32
instruction. For these la-ws, see Judge Stroud's Slavery Laws, Bre-
vard's Digest, Missouri Laws, Louisiana Code, Prince's Digest, &c.
&c. For the sake of brevity, I -will refer to but one.
In South CaroUna, in 1800, magistrates were empowered with
authority to disperse any such assemblies at pleasure. Whenever
any " slaves, /r<?e we^/roes, mulattocs, and mestizoes are met together
for the purpose of mental instruction," the magistrates ai*e " re-
quired" to enter such places and to " break the doors if resisted, and
to disperse such slaves," &c., and the officers dispersing such un-
lawful assemblage may inflict such corporeal punishment, not ex-
ceeding twenty lashes, on such slaves, free negroes, &c., as they
may judge necessary for deterring from the like unlawful assembla-
ges in future.''^
The Rev. Mr. Barnes, (Scriptural Views, &c. p. 183,) very
truly remarks.
" The means for moral and religious instruction are not granted to the slave,
but, on the contrary, the efforts of the charitable and humane to supply these
wants are discountenanced by law.
. . The slave has no means of erecting a place of worship, nor could he be
the owner of the house erected, or of the land on which it stood, or even of
the most simple communion service, or of the Bible or hymn-book which
might be used. lie has no means of supporting the gospel ; he has no Bible
from which to give instruction to his children, if he had the ability, nay, it is
well known that within a few years there have been positive prohibitions in
many of the slave States against teaching the slave to read the Bible at all,
and that this has been a penal offence.'
4. The Hebrew master was obliged to provide for the marriage
of his maid-servants, unless he took them as concubines or gave them
to his son. In the latter case (Ex. xxi. 9) he was to deal with them
after the manner of daughters.
In most of our slave states there is no recognition of the mar-
riage relation among slaves, and consequently the family relation is
utterly destroyed. Upon this point hear professor Stuart himself,
when his conscience is aroused to the abominations of American
slavery. He says, p. 104.
[3 ] In this form of slavery, all the sacred social relations of life are de-
stroyed. Husband and wife, parent and child, brother and sister, are not
known in law, nor protected nor cognized by it. In conformity with this
these relations are every day severed by some slave-dealers, without regard to
the feelings of the wretched beings who are torn asunder ; and all their pa-
rental, conjugal, and filial sympathies are the subject of scorn if not of deris-
ion. No invasion of human rights can he tvorse than this, none more directly
opposed to the will of God, inscribed upon the pages of the Scripture, and on
the very nature of mankind.
[4.] As the inevitable consequence of this, the mass of slaves must live, and
do live, in a virtual state of concubinage ; which, so far from being restrained,
is often encouraged for the sake of increasing slave-property."
" JVb invasion of human rights can be worse than this,^^ — and
yet Mr. Stewart chastises those who declare that such a system
should be immediately abolished ! !
5. Hebrew slaves were permitted to own some property, and if
they or their friends could purchase their freedom, the master was
hound by law to manumit them. The price also was fixed which
the owner could not exceed.
Compare with this the law of Louisiana : —
" A slave is one who is in the power of his master to whom he belongs.
The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his labor.
He can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire anything but what belongs to
his master." — [Civil Code of Louisiana.]
But I need not pursue this contrast. It is sufficiently evident
that instead of advancing upon the Hebrew system, we have retro-
gaded with fearful velocity. Our system holds somewhat the same
relation to that under Moses, that the present rude, unsightly,
hideous idols of the heathen, hold to the elegant and graceful statu-
ary, which were the objects of worship among the ancients. Yet
Mr. Stuart cites the incident referred to in the legislation of Mo-
ses, " as a precedent of frowning aspect on the heated rashness"
of those who advocate the doctrine that this system of iniquity be
immediately abolished. Is not that act of emancipation on the part
of Moses, rather a precedent " of frowning aspect" upon the wicked
resistance that is made by the South, to all efforts to improve the
condition of their servants.
Besides, when we consider how American slavery has increased
under the doctrine of gradual emancipation^ the number of slaves
34
being, In 1790 — 607,897, and in 1840 — 2,487,355— when we look
at the intense zeal that is manifested bj the South to extend the evil
over soil that is now free ; when we read the Hon. Mr. Clay's com-
promise bill, by which we must purchase the privilege of admitting
free California, at such an enormous sacrifice of humanity, justice,
and freedom, we are amazed that Professor Stuart should, with
the Bible in his hand, fly to the assistance of those who are, by all
the means in their power, laboring to strengthen and perpetuate
this cruel system ! We are amazed at his readiness to censure such
men as Judge Jay, the Hon. Messrs. Mann, Wilmot, and others,
who are struggling to save California, New Mexico, and as much of
Texas as possible, from the curse of American slavery.
If my humble and feeble words can reach the ears of those noble
men, in our national councils, the Hon. Horace Mann, the Hon, John
P. Hale, the Hon. J. R. Giddings— the Hon. William H. Sew-
ard, the Hon. Thaddeus Stevens, and others, whose masterly argu-
ments and stirring appeals have so often been heard in behalf of
freedom, I would urge them to stand firm, — remembering that tens
of thousands of hearts beat in sympathy with theirs, remembering
that when they plead for the rights of man, for the claims of human-
ity, for the eternal principles of justice, they have a nation of free-
men for an audience, Avhose shouts of applause, could they reach
them, would cause the very dome of the capitol to tremble.
VI. THE BEARING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT UPON THE
FUGITIVE SLAVE QUESTION.
We come now to a point of vital moment in our discussion, and
one upon which our author dwells with much earnestness. As Mr.
Webster has laid before us our constitutional obligations to recap-
ture fugitives, Mr. Stuart has given us what he deems the scriptu-
ral sanction for the same thing.
The passage which he examines is recorded in Deut. xxiii. 15. 16.
" Thou slialt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from
his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place
which he shall choose, in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best ; thou shalt
not oppress him."
35
His exegesis of it, is as follows, p. 30.
" The first inquiry of course is : AVhere does his master live ? Among the
Hebrews, or among foreigners ? The language of the passage fully develops
this, and answers the question, " He has escaped from the master unto the
Hebrews [the text says thee, \. e. Israel] ; lie shall dwell loith thee, even among
you . . . in one of thy gates.' Of course, then, he is an immigrant, and did not
dwell among them before his flight. If he had been a Hebrew servant, belong-
in"' to a Hebrew, the whole face of the thing would be changed. Restoration,
or restitution, if we may judge by the tenor of other property -laws among the
Hebrews, would have surely been enjoined. But, be that as it may, the lan-
guage of the text puts it beyond a doubt that the servant is a foreigner, and
has fled from a heathen master. This entirely changes the complexion of the
case."
He then goes on to prove, that the fugitive in this case, was one
from a foreign nation, and not one fleeing from one Hebrew tribe to
another.
In reference to a Hebrew servant of a Hebrew master he says,
p. 37 :
" Who could take from him the property which the Mosaic law gave him a right
to hold ? Neither the bondman himself, nor the neighbor of his master to
whom the fugitive might come. Reclamation of him could be lawfully made,
and therefore must be enforced."
In order to place Mr. Stuart's reasoning before the reader in
all its force, I will quote still further from pages 31, 32 :
" With this view of the matter before us, how can we appeal to the passage
in question to justify, yea, even to urge the retention of fugitive bond-men in
our own country ? We are one nation — one so-called Christian nation."
The Mosaic law does not authorize us to reject the claims of our fellow coun-
trymen and citizens, for strayed or stolen property — property authorized and
guaranteed as such by Southern States to their respective citizens. These
States are not heathen. AVe have acknowledged them as brethren, and fellow
citizens of the great community. A fugitive from them is not a fugitive from
an idolatrous and polytheistic people. And even if the Bible had neither
said nor implied anything in relation to this whole matter, the solemn compact
which we have made, before heaven and earth, to deliver up fugitives, when
they are men held to service in the State from which they have fled, is enough
to settle the question of legal right on the part of the master, whatever we may
think of his claim when viewed in the light of Christianity."
36
If I understand Professor Stuart, (for I would remark that
sometimes when men find that their arguments are unsound, or
their reasoning fallacious, they are free to complain, that they are
not understood, or that their language is perverted,) if then I un-
derstand Professor Stuart, he labors to establish the following po-
sitions : 1. That the passage of scripture, Deut. xxiii. 15, 16,
quoted, applies only to fugitives from foreign nations. 2. That fu-
gitives from one Hebrew tribe to another must be delivered up.
" Reclamation of him could be lawfully made, and therefore must
be enforced." 3. That we stand related to Southern slaves as the
Hebrews of one tribe stood related to the slaves of another. 4. That
we are bound on Mosaic authority to deliver up the fugitive to his
Southern master. 5. That " even if the Bible had neither said nor
implied anything in relation to this whole matter, the solemn compact
that we have made, before heaven and earth, to deliver up fugitives
when they are men held to service in the State from which they
have fled, is enough to settle the question of legal right on the part
of the master, whatever we may think of his claim ivheri viewed in
the light of Christianity. ^^
I wish that the reader would carefully compare these five posi-
tions with the quotations that I have made from the pamphlet ; or
better, compare them with the pamphlet itself, that he may see
whether I state the case correctly.
Let us now subject them to an honest and critical examination.
1. What are the evidences that the passage quoted (Deut. xxiii.
15, 16,) applies only to fugitives from foreign nations. Mr. Stuart
tells us that the evidences are in the structure of the passage — in
the phraseology; that '•'■ unto thee'' means unto the Hebrews; and
that " ever among you''' implies that he did not dwell among them
before his flight. But is this so clear ? May not the phrase with
thee mean — with the individual, or family, to which the slave flees,
as well as the whole Hebrew nation ? We find other passages
where the pronoun has this singular as well as general meaning.
But I will not press a different exegesis of the passage, particularly
as the great majority of our ablest commentators regard the com-
mand as applying to foreign fugitives.
Still the spirit and influence of the passage, all must allow, are
37
decidedly hostile to the institution of slavery. An invitation is, in
fact, given to slaves to escape to Palestine, as to an asylum of free-
dom, where the laws of the land, strengthened by the authority of
heaven, will be extended over them for their protection : " Thou
shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped," &c.
The command is imperative, absolute. He shall dwell with thee
where it liketh him best — tliou slialt not oppress him. Thus Moses
designed that the country under his jurisdiction should be the refuge
of the oppressed of all nations, and, by this law, and the seventh-
year-emancipation law, he was, as rapidly as possible, mating Pal-
estine a free country. Had the Governor of California the power
to enact a similar law in regard to fugitives, how long could slavery
live in Texas or Louisiana ?
But while most commentators regard the passage cited as apply-
ing to foreign fugitives, others consider it as including all fugi-
tives. President Wayland takes this latter view. He says, page
59 of his letters to Dr. Fuller :
"The Hebrews were not only positively forbidden to deliver up a slave who
had escaped from his master, but were commanded to allow him to dwell in the
place that he chose in any of the gates where it liked him best, [Deut. xxiii. 15,
16,] ... . This precept, I think, clearly shows that Moses intended to abolish sla-
very. How could slavery long continue in a country where every one icas for-
bidden to deliver up a fugitive slave ? How different would be the condition of
slaves, and how soon would slavery itself cease, were this the law of compulso-
ry bondage among us."
May we not infer, too, from the language used by the Congrega-
tional Ministers of Massachusetts, in the series of strong anti-slavery
resolutions passed at their last annual meeting, that they regard this
law as of universal application.
" It is as certain as any moral demonstration can be that except as a punish-
ment for crime, tJie real genius, the true spirit of the Mosaic institutions is utter-
ly repugnant and destructive to all slaveholding and slavery ! It is the spirit
of UNIVERSAL FREEDOM, and therefore the genius of universal emanci-
pation."
" Within the last quarter of a century, a new impulse has been given to
freedom. State after State has published its testimony against the intolerable
wrong of slavery. ... He who shall defend it, defends that which Christendom
38
with concurrent voice has united to reprobate, and is hastening to destroy."
"It well becomes the Convention of the Congregational ministers of this an-
cient Commonwealth, solemnly to declare to the world their deep conviction
of THE ixjusTiCE AND INHUMANITY of the systcm of slavery, and of its
absolute repugnance to all the principles of the word of God."
Now these men, and others whom I might quote against Profes-
sor Stuart's views, do not certainly belong to that rash and extrava-
gant class to whom our author refers, and who he says " regard the
great Jewish legislator as a very insignificant person." They are
cool, discriminating. Christian men ; men who love the Bible, and
who will adhere " to the law and the testimony," with as much
tenacity as Professor Stuart.
Nor is it necessary for our learned author to be so sensitive,
as to the reputation of Moses, in the discussion of these points as he
appears to be. He says, in referring to an opponent in another
connection. " He will probably think very ill of Moses, and not be
very courteous towards me, for venturing to quote him. However,
if there is any blame here it falls on the great Jewish legislator and
not on me." But if the great Jewish legislator is misquoted, or his
language mim'pplied, where must the blame fall ?
2. But I hasten to the second of the five propositions laid down —
viz: TJtat slaves fleeing from one Hebrew tribe to another inust
positively be delivered up. Upon what does our author base this
opinion ? He says : if he had been a Hebrew servant, the whole
face of the thing would be changed. Restoration or restitution, if
we may judge by the tenor of other property laws among the He-
brews, would have been surely enjoined." p. 30, quoted before.
This is the foundation of his reasoning upon this point. On this
he grounds our obligation to restore the fugitive from American sla-
very. But has he nothing positive to bring forward — has he not
one passage of scripture that enjoins this duty of restoring the He-
brew fugitive ? Has Prof. Stuart, I would respectfully ask, stud-
ied the Bible forty years without finding a single passage that re-
quires the restoration of the Hebrew fugitive ? Are all his solemn
exhortations to us, to deliver up the captive, based upon nothing
but his judgment of the tenor of other property laws ?
What are these other property laws ? Let us look into this matter.
39
On searching the Pentateuch I find (Deut. xxi. : 1-3) the fol-
lowing property laws, to which, I presume, our author refers :
" Thou sbalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thy-
self from them, thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother. And
if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt
bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee till thy brother seek it,
and thou shalt restore it to him again.
In like manner shalt thou do with his ass ; and so shalt thou do with his
raiment and all lost things of thy brother, which he hath lost and thou hast found
thou shalt do likewise."
Now if there are any stronger property laws than these, I should
like to have them pointed out. Have we then, here, anything res-
pecting fugitive slaves ? The only point at which slaves can be
brought in, is under the head of " things." But were slaves, who
were admitted to all the privileges of the Jewish faith, who were to
be free in six years, who could own property, &c., things? If the
American system of slavery was the system now under consideration,
the Professor might perhaps base an argument upon this passao-e
that would be tolerably firm ; for our laAvs call slaves goods and
chattels. The Constitution of South Carolina declares :
"^ Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed and adjudged in law to be
chattels personal In the hands of their owners and possessors, and their execu-
tors and administrators, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatever."
But in this case no exegetical skill, no straining or twisting of the
language can make Hebrew slaves, things. Besides, the lawgiver
had just been speaking of raiment, after speaking of beasts, and the
natural expression would have been " things," or " anything else."
Hebrew slaves then were not oxen, nor sheep, nor asses, nor rai-
ment, nor things, and yet our author tells us the " restitution, if we
may judge by the tenor of other property-laws, ivould have surely
been enjoined."
What evidence have we of it ? We call for proof. Those who
believe that the Bible is opposed to slavery, and that jVIoses legis-
lated against it call for proof ?
The 3,000,000 of American slaves upon whom this question is
40
made to bear with fearful power, call for proof. They ask, and thej
ask too, not as theorists, not as mere disputants, not as cavillers,
but as living and breathing men, who have a vital, absorbing, per-
sonal interest in the question. They would like to know, too. whe-
ther in their flight they are to be captured on Bible principles, or
on TJ. S. Constitutional principles. They would like to know,
whether, after passing all the dangers incident to an attempt to ob-
tain their freedom, after getting beyond the reach of the Constitu-
tion, they are liable to be taken by those who will seize them in the
name of the Bible, and by the authority of Moses.
If our author appears before us as the special protector of Mo-
ses' reputation, we trust that he will not add to his burdens on this
slavery question. It is true he did make laws to regulate the sys-
tem, and he did allow the people to subject heathen slaves to a per-
petual bondage, but before, I believe, that he commanded any fugi-
tive to be restored, I should like to see the proof.
And yet our author says — " Reclamation of him could be law-
fully made, and therefore must be enforced."
To borrow an expression from the professor, Ave must say to such
conclusions from such premises, " Angels and ministers of grace de-
fend us."
But even allowing that Mr. Stuart is able to quote a strong and
decisive law enacted by Moses, requiring that the Hebrew fugitive
be delivered up, what bearing would that law have upon us, if cer-
tain other principles, which he has laid down in other connections,
are correct.
In referring to the patriarchs, and elswhere to the Mosaic institu-
tions, he says, p. 25 ;
" I shall eater into no argument here in defence of the patriarchs, as to the
usages now in question. In one sense they do not concern us, for the blessed
God, by his gospel, having scattered the darkness of early ages, has made us to
walk in the clear light of the Sun of Kighteousness." .
And on the next page he says :
" But Abraham and the other patriarchs lacked our light. If they had pos-
sessed it, there cannot be a doubt that they would have followed its guidance,
and rejoiced in it. Noble traits of character they had, but it needs the blessed
41
Tospel of God to make men * perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good
•work.' What Christ has commanded is our rule, and not what the patriarchs
did, who lived when the light was just beginning to dawn.
" What Christ has commanded is our rule !" Wliat then have
we to do with the " restoration" laws of Moses, even had he enacted
any? _ _ .
3. We now come to the tldrd of the five points, which Mr.
Stuart endeavors to sustain in relation to the question before us.
This point is, that we stand related to Southern slavery, as the He-
brews of one tribe stood related to the slavery of another tribe, and
that on this grou7id, we ought to deliver up the fugitive. " Are our
brethren at the South, heathen ? " asks the Professor. I answer
no. There are many devoted Christians there, — there are kind
hearts there, noble and conscientious men there ; but their system
of slavery is heathenish, Professor Stuart himself being the judge.
Compare the laws of South Carolina, Georgia and other slave States
with the laws of Moses. I have already quoted some of those laws,
and exhibited, to some extent, the contrast. But I may be asked,
is it not too strong an expression to call this system heathenish ? I
would reply, if Southern defenders of Slavery call it thus, I trust
that I shall be excused for believing what they say. Hear, then,
the testimony from the Court of South Carolina.
" The condition of slaves in this country is analogous to that of the ancient
Greeks and Romans, and not that of the feudal times. They are generally
considered not as persons, but as things. They can be sold or transferred as
goods or personal estate ; they are held to be pro nullis, pro mortuis. By the
civil law, slaves could not take property by descent or purchase ; and I appre-
hend this to be the law of this country." — Dess. Rep. IV, 266. South Caro-
lina.
Let me now develop more fully the Greek and Roman system, to
which our system, according to the declaration of the Court of South
Carolina, (good authority on this point) is analogous. Home, in his
" Introduction to the study of the Scriptures," in quoting from
Taylor's elements of the Roman Civil Law, remarks, vol. 2, p. 166 :
"Among the Romans more particularly, slaves were held — -jsro nullis
— pro mortuis — pro quadrwpedihus — for no men — for dead men
— for beasts; nay, were in a much worse state than any cattle
4
42
■whatever. They had no head in the State, no name, no trihe, or re-
gister. . . . Exclusive of what was called their j5ec?(7z(?w, what-
ever they acquired was their master's ; they could neither plead nor
be pleaded, but were entirely excluded from all civil concerns.
They were not entitled to the rights of matrimony, and therefore
had no reUef in case of adultery. They might be sold, transferred
or pawned like other goods or personal estate."
From Adam's Roman Antiquities, we learn that Roman masters
had absolute power over their slaves, and might scourge them, or
put them to death at pleasure. This right was exercised with such
cruelty, at some periods of the republic, that laws were enacted
at diiferent times to restrain it. The lash was commonly used
for punishment, but for certain crimes slaves were branded
on the forehead. Sometimes they were forced to carry a piece
of wood around their necks, wherever they went, which was
called /t(rca. When slaves were beaten, they were suspended with
a weight tied to their feet, that they might not move them. When
they suffered capital punishment, they were usually crucified, though
this punishment was prohibited under Constantino. If a master
was slain in his own house, and the murderer not discovered, all his
domestic servants were liable to be put to death. In a single in-
stance of this character, 400 were destroyed. (Tacit. Ann, xiv. 43.)
Slaves could not appear as witnesses in a Court of Justice, nor
make a will, nor inherit property. In short, they were robbed of
all their rights, and were oftentimes treated far worse than the beasts
around them. Prof. B. B. Edwards, of Andover, one of our most
accomplished and accurate scholars, in an article on " Roman
Slavery," published in the Biblical Repository, Oct. 1835, remarks :
" The groans from the ergastula do not reach our ears. We cannot gather
up the tears which were shed on the Appian way, around the mausoleum of
Augustus, on the countless farms of Italy. There were griefs that we know
not of, sorrows, heart-rending cruelties, which will not be revealed till the day
of doom. Slaves were valued only so far as they represented money. Hor-
tensius cared less for the health of his slaves than for that of his fish. It was
a question put for ingenious disputation, whether in order to lighten a vessel in
a storm we should sacrifice a valuable horse or a worthless slave. So late as
the reign of Adrian, we find that indications of insanity were not uncommon
among slaves, which must generally be atti-ibuted to their misery."
43
Yet this is the system to which the Courts of South Carohna say
our system is analogous. Let the reader take notice that I do not
say it, for that would at once be pronounced abuse and slander ;
but South Carolina says it herself. Indeed, there is no slave State
in this Union that pretends that its system of slavery is like the
Jewish system. Mr. Stuart may, indeed, say that the analogy to
which he refers relates to masters, and not to the slaves. But m
order that this reasoning may hold good, the two systems of slavery,
Hebrew and American, must he similar. If the Hebrew fugitive
was restored to his master, (of which fact, however, we have not
yet received a particle of proof) the ground of such restoration
must have been the mildness of their system of slavery, and the
equal religious privileges that the slave enjoyed with his master.
In these respects, every one knows that our system differs materially
from the Hebrew system.
But let us now hear Prof. Stuart himself, respecting American
slavery. Let us see what he thinks of the system, to the blighting
and blasting influence of which, he feels conscientiously bound, on
Bible authority, to restore the panting and trembling fugitive.
He says, page 104, —
« (2) As existing among us, slavery has taken its worst form ; it degrades
men made in the" image of their God and Redeemer, into brute-beasts, or
(which makes them still lower) converts them into mere goods and chattels."
Can any language be stronger than this ?
Again :
" (7) Slavery in its best attitude in our country, even among humane and
Christian masters, is a degradation of a whole class of the community, below
their pi'oper rank as men. Even where the colored men are free, and educa-
ted, and well-behaved, they are considered as unworthy of any civil considera-
tion. They cannot become citizens, in a slave-holding State. No civil, no pa-
triotic sympathies, can be theirs. " Stand by thyself, for I am holier than thou,"
is the universal answer to all aspirations after citizenship. And this is not all.
They are degraded in their own eyes. They are discouraged from all attempts
to rise, by a knowledge of the utter impossibility of rising. What were the
whole Greek nation, a few years ago, when under the domination of the
Turks ? Just what every people will be, who have masters over them, and
who are denied their political and civil rights.
44
"Where now did one class of our race obtain a license to keep down and de-
grade another, when ' there is one and the same God of the Jews and the
Gentiles ? ' And how will they answer before the tribunal above, on which
that God sits, who is no respecter of persons ? "
Here I give but two specifications of the nature and evils of
Southern slavery, out of ten that the Professor has brought forward,
and yet because he infers " from the tenor of other property laws,"
that the Hebrew fugitive was restored, he gravely argues that we
are hound to deliver up the American fugitive. Upon a simple in-
ference he bases our obhgation ; an inference which, though restinc
upon suflScient grounds, would not apply to American slavery, as we
have most abundantly shown.
4. The fourth point is that we are positively hound on Blosaie
authority to deliver up the fugitive to his Southern master.
Now if all the three foregoing points had been established by our
author, still he could not quote Mosaic authority or Hebrew usage
to govern us, because he has repeatedly admitted, that we, being
under the Christian dispensation, are not to be governed by the Pa-
triarchal or Mosaic systems. " What Christ has commanded is our
law," he says. And again, in another connection, he has said, in
relation to buying slaves, and if his reasoning applies to this, it
applies to other points : —
" At all events, none can reason from the case of the Jews — the one favor
ed, pre-eminent, secluded nation — to the case of men, who lived after the
coming of Him, " who broke down the middle wall of partition between Jews
and Gentiles," proclaimed one common God and Father of all ; one common
Redeemer and Sanctifier ; that this God is no respecter of persons ; and that
' he has made of one blood, all the nations that dwell on the face of the earth.'
— I say none can now crave liberty to purchase slaves of the Gentiles or Jews,
on the ground of Mosaic permission. He might as well insist on the liberty of
polygamy and concubinage, both of which Moses allowed — I cannot say en-
couraged, for evidently this Is not the case. He allowed it for the same reason
that he allowed divorce at the will of the husband. Our Saviour has told us
what this reason was, viz : " The hardness of their hearts." The light of the
gospel dissipates all these deeds done in ciaro-obscure light. All reasoning of
this kind is null, if it be at variance with the spirit and precepts of the gospel ;
which is now our supreme law."
45
I would direct special attention to this last clause. Even there-
fore, admitting that the Jewish legislator did institute a law requiring
the restoration of the Hebrew fugitive, which we deny ; even admit-
ing that Southern slavery is like Hebrew slavery, which the South-
ern statesmen and jurists themselves deny, and Professor Stuart
himself denies (for he says that slavery among us has taken its
worst form) — still on the principle just quoted, we have no right to
" reason from the case of the Jews " to ourselves, who have the
gospel " which is now our /Supreme laiv^
To attempt to make this plainer would be like endeavoring to add
light to the sun.
5. I pass, to consider the last point, which requires us to deliver
up the fugitive to his master, on constitutional grounds, " whatever
we may think of his (the master's) claim, when viewed in the light
of Christianity."
The bearing of the Constitution of the United States on this
question we shall fully consider under another head.
If we understand our author, he tells us (see 5th specification in
full) that we are legally bound to dehver up the fugitive, even in
opposition to the light of Christianity. That is, he places the Con-
stitution and civil law above Christianity. If his words mean any
thing, this is his doctrine — a doctrine which, to receive from such
a source, chills my very blood. Had such a sentiment come to us
from the pen of a Southern clergyman, whose zeal for slavery had
betrayed him into the utterance of so rash and revolting a doctrine,
we could have borne it. But to receive it from one whose name is
identified with the Biblical literature of our nation ; one, who in
times of peril has been the able and successful defender of our com-
mon faith ; one, of whose reputation we have been proud, and
whom, to the very last hours of his useful life, we should have de-
lighted to honor, this is, indeed, a severe and heavy blow.
But perhaps I hear the voice of our author saying, " meet me
with argument, not emotion."
Let us examine, then, the principle laid down. If it is under
any circumstances justifiable for one, when the civil law comes in
conflict with God's law, to " obey God rather than man," it would
seem to me, the caaa before us is such a case. Here is, we
4*
46
■will suppose, a conscientious Christian who has studied, seriously
and profoundly, the Bible, and derived from this standard his views
of the rights of man. He holds these truths, not only to be scrip-
tural, but, according to the language of our " Declaration of Inde-
pendence," to be " self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ;
that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
These truths have taken strong hold not only of his heart, but of
his reason, his sense of justice and right. He could not himself
traffic in human beings, in men made in God's image, endowed with
an intellectual and immortal nature,
" For all the wealth
That sinews bought and sold have ever earned."
He therefore refuses to deliver up the fugitive on conscientious
grounds. Shall he be sustained ? This is the question. Humanity,
indeed, answers yes. Tens of thousands in the Northern and
Western States thunder out. Yes. But will the Bible sustain him ?
Or as Professor Stuart places the question, shall he in this instance
obey the gospel, or the civil law.
That there are cases in which it is right to set aside, and even
resist civil authority, I think that all Christians will allow. When
the apostles were forbidden to preach in the name of Christ, and
were summoned before the council, and required to answer to the
charges brought against them, Peter and the other Apostles answer-
ed and said, " We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts v. 29.
In regard to the duties that we owe to civil rulers, the Bible is
more full and explicit than in regard to duties between the master
and the slave. Paul says, Romans xiii. 1, 2 ; " Let every soul be
subject unto the higher powers ; for there is no power but of God.
The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore re-
sisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God ; and they that
resist shall receive to themselves damnation." And in the 5th verse,
" Wherefore he must needs be subject, not only for wrath (i. e. not
only from fear of punishment) but also for conscience sake."
This was written in the time of the despotic and cruel Nero, and
has been quoted from that day to this, by tyrants, to sustain them.
4T
selves in fhelr despotism. But did the signers to our Declaration of
Independence — did the fathers of this great Republic subscribe to
the doctrine, that the most obvious interpretation of the passage
seems to teach ? Did they believe that it was their duty to support
a government that robbed them of their rights, that defeated the
great designs for which government is estabUshed ? In their Decla-
ration of Independence, just quoted, they say " that when any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends," (that is, of the rights
and happiness of the governed,) it is the right of the people to alter
or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its founda-
tions in such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
While, therefore, they recognized the general obligations that
mankind are under, to submit to, and obey their rulers, they did not
believe that bad institutions ought to be perpetuated, or that they
were called upon to bow to the sceptres of tyrants. The Rev. James
Macknight, D. D., in his Commentary on the ApostoUc Epistles,
remarks upon the 5th verse of the 13th chapter of Romans, just quot-
ed, as follows : " By the phrase, ' It is necessary for you to be sub-
ject, the apostle did not mean, that they were to be subject to the
sinful laws of the countries where they lived ; otherwise he made it
necessary for the Roman brethren to join in the worship of idols,
contrary to the superior obligation they were under, of obeying
God rather than man. Besides, by telling them that they were to
be subject on account of conscience, he intimated that the subjection
which he enjoined did not extend to things sinful."
But will Professor Stuart take the ground that the civil laws are
in no case to be disobeyed, even when they are in conflict with the
principles of Christianity. Let us hear him when his conscience is
aroused, upon a single evil of slavery. In his ten specifications of
these evils, (p. 104 — 107,) he alludes to the laws of the South
respecting the non-education of slaves, and what does he say ?
" (5-) Ignorance profound, and nearly universal, is the inevitable lot of the
great mass of all who are held in bondage. In some of the States, the learn-
ing even to read is forbidden ; thus contravening, -with a high hand, the com-
mand of Heaven to ' search the Scriptures.' In such a case, obedience to a
human law is crime ; it is treason against the Majesty of heaven and earth."
48
Here then we have it. The Professor admits that there is a case
in which ^^ obedience to a human law is crime; it is treason
AGAINST THE MAJESTY OF HEAVEN AND EARTH."
If now a person may violate one, out of ten laws, touching this
wicked system of slavery, may not a conscientious person refuse to
put back a fugitive, where he will suffer the evils of the ivhole ten?
If Mr. Stuart would encourage the slave to learn to read, on the
ground that " obedience to a human law," the law of South Caroli-
na, " is a crime," on the ground that " it is treason against the ma-
jesty of earth and heaven," may not another, on the same ground,
refuse to restore the fugitive to a position where he will not only be
deprived of the privileges of education, but where he will be sub-
ject to the whole catalogue of fearful evils, that slavery in " its
worst form " must bring upon him ?
If Mr. Stuart is so conscientious with reference to one of his ten
specifications, may not others have some conscientiousness with re-
ference to the whole ? May they not feel that to bmd chains upon
men, when they have once broken them, — chains that " degrade
them into brute beasts," and " convert them into goods and
chattels," is, in this day of light, and this land of freedom, " treason
against the majesty of heaven and earth."
Mr. Stuart's positions, then, himself being the judge, cannot be
sustained. Indeed, his whole argument on this question is so weak
— its fallacy is so obvious, that it needs simply to be stated, in order
to be overthrown. It crumbles under a simple touch. And yet,
several of our religious papers — to their shame be it spoken — are
extolling this Scriptural argument, and seem to imagine that the
Professor has settled the question beyond all dispute. The New
York Observer, in a notice of this pamphlet, in the paper of July
6th, says : " Professor Stuart, of Andover, has rendered a good
service to the country in his recent work, entitled ' Conscience and
the Constitution,' by a fair exposition of the subject of slavery, as
it existed among the Hebrews, in Old Testament times." The
editors then quote the comments of the Professor upon the passage
relating to fugitive slaves, " to show," they say, " the error of those
who regard this passage as opposed to the Constitution of the United
States."
49
Can we wonder that the abominable system of American slavery
continues to curse this nation, when such divines, and such religious
newspapers, sustain it by so gross a perversion of the word of
God ? I do not hesitate to declare that, to quote the legislative acts
of Moses, to sustain this system of slavery, is a libel upon the great
Jewish lawgiver, and an insult to the Divine Author of the Scriptures.
VII. THE PROPHETS AND SLAVERY.
Before leaving the Old Testament, there is one passage in the
prophecy of Isaiah, upon which our author remarks, and which is
worthy of our attention, as it affords evidence of the progress, that
light and knowledge had made among the people, in the times of the
prophets, and of the bolder and more decided tone which the mes-
sengers of God used in condemning prevailing sins.
The passage is in Isaiah Iviii. 6, " Is not this the fast that I have
chosen ? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy bur-
dens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every
yoke ? "
Of all the prophetic texts, the Professor tells us, this has been
appealed to most frequently and confidently by the opponents of
slavery. This, in his view, has been their great battle-axe, with
which they have labored to demolish the citadel of slavery. As the
great expounder of the Scriptures, he comes upon the field to break
in pieces this weapon. Let us see how he accomplishes his purpose.
I quote all that he says upon the passage, that the reader may
feel the full force of his reasoning :
" Of all the prophetic texts, I believe Is. Iviii. 6 has been the subject of ap-
peal most frequent, and confident too. What says it ? ' Loose the bands of
wickedness ; undo the heavy burdens ; let the oppressed go free ; break every
yoke.' The prophet further enjoins, that they shall give bread to the hungry,
house-shelter to poor wanderers, and clothing to the naked. He then adds :
' Hide not thyself from thy own flesh.' And who, then, are they that are thus
described ? 'Plainly, fellow-counli-ymen, citizens of the same commonwealth, and
kindred hy Mood. Let the reader, if he doubts this interpretation of the ex-
pression one's own flesh, open his Bible at Gen. xxix. 14; 2 Sam. v. 1, xix. 13,
14 ; Judg. ix. 2. It is clearly the oppressed and degraded Hebrews, then, of
50
whom the prophet is speaking in this whole passage. It has no special relation
to slaves at all, whether heathen or Jewish. Surely heathen slaves would not
be called, by Isaiah, the ' own flesh' of the Hebrews. Yet this passage is print-
ed in staring capitals every day, as the sentence of an ultimate and supreme
tribunal, which decides the cause of the Abolitionists in their favor."
What, then, have we here in the way of exegesis ? An anomaly,
at least, all the critics will allow. We have a professed interpreta-
tion of a passage, where not one word, one si/lable, one letter, of the
interpretation bears upon the passage in question. The comments
are made upon the verse that follows, which alludes to another and
distinct class of persons, namely, the poor and destitute ; and the
conclusion is falsely applied to both verses.
I will give the following verse,(6th,) that we may compare the two :
" It is not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor, that
are cast out, to thy house ? — when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him ;
and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh ? "
In this verse we see most clearly that the hungry, the poor, and
naked are referred to, who have claims upon our compassion, while
in the preceding verse the oppressed, those in bondage, are spoken
of, who have claims upon our justice. The two classes are entirely
distinct. The first are slaves. The second are the poor, including
one's poor relatives, " kindred by blood." Yet because the prophet
exhorts the people, (after he had closed his exhortation respect-
ing slaves,) " to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, and not
even hide themselves from their own flesh," the Professor gravely
asks us if slaves are " kindred by blood ? " " Surely heathen
slaves would not be called by Isaiah, the ' own flesh ' of the He-
brews ! " And pray who has said they were thus called? Why
does Mr. Stuart leave the verse, and carry the field of argument
down to the latter clause of the following verse, which has no more
bearing on the point in question, than the close of one of the com-
mandments, has upon the preceding commandment.
The simple question is to whom does the prophet refer when he
says, " Loose the bands of wickedness — let the oppressed go free
— break every yoke." The phrase, " To loose the bands of wick-
edness," had probably a general signification, and required that
every unjust tie, by which the people had bound their fellow-men,
51
should be broken. The meaning of the phrase " and let the op-
pressed go free," is so obvious that it scarcely needs an explanation
or defense. Yet to place the matter beyond all doubt, let me quote
a few authorities upon it. The Rev. Albert Barnes, in his learned
and critical Commentary upon the book of Isaiah, remarks on this
phrase, v. 3, p. 556, " It may be applied to those -who are treated
■with violence in any way, or who are oppressed and broken down by
hard usage. It may refer, therefore, to slaves who are oppressed
by bondage and toil ; or to inferiors of any kind, who are subjected
to hard usage by those who are above them. The use of the phrase
here, ' go free ; ' however, seems to limit its application in this place,
to those who were held in bondage."
Jerome renders it, " Free those who are broken," the word broken
being a more literal translation of the original Hebrew word.
The LXX. give this rendering " set at liberty those who are
broken down." " The expression refers to those who were held in
oppressive bondage, and doubtless relates to those who were kept as
slaves." Mr. Barnes devotes six pages of his commentary to the
consideration of this single verse ; in which he goes into a full ac-
count of slavery as it existed in the time of Moses, and clearly
proves that this passage relates to slaves, as well as to other op-
pressed persons.
Dr. Alexander, of Princeton, in his late able commentary upon
Isaiah, remarks upon this passage, as follows :
" Most interpreters suppose a particular allusion to the detention of He-
brew servants, after the seventh year, contrary to the express provisions of the
law. (Ex. xxi 2; Lev. xxv. 39; Deut. xv. 12.) Grocius applies the term in
a figurative sense to judicial oppression It is evident, however,
that the terms were so selected as to be descriptive of oppression universalhj^ to
make which still more evident, the Prophet adds a general command or exhor-
tation, ' Ye shall break every yoke.^ "
The learned and pious Mathew Henry, in commenting on the
passage says, " Not only let those who are wrongfully kept under
the yoke go free, but brake the yoke of slavery itself, that it may not
serve again another time, nor any be made again to serve under it."
But we may be told, that, at that time, it was lawful to hold slaves,
and where was the propriety in exhorting the masters to let them
52
go free ? Might not, I would ask, the prophets use all the moral
means within their power, — use arguments and persuasion, to induce
the people to abandon the sin of slavery, though it was permitted ?
Indeed the prophets were accustomed to rebuke severely, the
people for sins that the civil law permitted, and by means of this
and other measures, some of these evils were greatly mitigated before
the advent of Christ. Take for instance the solemn expostulation,
in reference to divorce and polygamy recorded in Malachi ii. 15,
16 : " Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treach-
erously against the wife of his youth. For the Lord, the God of
Israel, saith,that he hateth putting away : for one covereth violence
with his garment, saitli the Lord of hosts : therefore take heed to
your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously."
Were I in a city where it was lawful for men to deal in intoxicat-
ing drinks, might I not use persuasion and moral means, to induce
these dealers to abandon their traffic ? Might I not say to them as
from God, " Is not this the fast, or the religion that I have chosen,
that ye give up this destructive business, that ye cease to do evil ? "
Mere forms will avail nothing before Him " who searcheth the heart."
Besides, the phrase in the following verse, "And that thou
hide not thyself from thine own flesh," in a distinct exhortation,
even from the other part of the verse. Mr. Barnes thus remarks
upon it : — "To hide one's self from them may be denoted either,
(1) To be ashamed of them on account of their poverty, or their
humble rank in life ; or (2) to withhold from them the just supply
of their wants. Rehgion requires us to treat all our kindred,
whatever may be their rank in life, with kindness and aflection."
Why Professor Stuart should present us with such a commentary
upon his passage, I am at a loss to determine. If this exegesis is one
of his Paixhan guns, of which he speaks, we have no occasion to cry,
" Angels and ministers of grace defend us," for we can defend our-
selves.
But seriously, it is a grave and solemn matter for a conscientious
Christian and eminent Biblical scholar, to attempt to wrest this pas-
sage out of the hands of the opponents of slavery, by such means
as he has employed.
There is little probability, however, that these opponents will
53
nor will they cease from printing it in " staring capitals," unless
the Professor appears with some weightier arguments against it than
those which he has produced.
Does not such reasoning however, as the pamphlet before us con-
tains, tend to bring the Scriptures into contempt in the eyes of a
large class of persons, who with some humanity, have but little rev-
erence for the Bible, or respect for its authority. Does it not also
strengthen those who while pleading for the slave, have already de-
nounced the Scriptures, and wickedly trampled under their feet,
this sacred volume.
Professor Stuart in his pamphlet (pp. 40, 41,) administers what
he doubtless regards as a very severe chastisement to some corres-
pondent of a newspaper, who signs himself Ariel, for misapplying
scripture phrases in his love for the slave. The Professor says of
him ;
" I suppose, by his frequent appeals to the Scriptures, that he may be a
minister of the Gospel. If so, I can only condole with his people, that they
have not a more discriminating guide to lead them to a right knowledge of the
meaning of the Scriptures. If the quotations above, and the construction put
upon them, do not show him to be a mere sciolist In the knowledge of the Bible,
it would be difficult to say what could exhibit proofs of such a predicament. I
add only, that the last three texts above are printed in staring capitals ; why,
I know not, unless It be to proclaim to the world what a capital exegete he is."
May I not condole with the readers of Mr. Stuart's pamphlet
" that they have not a more discriminating guide, to lead them to a
right knoivledge of the /Scriptures. ^^
Vm.— THE BEAKING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT UPON
SLAVERY.
We now approach a department of our subject, which, to the sin-
cere Christian, is one of deep interest. We come to sit at the feet
of the Great Teacher, in obedience to the command — " Learn of
me." We come not as cavillers, not as partisans, not to pervert or
misapply the words of " Him who spake as never man spake," but
to listen, with an humble spirit, to his instructions. And while, as
5
64
disciples, we would be " clothed with humility," as the defenders of
the great principles which we may be taught, we would '■^ put on
the whole armor of Crod^'' and maintain with invincible firmness, the
positions in which Christ may place us. We would stand, " having
our loins girt about with truth."
Mr. Stuart, in the fourteen pages (43-56) that he devotes to
this branch of the subject, considers the conduct of Christ, with
reference to the civil government of the Jews, and the directions of
the Apostles, that were given to masters and slaves, respecting
their duties one towards another. He allows that the Gospel em-
braces principles, the operation of which will gradually abolish
slavery ; but, from the course pursued by Christ and his Apostles,
he argues with no httle zeal, against those who, at this day advocate
the doctrine of immediate emancipation.
In speaking of Christ, he shows, what we readily allow, and what
we would ourselves insist upon, — that the Saviour's object in in-
structing his disciples, was, to lay down general principles applica-
ble to all the relations of life, rather than give specific directions in
relation to specific evils. Had he violently assailed those sins that
were interwoven with the social habits and civil institutions of the
Hebrews, he would, among those " Scribes, Pharisees, and hypo-
crites," — those " whited sepulchres," who would neither listen to
argument or persuasion, have raised a storm about him that would
have utterly defeated his plans. We find him, therefore, saying
little about the despotism of the Roman rulers, the system of slavery
that prevailed, the desecration of the Sabbath, and other specific
sins ; but he places before the consciences of the world, great prin-
ciples of truth, duty, and benevolence, that are designed to over,
throw every despot, break every chain, and restore to every man
his rights. Some of these principles we will now consider in con.
nection with Mr. Stuart's examination of those passages in the epis-
tles to the Ephesians, Colossians, &c., which slaveholders are so
fond of reading to their slaves, and which afibrd to the conscien.
tious slaveholder so many excuses for his sins. Among them are
the following. Let us begin with Paul. The first passage I shall
quote, is Eph. vi. 5-9 ;
55
(5) Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the
flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ : (6)
Not with eye-service, as men-pleasers ; but as the servants of Christ, doing the
will of God from the heart ; (7) With good will doing service, as to the Lord,
not to men ; (8^ Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the
same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free, (d) And,
ye, masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening : knowing
that your Master also is in heaven ; neither is there respect of persons with him.
The Ephesian church was not the only one to whom Paul preach-
ed after the same tenor, in regard to slavery. To the Collossians
(iii. 22-25) and iv. 1 he says :
C22^ Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh ; not
■with eye-service, as men-pleasers ; but in singleness of heart, fearing
God ; ("23^ And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto
men ; ("24^ Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the in-
heritance : for ye serve the Lord Christ. C25) But he that doeth wrong, shall
receive for the wrong which he has done : and there is no respect of persons.
Civ. I) Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal : know-
ing that ye also have a Master in heaven.
The other passages, 1 Tim. vi. 1-4, Epistle to Titus, ii. 9, 10, 1
Peter, ii. 18, &c., are of the same import as those already quoted.
That these injunctions require that the slave be obedient and re-
spectful to his master, is obvious to every reader. But it is equally
obvious from the whole tenor of the New Testament, that we may
receive directions how to act under certain circumstances, while
great guilt may rest upon the party towards whom we are com-
manded to exercise forbearance or obedience. Christ says. Matt.
V. 44, " Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to
them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you
and persecute you." But does this command justify others in being
our enemies, in hating us, in despitefully using us, in persecuting us ?
Can the persecutor persist in his persecution on the ground that
the duties of his victims are enjoined by divine authority ? Christ
also says [v. 39,] "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn
to him the other also." But will obedience to this law justify the
smiter ? So of other commands, — " If any man will sue thee at the
law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." " Who-
soever shall compell thee to go a mile, go with him twain."
56
The soldier is commanded to be content with his wages, but shall
we from this say that Christianity justifies war. Suppose upon this,
and other incidental allusions to war, we should build up an argu-
ment in favor of this sin, how would it stand by the side of
the command, " I say unto you, love your enemies ? " Or should
we build up an argument in favor of slavery, on the prescribed
duties of the slave, how would this stand by the side of the com-
mand, " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself? "
There is one passage, upon which our author offers extended crit-
ical remarks, which deserves a moment's attention. The whole pas-
sage [in 1 Cor. vii. 20--24 : page 52,] is as follows :
(20) Let every man abiJe in the same calling wherein he was called. (21)
Art thou called being a servant ? care not for it ; but, if thou mayest be made
free, use it rather. (22) For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is
the Lord's freeman : likewise, also, he that is called, being free, is Christ's ser"
vant. (23) Ye are bought with a price; be not ye servants of men. (24)
Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
Upon this Mr. Stuart remarks :
" When Paul wrote this, he had just been discussing the question whether
circumcision or uncircumcision was of any consequence. He says it is of no ^
consequence, so that no one need pay the least attention to it. * * * *
But in passing from this matter to the consideration of slavery and freedom,
Paul applies the same command or sentiment. He tells servants, that if they
are called to be the Lord's freemen, while in a state of civil bondage, they need
not have any solicitude about the matter — //>] aoi, fieliio, do not care for it.
If I dared to degrade Paul's pure and sober diction, by translating it into our
vulgar and colloquial dialect, I might exactly and faithfully give the real senti-
ment of the original, thus : " Do not make a fuss about it." This is advice,
which is not listened to as the eternal din and commotion on all sides, made by
those who are neither slaves, nor in danger of becoming so, abundantly show.
The advice is as completely ignored, as if it had never been uttered."
Here our author entirely fails in giving the spirit of the apostle's
language, and grossly misapplies it, (as he does in the phrase /''j ooi
(ieUto^ on the fourth page) to those who are anxious that Ameri"
can slavery be abolished. "While Paul was writing this, his object
was to impress the Christian converts with the insignificance of all
worldly interests and circumstances, compared with the blessedness
57
of salvation through Christ. He had just been saying that circum-
cision was nothing, and then he adds, that even if one is in bond-
ao"e, he need not be anxious or soUcitous about it, as he is the Lord's
freeman, (or more properly freedman,) and has a title to the rich
rewards of another life. The " vulgar and colloquial dialect," used
by our author as expressive of the original, " Do not make a
fuss about it," does not give the meaning.
The primary meaning of the verb is " to care for," " to be con-
cerned about," and is here used in the sense of anxiety or solicitude.
We do not believe that the apostle intended to impress those in
bondage with the idea that they were suflFering under a trivial evil,
but simply, that in comparison with the riches of being redeemed by
the blood of Christ, it was trivial. That Paul did not regard slavery
as a light matter, or one not " to make a fuss about," we shall soon
most abundantly show, from a passage in his first epistle to Timothy
which the Professor, I think, does not quote. In this connection
he views it in somewhat the same light, in which he regarded his
severe sufferings under a relentless persecution, when he said,
" For our light affliction, which is hut for a moment, worketh
out for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." In
this view of the passage, I am abundantly sustained by the ablest
commentators.
Let me give the reader Dr. Macknight's paraphrase of it, that he
may compare its tone and spirit with the Professor's exegesis —
(1 Cor., vii. 20-22.)
He says, (20) " Since the gospel makes no alteration in men's
political state, let every Christian remain in the same political
state in which he was called, (21.) Agreeable to this rule,
WoLSt thou called, being a bondman ? Be not solicitous to be made
free, fancying that a bondman is less the object of God's favor than
a free man. Yet, if thou canst ever be made free, by any lawful
method, rather obtain thy freedom. (22) But if disappointed^
grieve not ; for a bondman who is called by the Lord, possesses the
greatest of all dignities : he is the Lord's freedman^ being delivered
by him from the slavery of sin.' '
The same view substantially, is taken by Bloomfield, Doddridge^
Prof. B. B. Edwards, and other able commentators. Doddridge says :
58
" If liberty itself, the first of all temporal blessings, be not of so great import-
ance, as that a man blessed with the high hopes and glorious consolation of
Christianity, should make himself verysolicitous about it, how much less is there
in those comparatively trifling distinctions, on which so many lay so extrava-
gant a stress."
But the application that our author makes of a portion of this
passage, " Do not care for it," to those who are concerned about
the evils of slavery, " who are neither slaves, (themselves) nor in
danger of becoming so," is particularly unfortunate ; as he has him.
self, in the latter part of his pamphlet, presented a view of the abomi-
nations of this institution, that ought to arouse the whole nation.
After completing the fifth specification, he says :
" (6) The inevitable consequence of all this is, that the young females, igno-
rant and without a sense of delicacy implanted and cherished, are at the mercy
of their masters, young and old. And although the accusation of universal pol-
lution among the masters of the South is far from being true, yet one cannot
walk the streets of any large town or city in a slaveholding State, without see-
ing such a multitude of mulattos, mestizos, quadroons, etc., as proves, beyond
all possible question, a widely-diffused profligacy and licentiousness. It is in
vain to deny it. There they are, stamped by heaven with the indelible marks
of their polluted origin — a spectacle which might make the sun to blush as he
looks down upon them."
Again :
" (9) Another crying evil is, that men grow rich without industry, and be-
come luxurious, and enervated, and prodigal, because they do not know the
worth of money, having never labored to acquire it. Hence, the extremes of
high luxury and degraded poverty in every slaveholding country. It is im-
possible that it should be otherwise."
And all this in a free, enlightened, philanthropic. Christian land,
and yet we are exhorted not to care for it ! The very words " not
caring,''^ are used on page 4. While we " cannot walk the streets
of any large town or city in a slaveholding State, without seeing
such a multitude of mulattos, mestizos, quadroons, etc., as proves
beyond all possible question^ a widely diffused profligacy and licen-
tiousness ;^^ while " females, ignorant and without a sense of deHca-
cy, implanted and cherished, are at the mercy of their masters, old
and young," — yet we are exhorted not to " care about it," " not to
59
make a fuss about it ! " I absolutely am almost compelled to hold
my breath in astonishment at such reasoning, or such exhortation —
I hardly know what to call it. But hear the Professor still further
page 105 :
" When I think on the utter callousness which such vices generate in the
hearts of men and women, the insensibility that is superinduced upon all that
is delicate, and refined, and pure, and chaste, and lovely, I might well say with
Jeremiah : ' Mine eyes run down with tears.' If there were no other argu-
ment against slavery, this alone would be amply sufficient to secure the repro-
bation of it, in the eyes of every impartial and enlightened Christian man."
What ! the Professor's eyes " run down with tears," and yet
others are to be chastised for caring for it ! ! I And this advice
to he quiet, comes, too, from the Professor at the moment that efforts
are being made, at the seat of our Government, to extend this awful
evil, and curse soil now free, with all the abominations that he has
so graphically and truly portrayed.
If this nation of freemen — this nation that in its own revolution-
ary struggle appealed to the God of Heaven for the justice of their
cause, and for divine aid — this nation whose heart has recently
beat in sympathy with the oppressed of foreign nations, — this
nation, whose Christian charities are extended to all the kingdoms of
the earth, can sit quietly and see American slavery extending, she
deserves the execrations of the civilized world. At the bar of
Heaven we should stand condemned as traitors to humanity, — as
false to our free institutions, — false to the principles of justice, —
false to Christianity, — false to God !
We now come to the consideration of the passage of St. Paul,
in 1 Tim. i. 9,10. It runs thus :
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the law-
less and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane,
for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for man-slayers, for whore-
mongers, and them that defile themselves with mankind, for man-stealers, for
liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to
sound doctrine.
Our special business now is with the men-stealers, who, in this
passage, at least, do not find themselves in very respectable com-
60
pany ! The Greek •word (JirdgunoSiataig^ which is translated men-steal-
ers, is derived from the verb (iyiJ^aTroJt^, which is composed of «»'ti?,
man, and nodi'Qu), to fetter. The meaning of the verb is " to
make a slave ; to subdue and reduce to slavery : to exercise
the trade of a slave merchant.^^ The meaning of the noun
is " one who makes a man a slave ; " "a slave merchant,^'
that, is, any one who traffics in slaves, who buys and sells hu
man beings. But, asks perhaps, the startled reader, are you
about to class all who buy or sell servants at the South, with
liars, whoremongers, murderers of fathers, &c." I reply, no ; but
I am am about to investigate this passage, to see where the apostle
Paul classes them. He is good authority. South and North.
The learned grammarian Eustathius, and other grammarians of
the first rank, tell us that ^I'SQunoSiairji^ in its popular sense, is a per
son " who deals in men ; " literally a slave trader. "Oar transla-
tors," says Bishop Horsley, in one of his speeches in the House of
Lords, " have taken the word in its restricted sense, which it bears
in the Attic law, in which the Stx>i ^vSoanoSia^iov was a criminal
prosecution for the specific crime of kidnapping, the penalty of
which was death. But the phraseology of the Holy Scriptures,
especially in the preceptive part, is a popular phraseology; and
CivSqan diarij; is a pcrson who dcals in men."
Another able critic, in commenting upon the word, says, " Let
then the slave traders, (Christians, alas !) of our times tremble ;
for all who in any wai/ participate in that abominable traffic are
&pdQ(X7roSi(TTai^ since they thereby uphold a system which per-
petually engenders man-stealing.^^ *
Macknight says, (p. 445 of Commentary on Epistles) in remark-
ing upon the word, " They who, like the African traders, encourage
that unchristian traffic, by purchasing the slaves whom they know
to be thus unjustly acquired, are partakers in their crime."
The Rev. Albert Barnes, in his notes on this passage, says,
*' The guilt of man-stealing is incurred essentially by those who pur-
chase those who are thus stolen ; as the purchaser of a stolen horse,
knowing it to be so, participates in the crime. A measure of that
* See Bloomfield's Annotations on the New Testament, vol 8, p. 201.
61
criminality also adheres to all who own slaves, for it is a system
known to have been originated by theft. This crime was expressly
forbidden by the law of God, and was made punishable with death.
Ex. xxi. 16. Deut. xxiv. 7."
Adam Clarke translates the word, ^^slave-dealers, whether those
who carry on the traffic in human Jiesh and blood, or those who
steal a person, in order to sell him into bondage," &c.
Let me now give the opinion of the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian church of the United States, as expressed in 1794,
authority that neither the Pi'ofessor, nor the present members of
both Assemblies can set aside.
Their doctrine at that period is stated in the note b. appended to the one
hundred and forty-second question of the larger Catechism, in these words:
" 1 Tim. i, 10. The law is made for man-stealers. This crime among the
Jews exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment ; Exodus xxi. 16 ;
and the apostle here classes them with sinners of the first rank. The word he
uses, in its original import, comprehends all who are concerned in bringing any
of the human race into slavery, or in retaining them in it. Hominum fures, qui
servos vel liberos abducunt, retinent, vendunt, vel emunt. Stealers of men are
all those who bring off slaves or freemen, and keep, sell, or buy them. To steal
a freeman, says Grotius, is the highest kind of theft. In other instances,
we only steal human property, but when we steal or retain men in slavery, we
seize those who, in common with ourselves, are constituted by the original grantj
lords of the earth. Genesis i. 28. Vide Poli synopsin in loc."
In the year 1818, the General Assembly expressed more fully
their views upon the evils of slavery, as may be seen in " The Di-
gest of the General Assembly," from which the following extract is
made :
" The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, having taking into
consideration the subject of slavery, think proper to make known their senti
ments upon it.
" We consider the voluntary enslaving of one part of the human race by
another, as a gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights of human
nature ; as utterly inconsistent with the law of God which requires us to love
our neighbor as ourselves ; and as totally irreconcilable with the spirit and
principles of the Gospel of Christ, which enjoin that ' all things whatsoever
ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.' Slavery cre-
ates a paradox in the moral system — it exhibits rational, accountable, and im"
62
mortal beings in such circumstances as scarcely to leave them the power of
moral action It exhibits them as dependent on the will of others, whether
they shall receive religious instruction ; whether they shall know and wor-
ship the true God ; whether they shall enjoy the ordinances of the Gospel ;
whether they shall perform the duties and cherish the endearments of husbands
and wives, parents and children, neighbors and friends ; whether they shall
preserve their chastity and purity, or regard the dictates of justice and human-
ity. Such are some of the consequences of slavery ; consequences not imaginary ^
but which connect themselves with its very existence. The evils to which the
slave is always exposed, often take place in their very worst degree and form;
and where all of them do not take place, still the slave is deprived of his natur-
al rights, degraded as a human being, and exposed to the danger of passing in-
to the hands of a master, who may inflict upon him all the hardships and inju-
ries which inhumanity and avarice may suggest.
" From this view of the consequences resulting from the practice into which
Christian people have most inconsistently fallen, of enslaving a portion of their
brethren of mankind, it is manifestly the duty of all Christians, when the in-
consistency of slavery with the dictates of humanity and religion has been de-
monstrated, and is generally seen and acknowledged, to use their honest, earn-
est and unwearied endeavors, as speedily as possible to efface this blot on our
holv religion, and to obtain the complete abolition of slavery throughout the
•world. We earnestly exhort them," the slaveholders, " to continue and to in-
crease their exertions to effect the total abolition of slavery."
Now, if these quotations, and the views and authorities that we
have presented upon the word " men-stealers," in 1 Tim. i. 10, are
correct, then it is clear that St. Paul does rank the sin of slavery
with " sins of the first magnitude," and the American slaveholders
are bound to give up the Bible, or give up slavery. There is no
escape from this. If Eustathius, Bishop Horsley, Dr. Macknight,
the Rev. Adam Clarke, the Rev. Albert Barnes, and the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the United States, are cor-
rect in their interpretation of the word men-stealers and solemnly
declare that it means not only those who steal slaves, but also those
who buy and sell slaves, and who " retain " men in slavery, then
the supporters of this system must admit that St. Paul is against
them.
And is it not time, I would ask, that these constant appeals to
the Bible by Northern and Southern divines, in defense of slavery
be stopped ? Is it not time that this sophistry, and false exegesis,
and flagrant perversion of the Word of God be exposed ?
63
To show the reader with what confidence Southern Christians
appeal to the Bible on this question, let me give the action of the
church in Petersburg, Virginia, 16th of November, 1838, in rela-
tion to the sentiments expressed by the General Assembly, a portion
of which I have quoted above :
" Whereas the General Assembly did in 1818 pass a law which contains pro-
visions for slaves, irreconcilable with our civil institutions, and solemnly declar-
in<T slavery to be a sin against God — a law at once offensive and insulting to
the whole Southern community :
Resolved, 1. That as slaveholders, we cannot consent longer to remain in
connection with any church where there exists a statute conferring a right upon
slaves to arraign their masters before the judicatory of the church — and that,
too, for the act oi selling them, without their consent first had and obtained.
2. That as the great Head of the Church has recognized the relation of master
and slave, we conscientiously believe that slavery is not a sin against God, as de-
clared by the General Assembly.
3. That there is no tyranny more oppressive than that which is sometimes
sanctioned by the operation of ecclesiastical law."
Similar resolutions in regard to the bearing of scripture upon
slavery have been passed by the Synod of Virginia, several Presby-
teries in South Carolina, and other ecclesiastical bodies in the slave
States. The arguments, however, by which they attempt to sustain
themselves, are as utterly untenable as those which Professor
Stuart has brought forward. They have never adduced a single
passage from the Bible that sustains or warrants the horrible and
barbarous system of American slavery.
In regard to the " Great Head of the Church," to whom they so
often appeal, we would remark, that while Christ, to a certain ex-
tent, condemned specific sins, yet his great object was to plant in
the hearts of men such principles as would lead them to renounce
every sin. His design was to render men Jwly, to bring them under
the great laws of benevolence, justice and love, that reign in the
heavenly world. He pointed out distinctly our relations one to
another, as well as our relations and duties to God. He taught us
to recognize the rights of all men ; to regard their interests in our
dealings with them ; to bestow upon the poor our charities, upon
the unfortunate our compassion, upon all our love. He labored, in
64
short, tc demolish the principle of selfishness, that had for four
thousand years occupied the throne of the affections, and to place
upon that throne the principle of benevolence. Under the sway of
the former principle, the earth had been the theatre of wars, blood,
shed, crime, and oppression in its most horrible forms.
At the time of our Saviour's advent, slavery was universal
throughout the Roman empire. Some wealthy persons owned even
ten and fifteen thousand slaves, and it is computed (see Professor
Edwards, on Roman slavery,) that in Italy there were three slaves
to one freeman. Very many became slaves by being taken cap-
tives in war, and others were purchased from slave dealers. It is
said that Ccesar took 400,000 captives in his Gallic wars, and mul-
titudes of slaves were brought from the islands of the Mediterranean.
Their condition under the Romans, as we have already shown,
was oppressive and cruel in the highest degree. They could neither
marry nor hold property, nor obtain any redress under the sever-
est injuries. The master had the power of life and death over his
slave, and could treat him with the most unrelenting barbarity,
while no civil law extended its shield over the sufferer. Exquisite
tortures, too, were not unfrequently inflicted upon the slaves, and
some even for trivial offence, were buried ahve, others crucified,
and others put to death after lingering and acute sufferings.
Can we for a moment suppose that our blessed Saviour, whose
heart beat in sympathy with every form of human suffering, who was
so ready to heal the sick, afford consolation to the poor, and com-
fort to the afflicted, who was moved to tears while standing at the
grave of a friend, could look upon this horrible system with any other
feehngs than those of the keenest sorrow and deepest abhorrence ?
But the question that presented itself to his mind was, how shall
this gigantic system of iniquity, — this system that has risen up in
defiance of every principle of justice, every feeling of humanity,
every law of God, — this system, the cruelties of which cannot be
contemplated, without a sickening disgust, how shall this be most
effectually demolished ? It is interwoven with all the civil and so-
cial institutions of the empire, and specific rules or directions may
only aggravate the evil, and convulse the empire without breaking
the chains of the oppressed. The great moral Legislator, therefore,
65
in infinite wisdom, lays down principles of justice, humanity and be-
nevolence, which will, by their operation upon the hearts of men,
gradually work society clear of this awful sin. And we find that as
Christianity made progress, the disciples of Christ deemed it one of
their most urgent duties, to liberate those whom, while in their sins,
they had held in bondage. Clemens, in his epistle to the Corinthi-
ans, says, " We have known many among ourselves who have de-
livered themselves into bonds and slavery that they might restore
others to their liberty." Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, expended his
whole estate, and then sold himself in order to accomplish the same
object. Cyprian sent to the Bishop of Numidia 2590 crowns in or
der to redeem some captives. Socrates, the historian, says that after
the Roman army had taken some 7,000 Persian captives, Acacius,
Bishop of Amida, melted down the gold and silver plate of his church,
with which he redeemed the captives. Ambrose did the same in
respect to the furniture of his church. It was the only case in
which the imperial constitution allowed plate to be sold.
Such then, were some of the practical effects of the principles of
the Gospel upon slavery, among the early Christians. And under
the influence of these same principles, slavery has been abolished in
Great Britain, in the free States of our own country, and upon the
continent of Europe. And while other and less enlightened nations
than our own, are getting rid of this evil, it is a disgrace to us, that
so many are willing not only to retain it, but to fortify their opin.
ions, by such an obvious and flagrant perversion of God's Holy
Word !
IX.— MR. WEBSTER AND THE CONSTITUTION.
We now approach Mr. Webster's speech, in defense of which
Mr. Stuart argues with more zeal than ability. In entering upon
this branch of our subject we feel that our limits will not allow us to
examine as thoroughly and minutely every point presented in this
speech, as the case demands. Indeed such an examination is ren-
dered unnecessary, as the Hon. Horace Mann, the Hon. J. Z.
Goodrich, and other gentlemen eminently qualified for the work,
6
66
have so ablj and successfully refuted many of the arguments ■which
Mr. Webster adduced on the slavery question.
Yet there are some points, which deserve consideration, in order
to meet Professor Stuart, where he appears in defease of this
speech. And if any other apology, than that which this pamphlet
affords me, is needed for my considering the constitutional and po-
litical bearings of the questions before us, I would find it in the
Hon. Mr. Webster's own solemn appeals to the ministers of the
gospel, to raise their warning voice in " denunciation of the crimes"
connected with slavery.
In his address delivered at Plymouth, Dec, 22, 1820, in com-
memoration of the first settlement of New England, (see Web-
ster's speeches, vol. 1, p. 53, 54, 8th edition,) he pours forth from
his noble heart, a torrent of indignation against those who are guilty
of participating in the African slave trade. At that time he felt
the deep injustice and barbarity of tearing women and children
from their African homes, and forcibly transporting them to America,
as we now feel the deep injustice and barbarity of tearing women
and children from their Virginia homes, and forcibly carrying them
to Texas or New Mexico. And if the Afdcan slave trader was so
guilty in the eyes of Mr. Webster, then the great and honored
champion of freedom, how much more guilty at this day, ought the
American slave trader to appear in his estimation, who, with all
the light and knowledge that now surround him, is struggling to
open a market on free soil for " this odious and abominable trade.''
Had the Hon. Mr. Webster, of 1850, been consistent with the
Hon. Mr. Webster of 1820, the more pleasing duty would have de-
volved upon us, to have made an humble attempt to increase the
lustre of his fame, and add, if possible, another star to the splendid
wreath that then adorned his noble brow.
In the address referred to, he said,
" I deem it my duty on this occasion to suggest, that the land is
not yet wholly free from the contamination of a traffic at which eve-
ry feeling of humanity must forever revolt.
" In the sight of our law, the African slave trader is a pirate and
a felon, and in the sight of Heaven an offender far beyond the ordin-
ary depth of human guilt. There is no brighter part of our histo-
67
ry, than that which records the measures which have been adopted
by the government, at an early day, and at different times since,
for the suppression of this traiBc, and I would call on all the true
sons of New England to co-operate with the laws of man, and the
justice of Heaven.
" If there be, within the extent of our knowledge and influence,
any participation in this traffic in slaves, let us pledge ourselves up-
on the Rock of Plymouth^ to extirpate and destroy it. It is not
fit that the land of the Pilgrims should bear the shame longer.
Let that spot be purified, or let it be set aside from the Christian
world ; let it be put out of the circle of human sympathies and human
regards; and let civilized men henceforth have no connection with it.
" I invoke those who fill the seats of justice, and all who minister
at her altar, that they exercise the wholesome and necessary sever-
ity of the law. I invoke the ministers of religion, that they pro-
claim its denunciation of those crimes, and add its solemn sanction
to the authority of human laws. If the pulpit be silent, whenever
and wherever there may be a sinner, bloody with this guilt, within
the hearing of its voice, the pulpit is false to its trust."
For one, I stand ready to respond to this appeal in its just appli-
cation to the American slave trader, as well as the African ; and
while responding to it, I commend the whole passage to the special
attention of those editors who are so ready to raise the cry of " pol-
itics and the pulpit," whenever a clergyman has the presumption to
express his views upon questions of national interest. Some jour-
nals and political parties, the moment they adopt any national sin,
and commence protecting it and nursing it as their own, cry out to
the ministers of the gospel, " Gentlemen, hands off. This is a polit-
ical question, one with which you have nothing to do. Your duty
is to preach the gospel, expose the sins of the wicked antediluvians,
the idolatrous Canaanites, and the hypocritical Pharisees, and let
politics alone !" Such was the cry when the Mexican war was rag-
ing. Although it is admitted that the gospel condemns war
and slavery, and that it is the duty of Christians to use their influ-
ence to destroy these evils ; yet, when a party or newspaper, for po-
litical capital, or any other purposes, becomes the special protector
of these sins, then, forsooth, the pulpit must suspend its denunciation !
We might now preach or write upon the sinfulness and horrors of
war without incurring the least risk of giving offence, although the
war question was so recently a " political question."
But to all who are ready to raise the cry of " politics and the pulpit"
now that slavery is adopted and caressed by them, we would address
the solemn words of their great chieftain : " If the pulpit be silent
whenever or tvherever there may be a sinner bloody ivith this guilt,
within the hearing of its voice, the pulpit is false to its
TRUST."
Mr. Webster, in his speech, is said to have presented us with a
lucid and forcible exhibition of the bearing of the Constitution on
slavery, and those who dissent from him are accused of opposing the
Constitution. In order that we may form a correct opinion of the
nature and extent of the connection between the United States
Constitution and slavery, it is necessary that we go back and inquire
into the views of its framers, and the sentiments that prevailed in
the country atthe period of its adoption. The most reUable sources
of information with reference to these points, are the two following
works : — The papers of James Madison, purchased by order of Con-
gress, being his correspondence, &c., and his reports of debates in
the Federal Convention ; now published from the original manu-
scripts, &c. 3 vols. New York : 1841." Also, " Secret proceed-
ings and debates of the Convention assembled at Philadelphia in
1787, to form the Constitution of the United States, from notes
taken by Robert Yates, Esq. 1 vol. Albany : 1821."
From these works it appears that, previous to the adoption of the
present Constitution, five or six plans or drafts of government were
laid before the Convention for their consideration ; one by Mr. Ed-
mund Randolph, on the 29th of May; another by Mr. Charles
Pickering, another by the Hon. Mr. Patterson, another by Col. Ham-
ilton. In neither of these drafts or plans, is there a single allusion
to the restoration of fugitive slaves. In the Resolutions of the Con-
vention, referred, in July, 1787, to a committee of five, for the pur-
pose of reporting a Constitution, no instructions are given upon this
point, and in the draft of a Constitution, which this committee pre-
sented, there was no allusion to this subject.
When, however, the fifteenth article of the draft of the Constitu-
69
tlon was under consideration, which relates to delivering up fugi-
tives, criminals^ persons charged with treason, felony, &c., two del-
egates from South Carolina, Messrs. Butler and Pinckney, moved
an amendment, requiring fugitive slaves and servants to be deliv-
ered up like criminals." This was objected to, and finally a sepa-
rate clause was inserted as follows :
" No person held to service or labor In one State, under tlie laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein
be discharged from such service or labor, but shaU be delivered up on claim of
the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
It is worthy of notice, also, that while South Carolina was the au-
thor of this stain upon our Constitution, that State voted against
the -adoption of the fourteenth article, which reads thus, " The citi-
zens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities
of citizens in the several States." When this article was read,
Gen. Pinckney expressed his dissatisfaction with it, as he was desi-
rous that some " provision should be included in favor of property
in slaves," and when the question was put on the final adoption of
this c\d^nsQ,^^aUthedelegates from South Carolina voted against it."
The other clauses in the Constitution that bear upon the slavery
question, are so worded that the casual reader would scarcely sup-
pose that they related to slaves at all, so careful were the members
of the convention to exclude the words slave and slavery from this
Constitution of free men.
The 9th section. Art. 1, relating to the slave trade, is as follows :
« The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now ex-
isting shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited prior to the year 1808,
but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dol-
lars for each person."
When the subject of continuing or abolishing the slave trade was
before the convention, some of the members expressed very boldly
and fully their views upon the whole slavery question. I will give
a few extracts as reported by Mr. Yates, (p. 64-67.)
" It was said that we had just assumed a place among independent nations,
6*
70
m consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great Britain to * enslave
us, that this opposition was grounded upon the preservation of those rights to
which God and nature had entitled us, not in particular, but in common with
all the rest of mankind. That we had appealed to the Supreme Being for his
assistance as the God of freedom ; who could not but approve our efforts to pre-
serve the rights which he had thus imparted to his creatures ; that now, when we
scarcely had risen from our knees, from supplicating his aid and protection — in
forminw our government over z,free people, a government formed pretendedly
on the principles of liberty and for its preservation — in that government to
have a provision, not only putting it out of its power to restrain and prevent the
slave trade, even encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States
power and union, in proportion as they cruelly and wantonly sport with the
rights of their fellow creatures, ought to be considered as a solemn mockery of,
and insult to, that God whose protection we then implored, and could not fail
to hold us up in detestation, and render us contemptible to every true friend of
liberty in the world." " That on the contrary we ought rath-
er to prohibit expressly in our Constitution, the further importation of slaves ;
and to authorize the general government from time to time to make such regula-
tions as should be thought advantageous for the gradual abolition of slavery and
the emancipation of the slaves which are already in the States."
" That slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and has a ten-
dency to destroy these principles on which it is supported, as it lessens the sense
of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates us to t^jranny and oppression. It
was further urged that by this system of government, every State is to be pro-
tected both from foreign invasions and from domestic insurrections ; that from
this consideration it was of the utmost importance it should have a power to re-
strain the importation of slaves, since in proportion as the number of slaves were
increased in any State, in the same proportion the State is weakened and ex-
posed to foreign invasion or domestic insurrection, and by so much less will it be
able to protect itself against either, and therefore will, by so much the more,
want aid from, and be a burden to, the Union."
<' At this time we do not generally hold the commerce in so great abhorrence
as we have done. When our liberties were at stake we icarmly felt for the
common rights of men. The danger being thought to be past, which threatened
ourselves, we are daily growing more insensible to those rights."
Such were the sentiments that were advanced in the Convention
of 1787, when the Constitution was under consideration, and although
these sentiments and the proceedings to which I have alluded, do
not affect the legal character of this instrument, they bear upon its
» The words italicised in these extracts are thus printed in the original.
71
moral character, and should have weight with all Christian expoun-
ders of the Constitution. That this instrument gives no license to
extend slavery, is obvious to the most cursory reader. Indeed, its
framers regarded slavery as a wrong, a curse, an outrage upon all
those rights for which they had been so earnestly contending, and
the lanjjuasre of the Constitution was selected with reference to the
application of this instrument to a just and free people. The opinion
was generally entertained that slavery was to die out, and not be
perpetuated or extended. The whole number of delegates appoint-
ed to attend this Convention, from the several States was, accord-
ing to Mr. Yates' report, sixty-five. Of this number ten did not
attend, and of those who attended, sixteen did not sign the Consti-
tution, as amended and adopted, on the 17th of September, 1787.
Richard Hildreth, Esq., in his History of the United States,
lately published, says, vol. 3, p. 526 :
" Of those who signed [the Constitution] probably there was not one to whom
all the provisions of the Instrument were satisfactory, but gradually matured, as
it had been, in a four months' discussion, by a compromise of contending inter-
ests and opinions, it was accepted as the best that circumstances admitted, and
as promising, on the whole, an improvement on the old confederation."
When it was proposed by Messrs. Gerry and Mason, to prepare
a bill of rights to be adopted by the Convention, the measure was
lost by a tie vote. In alluding to the fact that five Southern States
voted against it, Mr. Hildreth says, p. 523, " Some difficulty per-
haps, was apprehended by the South, in drawing up a bill of rights,
to square with the existence of slavery." When the Constitution
was submitted to the several States for their approval, the greatest
objection that was urged against it was " that it had no bill of rights,
and was deficient in guaranties of personal liberty."
We do not bring forward these facts for the purposes of weaken-
ing the power of this instrument, but to show that the same embar-
rassments and .difficulties that exist, with reference to its bearing up-
on slavery, at the present day, existed at the time of its adoption.
It was framed amid strong opposition to the system of slavery.
Many in the convention felt that it was solemn mockery, and an in
suit to the God of Heaven, after they had, in their recent struggle
72
appealed to him and his aid in so just a cause, to turn around and
fasten chains upon their fellow men. Had it not been for the
clamorous demands of the delegation from South Carolina the fugi-
tive slave clause would never probably have been inserted in the Con-
stitution. And from that time down to the present day, this State has
been the stronghold of slavery. It resisted most earnestly the sup-
pression of the African slave trade, and threatened to dissolve the
Union in case this accursed traffic was abolished. It has been fore-
most in its efforts to extend the area of slavery, and to embarrass
the movements of Congress for the advancement of human freedom.
X. — VIEWS OF WASHINGTON, JEFFERSON, ADAMS, PATRICK
HENRY, &c. ON SLAVERY.
The opinions and feelings of the immortal "Washington, who was
President of the Convention that formed the Constitution, may be
gathered from his letters.
In one address to Robert Morris, Esq., he said :
•' I hope that it will not be conceived from these observations, that it is my
wish to hold the unhappy people who are the subject of this letter, in slavery.
I can only say, that there is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than
I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it ; but there is only one pro-
per and elfectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that is, by the
legislative authority ; and this, as far as my suffrage will go, shall not be
wanting."
In another to John F. Mercer, Esq., he said :
" I never mean, unless some particular circumstance should compel me to
it, to possess another slave by purchase ; it being among my first wishes to see
some plan adopted by which slavery in this country may be abolished by law."
In writing to Gen. Lafayette, he said :
" The benevolence of your heart, my dear Marquis, is so conspicuous on all
occasions, that I never wonder at fresh proofs of it ; but your late purchase of
an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a view of emancipating the slaves, is
a generous and noble proof of your humanity. Would to God, a like spirit
nught diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people in this country."
73
The noble and benevolent Lafayette felt most keenly the wrongs
of this nation in upholding slavery.
He said on one occasion :
" While I am indulging in my views of American prospects, and American
liberty, it is mortifying to be told that in that very country, a large portion of
the people are slaves ! It is a dark spot on the face of the nation. Such a
state of things cannot always exist.
I see in the papers, that there is a plan of gradual abolition of slavery in the
district of Columbia. I would be doubly happy of it, for the measure in itself,
and because a sense of American pride makes me recoil at the observations of
the diplomatists, and other foreigners, who gladly improve the unfortunate ex-
isting circumstances, into a general objection to our republican, and (savmg
that deplorable evil) our matchless system."
The allusion of General Washington to the colony of Cayenne is
thus referred to in the private life of Gen. Lafayette— vol. 1, p. 149.
"After the decisive campaign against Lord Cornwallis, in 1781, Lafayette,
on receiving the thanks of the State of Virginia, which had partlculariy profit-
ed by his successes, replied, by the expression of a wish, that liberty might be
speedily extended to all men, without distinction. But he was not contented with
sterile wishes, and on his return to France, flattering himself, like Turgot and
Poivre, that the gradual emancipation of the negroes might be conciliated with
the personal interests of the colonies, he was desirous of establishing the fact
by experience, and for that purpose, he tried a special experiment, on a scale
sufficiently large to put the question to the test.
*********
When Lafeyette had been proscribed in 1792, the National convention con-
fiscated all his property, and ordered his negroes to be sold at Cayenne, m
spite ofthe remonstrances of Madame Lafayette, who protested against the
sale, observing, that the negroes had been purchased only to be restored to
liberty after their instruction, and not to be again sold as objects of trade and
speculation. At a later period, all the negroes of the French colonies were
declared free, by a decree of the National Convention. It is nevertheless ^ re-
markable, that some of Lafayette's plans, with regard to the slave emancipa-
tion, were realized."
The views of Thomas Jefferson, who was appointed Secretary of
State in 1794, and President of the United States in 1801, are
generally known, and yet I cannot forbear giving some quotations
from his writings showing his hostility to slavery. He says, (see
Notes on the State of Virginia :)
74
" What an incomprehensible machine is man ! who can endure toil, famine,
stripes, imprisonment, and death itself, in vindication of his own liberty, and
the next moment be deaf to all those motives whose power supported him
through his trial, and inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is
fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to op-
pose. But we must wait with patience the workings of an overruling Provi-
dence, and hope that that is preparing the deliverance of these our suffering
brethren. When the measure of their tears shall be full — when their tears
shall have involved heaven itself in darkness — doubtless a God of justice
will awaken to their distress, and by diffusing a light and liberality among
their oppressors, or, at length by his exterminating thunder, manifest his atten-
tion to things of this world, and that they are not lefl to the guidance of blind
fatality."
Again he says :
" With what execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one
half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those in-
to despots, and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, and the
amor patria? of the other. For if a slave can have a country in this world, it
must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labor
for another, in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as
far as depends on his individual endeavors to the banishment of the human
race, or entail his own miserable condition on the endless generations proceed-
ing from him. With the morals of the people, their industry also is destroyed.
For in a warm climate no man will labor for himself who can make another
labor for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves, a very small
proportion, indeed, are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation
be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction
in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God .^ That
they are not to be violated but with his wrath ? Indeed, I tremble for my
country, token I reflect that God is just ; that his justice cannot sleep for ever ;
that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the
wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events ; that it
may become probable by supernatural interference. The Almighty has no at-
tribute which can take side toith us in such a contest. But it is impossible to be
temperate and to pursue this subject."
Benjamin Franklin, according to Steuben's account, (see Life of
Franklin, by William Temple Franklin) was President of the Penn-
sylvania Society for promoting the abolition of slavery, and as such
signed the memorial that was presented to the House of Represen-
tatives of the United States, on the 12th of February, 1789, pray-
ing that body to exert, to their fullest extent, the power vested in
75
them by the Constitution, in discouraging the traflfic in human flesh.
The following is part of the memorial :
To the Senate and House of Representatives of tie United States :
The Memorial of the Pennsylvania Society for promoting the abolition
of slavery, the relief of free negroes unlawfully held in bondage, and the im-
provement of the condition of the African race —
Respectfully Sheweth:
That from a regard for the happiness of mankind, an association was form-
ed several years ago in this State, by a number of her citizens of various religi-
ous denominations, for promoting the abolition of slavery, and for the relief of
those unlawfully held in bondage. A just and accurate conception of the true
principles of liberty, as it spread through the land, produced accession to their
numbers, many friends to their cause, and a ^legislative co-operation with their
views, which, by the blessing of Divine Providence, have been successfully di-
rected to the relieving from bondage a large number of their fellow-creatures
of the African race.
From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the portion, and is still
the birthright of all men, and influenced by the strong ties of humanity and
the principles of their institution, your memorialists conceive themselves
bound to use all justifiable endeavors to loosen the bond of slavery, and
promote the general enjoyment of the blessings of freedom. Under these im-
pressions, they earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of slave-
ry ; that you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to those
unhappy men, who alone in this land of freedom, are degraded into perpetual
bondage, and who amidst the general joy of surrounding freemen, are groaning
in servile subjection — that you will devise means for removing this incon-
sistency from the character of the American people — that you will promote
mercy and justice towards this distressed race, and that you will step to the
very verge of the power vested in you for discouraging every species of traffic
in the persons of our fellow men.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, President.
Philadelphia, Feb. 3, 1790. [Federal Gazette, 1790.]
How different are these views from those recently advanced by
the Hon. Henry Clay, in his speech on his Compromise bill, by
Senator Foote in his furious attacks upon the citadel of freedom,
and by the Hon. Daniel Webster, late champion of our liberties,
and exioander of the Constitution.
It is truly refreshing to read the noble and patriotic views of
76
these old American heroes, after having had our blood chilled by
the perusal of Mr. Webster's speech and Mr. Stuart's pamphlet.
But let us hear Patrick Henry, whose soul-stirring eloquence con-
tributed so much towards arousing the nation to assert and defend
her rights. Let us hear him who embodied his own views of the
worth of liberty in the following words :
" Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains
and slavery ? Forbid it Almighty God ! — I know not what course others
may take ; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
In a letter addressed to Robert Pleasants, Esq., under date of
Havana, Jan. 18, 1773, he writes :
" It is not a little surprising, that the professors of Christianity, whose chief
excellence consists in softening the human heart, in cherishing and improving
its finer feelings, should encourage a practice so totally repugnant to the
first impressions of right and wrong. What adds to the wonder is, that this
abominable practice has been introduced in the most enlightened ages. Times
that seem to have pretensions to boast of high improvements in the arts
and sciences, and refined morality, have brought into general use, and
guarded by many laws, a species of violence and tyranny, which our more
rude and barbarous, but more honest ancestors detested. Is it not amaz-
ing, that at a time when the rights of humanity are defined and understood
with precision, in a country, above all others, fond of liberty, that in such
an age, and in such a country, we find men professing a religion the most
humane, mild, gentle, and generous, adopting a principle as repugnant to hu-
manity as it is inconsistent with the Bible, and destructive to liberty ? Every
thinking, honest man, rejects it in speculation. How few in practice, from
conscientious motives ! --_-------
" / believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this
lamentable evil. Everything we can do is to improve it, if it happens in our
day ; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity
for their unhappy lot, and our abhorrence for slavery. If we cannot reduce this
wished for reformation to practice, let us treat the unhappy victims with lenity.
It Is the furthest advance we can make towards justice ; It is a debt we owe
to the purity of our religion, to show that it Is at variance with that law which
warrants slavery. I know not where to stop. I could say many things on the
subject, a serious view of which gives a gloomy perspective to future times ! "
James Monroe, in a speech pronounced in the Virginia Conven-
tion said : " We have found that this evil has preyed upon the very
vitals of the Union and has been prejudicial to all the States in
77,
which it has existed." The views of Samuel Adams maybe learned
from the following extract :
" His principles on the subject of human rights carried him far beyond the
narrow limits which many loud asserters of their own liberty have presci'ibed to
themselves, to the recognition of this right in every human being. One day
the wife of Mr. Adams returning home, informed her husband that a friend
had made her a present of a female slave. Mr. Adams replied in a firm, decid-
ed manner; ' She may come, iut not as a slave, for a slave cannot live in my
house; if she comes, she must come free.' She came, and took her free abode
with the family of this great champion of American liberty, and there she con-
tinued free, and there she died free." — Eev. Mr. Allen, Uxhridge, Mass.
It is an interesting fact that of the first six Presidents of the
United States (from the immortal Washington down to John Q.
Adams) all but one have left on record expressions of their
hostility to American slavery ; nor can we but reflect with the high-
est gratification upon the noble course which our late worthy Presi-
dent took with reference to the agitating questions of the day. His
earnest recommendations to Congress to admit without delay the
State of California, with her free Constitution, unembarrassed by
other and foreign matters, rendered him the worthy successor of these
illustrious men.
Let us now descend from these refreshing heights, to the pam-
phlet before us. Mr. Stuart, in his remarks upon those who, at the
present day, have some conscientious scruples with reference to de-
livering up fugitives, (a point which, in its connection with the Con-
stitution, we shall soon consider,) very gravely asks, (p. 61,) "Can
we respect a conscience which puts the broad seal of disgrace and
infamy on those immortal men and patriots who formed our Consti-
tution, and who in all our States accepted and approved of it ? And
where now has consciencehQQn, these sixty years past? What sort
of men have adorned our legislative halls, our pulpits, our churches ?
Men, it woald seem, who did not understand even the first rudiments
of religion, or of civil liberty and the rights of man. Has consci-
ence slept profoundly so long in the fathers, and now have their
children become all at once ' wiser than Daniel,' and discovered
what poor, grovelling, halfwitted men their fathers were ? "
" Conscience slept profoundly!'''' No, Sir. The conscience oi
7
78
this nation has never slept upon the slavery question, from the hour
that the noble Massachusetts colonists sent back the first carsfo of
slaves that landed upon their shores, to Africa, down to the issue of
this remarkable pamphlet. Indeed, "conscience" has been, under the
influence of our religion and education, becoming more and more sen-
sitive, and were it not for the support that the atrocious system of
slavery receives from Northern statesmen, and professing Christians,
we should not now have the nation convulsed, and the Union endanger-
ed, by the application of a free State to be admitted to our confede-
ration. We should not have California's free constitution used as a
dray-horse, to drag after it a load of abominations, such as the so-
called Compromise bill presents to us.
" A conscience which puts the broad seal of disgrace and infamy
on those immortal men and patriots who formed the Constitution I "
But I would ask, if those " immortal men " were so conscientious
in respect to inserting the fugitive slave clause, may not some of
their descendants have some conscience about executing \tt Is this
" conscience "" to be ridiculed, as Mr. Stuart ridicules it on the page
that precedes our last extract ? Is it to be brought into contempt,
by comparing it with that which the hangers of witches had, and
Quakers "who went about the streets in piirisnaturalihusf'' Be-
sides, if the " conscience " of these modern freemen puts " the
broad seal of disgrace and infamy on those immortal men who form-
ed the Constitution," upon whom does our author's conscience put
" the broad seal of disgrace and infamy," when he says in relation
to the law that forbids slaves the advantages of education, that "in
such a case, obedience to a human law is crime : it is treason against
the majesty of Heaven and earth? " — p. 105.
One of the most unfortunate allusions, in Mr. Stuart's pamphlet,
is that which he makes to the Hon. William Jay, who recently pre-
sided over an anti-slavery meeting in the city of New York. His
language is as follows : —
" I could not help thinking more particularly on one great and good man,
•who took an active part in all the formative process of our general government,
and by his skill and wisdom saved our new settlements from the horrors of In-
dian aggression. Every one will of course know, that I speak of the illustrious
John Jay. What if his portrait had been hanging in the hall where the
79
Anti-slavery Society recently met, under the presiding auspices of his descen-
dant ? Would It not have brought to every mind, the recollection of what the
Earl of Chatham said, when addressing a descendant (then In the House of
Commons) of a noble ancestor, whose picture was in full view ? His words
were ; ' From the tapestry which adorns these walls, the Immortal ancestor
looks down, and frowns upon his degenerate ofispring.' I must except. In my
application of this declaration, the last two words. They should not be applied
to such a man as the Hon. William Jay. But I may say : Would not his im-
mortal ancestor have looked down with a mixture of sorrow and frowning, on
a descendant who could exhort his countrymen to disregard and trample under
foot the Constitution which his father had so signally helped to establish ; and
who could pour out an unrestrained torrent of vituperation upon Mr. Webster,
who has taken up the Constitution where Mr. Jay's ancestor left It, and stood
ever since In the place of the latter as Its defender and expounder ? How
would that agitated and frowning face, moreover, have gathered blackness,
when the presiding officer of that meeting went on to say, that Mr. Webster
had not made his Speech from any conviction of sentiment, but because the
cotton merchants and manufacturers of Boston demanded such views to be
maintained, and these gentry had of course given It their approbation."
Had Mr. Stuart been acquainted with the views of the " illustri-
ous John Jay," upon slavery, he would never have written this par-
agraph ; for it appears from the life and writings of Jay, that he
was not only strongly opposed to slavery, but was President of an
anti-slavery society.
In one of his letters from Spain, he wrote as follows :
" The State of New York Is rarely out of my mind or heart, and I am often
disposed to write much respecting Its affairs, but I have so little Information as
to its present political objects and operations, that I am afraid to attempt It.
An excellent law might be made out of the Pennsylvania one, for the gradual
abolition of slavery. Till America comes into this measure, her prayers to
Heaven will be Impious. This Is a strong expression, but it Is just. Were I
In your Legislature, I would present a bill for the purpose with great care, and
I would never cease moving It till it became a law, or I ceased to be a member.
I believe that God governs the world, and I believe It to be a maxim in His, as
in our court, that those who ask for equity ought to do It."
As president of an anti-slavery society, Mr. Jay corresponded
with several other societies, and was for many years zealously devoted
to the advancement of human freedom. So that " the portrait
of the illustrious John Jay," suspended upon the walls, at the late
80
anti-slavery meeting, would not have been as inappropriate a deco-
ration as the Professor imagines.
Since preparing the above, I have received a pamphlet Avritten
by the lion. William Jay, in which he not only confirms the state-
ments that I have made, but furnishes the most abundant evidence
of his father's deep hostility to American slavery. He also most
fully and ably defends himself against the unwarrantable attack
made upon him by Professor Stuart. In alluding to his illustrious
father, he says that " he continued to occupy the chair of the socie-
ty till 1792, when he resigned it on taking his seat on the bench,
as Chief Justice of the United States."
In November 1785, this society issued 2000 copies of a strong
anti-slavery pamphlet, which was dedicated " to the Honorable
members of the Continental Congress." From this tract Mr. Jay
makes the following quotations :
" We naturally look to you in behalf of more than half a million of persons
in these colonics, who are under such a degree of oppression and tyranny as to
be wholly deprived of all civil and personal liberty, to which they have as gaod
a right as any of their fellow-men, and are reduced to the most abject state of
bondage and slavery, without any just cause May you judge the
poor of the people, save the children of the needy, relieve the oppressed, and
deliver the spoiled out of the hands of the oppressor, and be the happy instru-
ments of procuring and establishing universal liberty to white and black, to
be transmitted down to the latest posterity."
Indeed, I would venture to advance the opinion that these " im-
mortal men and patriots " stand in as little need of the Professor's
protection, as do Moses, Isaiah and Paul, concerning whose reputa-
tion he seems to be so sensitive. They were men who not only felt
the evils of slavery, but who were ready to raise their voices in
denunciation of its crimes and atrocities, and who did all in their
power to rid our nation of the curse.
XL THE DIRECT QUESTION.
We now approach the direct question. What shall be done with
the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution ? It is there, and is
very plain.
81
Art. IV. § 3 : "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the
laws thereof^ escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regula-
tion therein, be discharged from such service or labor, hut shall be delivered up,
on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
Mr. Webster says, most emphatically and earnestly, it must be
obeyed. His language is :
" But as it now stands, the business of seeing that these fugitives are deliv-
ered up, resides in the power of Congress and the national judicature, and my
friend at the head of the Judiciary Committee has a bill on the subject now be-
fore the Senate, with some amendments to it, which I propose to support,
with all its provisions, to the fullest extent. And I desire to call the attention
of all sober-minded men, of all conscientious men in the North, of all men who
are not carried away by any fanaticalidea, or by any false idea whatever, to
their Constitutional obligations. I put it to all the sober and sound minds at the
North, as a question of morals and a question of conscience. \\ hat right have
they, in their legislative capacity, or any other, to endeavor to get round this
Constitution, to embarrass the free exercise of the rights secured by the Con-
stitution to the persons whose slaves escape from them. None at all, none at
all. Neither in the form of conscience, nor before the face of the Constitu-
tion, are they justified, in my opinion.
Wherever I go, and whenever I speak on this subject— and when I speak
here I desire to° peak to the whole North— I say that the South has been in-
jured in this respect, and has a right to complain, and the North has been too
careless of what I think the Constitution peremptorily and emphatically enjoins
upon it as a duty."
Mr. Stuart says, with equal emphasis and earnestness, that this
clause must be obeyed, and obeyed too, " whatever we may think of
the claim of the master in the light of Christianity !"
Suppose now, that as a person desiring to become a citizen of
these United States, I am required to yield my cordial assent to the
Declaration of Independence, and to the Constituton. First, the
Declaration of Independence is read to me, which was signed by the
delegates from all the original States, and adopted as the basis of all
the State Constitutions.
I listen, as a conscientious man, to this passage : " We hold these
truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That
7*
82
to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriv-
ing their powers from the just consent of the government."
To this I yield mj cordial assent. I bow to it, not with the for-
mality of a hypocrite, but with the sincerity of a true patriot, and
conscientious Christian. I believe in my inmost soul, and with all
my powers, " these truths to be self evident^ that all men are cre-
ated equal, that they are endowed by nature with certain inaliena-
ble rights ; that among these are liberty and the pursuit of happi-
ness." This doctrine I adopt as the essence and soul of my pohti-
cal creed, and I am impressed with the conciseness and strength of
the language which embodies it.
The preamble to the Constitution is next read to me : " We, the
people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice^ ensure domestic tranquility ,iJrovide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and estabhsh this
Constitution for the United States of America.
To this I also cordially assent. The words establish justice, en-
sure domestic tranquility, &c., sink deep into my memory. The
whole Constitution is then read, and I mark such passages as these.
Art. 4, Sec. 2 : — " The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States."
Art 4 of the amendments, — " The right of the people to be se-
cured in their persons, houses, and papers, and effects, against un-
reasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," &c.
I am, at this time, we will suppose, informed that under this com-
pact, full and glorious Declaration of Independence, and this free
Constitution, there are 3,000,000 of people held in the most abject
bondage. They are robbed of all their rights, forbidden to learn to
read, bought and sold like beasts, called " goods and chattels," their
children born slaves and themselves exposed to the avarice, cruelty
and lust of their masters. I am now requested to listen to an arti-
cle in the Constitution, that requires that these slaves, when they
flee from their oppressors, to a free State, shall be delivered up. I
hear the passage read, and am bewildered, staggered; I seek for
light, and I read from the great expounder of the Constitution, in a
late speech, the following words :
83
" Every member of every Northern Legislature is bound like every other
officer in the country, by oath, to support the Constitution of the United States,
and this article of the Constitution, which says to these States they shall deliver
up fugitives from service, is as binding in honor and conscience as any other
article. No man fulfils his duty in any Legislature who sets himself to find ex-
cuses, evasions, escapes, from this Constitutional obligation."
But have I not just assented, in good faith, to the declaration
that all men are created equal, and are endowed with inalienable
rights, among which are life and liberty ? To be confident that I
understand the meaning of words, I look in the dictionary for the
meaning of the word inalienable. I find that Noah Webster says
that it means, " Unalienable : that can not he legally or justly
alienated or transferred to another.''^
I am now placed in a dilemma from which there is no escape.
The case is a plain one. If I aid in executing this fugitive slave
clause, I most palpably and directly violate the Declaration of In-
dependence, and the other portions of the Constitution. The mo-
ment I put my finger upon a fugitive slave, after my solemn decla-
ration about inalienable rights, establishing justice, &c., I stand at
the bar of this repubUc, at the bar of humanity, at the bar of God,
condemned as a consummate hypocrite. In the emphatic words of
Professor Staart, used in another connection, I am guilty of " trea-
son against the majesty of heaven and earth,"
Let us now see how the author of the pamphlet before us, gets
along with this dilemma. He takes the ground that this fugitive
clause must be obeyed, and adduces, what we suppose he would call
arguments to sustain his position. After alluding to the passage in
the Declaration of Independence, that I have quoted, he asks, very
justly— (p. 57) :
' " After such a declaration before heaven and earth, without one dissentint^
voice, how could the immortal men, whose names are appended to that Decla-
ration, publish to the world in their Constitution of government, that they fully
admitted in practice what they had solemnly denied in principle ? How could
they say. We authorize the practical denial of equality and liberty, and hold,
that the right to them of the part of a community is not inalienable ? How
would the despotisms of the old world have pointed the finger of scorn, at the
palpable disagreement between the Declaration of Independence, and the Con-
stitution of the United States."
84
Hear, now, the answers of the Professor to his own questions. He
sajs : 1 . "It will be seen, by a moment's reflection, that the appear-
ance of such a contradiction is in some measure saved, by the soft-
ened language employed, viz : ' held to service or labor.' "
" Appearance of such a contradiction in some measure saved !"
But is the fact altered ? Does this " softened language," " held to
service," affect the idea — the fact that fugitives shall he delivered
up ? AYill it mitigate the anguish of the returning fugitive, who
in chains is to be thrown at the feet of his incensed master, to tell
him that the language under Avhich he is sent back, is " softened"
by the term " held to service ?"
2. But let us proceed to the Professor's second point. He con-
tinues : " Nor is this all. As the matter now is, the article in
question does not apply to slaves only, but equally to all other per-
sons lawfully bound to service or labor — to apprentices, to men un-
der special contract, to all in such a predicament, whether freemen
or slaves."
Powerful, indeed ! How does this bear upon the question ? What
if the article does apply to others, does it apply any the less to
slaves ?
3. Our author continues :
" But, allowing all that has now been said, still, could not the States mutually
bind themselves to the compact before us? Surely they could. We must be-
gin the examination of this subject by calling to mind, that each State was, and
still is a sovereignty within itself. Then, it was absolutely and entirely so ; but
iiow, in a more modified and limited manner, since it has assigned over a part
of its sovereignty rights to the General Government. Each State, then, could,
and can now, form laws for itself regulating all rights of property or of citizen-
ship. It could admit any particular class of men to the privileges of citizen-
ship, or it could exclude them. It could decide what rights one man had, or
could have, over another, as to demanding ' service or labor.' The compact in
the Constitution merely declares, that the decisions of each State shall be res-
pected, and admitted as valid by all the others.
" This being all plain and certain, it follows, that when men held to service
or labor by the laws of one State fly to another, the property or service can be
reclaimed or enforced, as by law belonging to the citizens of that State from
which the fugitives came."
Here the sovereignty of the States is appealed to. But we
would ask if the States are sovereign, does this justify them in
85
doing -wrong, or justify us In sustaining them in the wrong. Upon
this subject of State sovereignty, there is a great deal of loose
language used. If any one will read the 8th section, Art. 1, of the
United States Constitution, he will see that our General Govern-
ment is clothed with powers, that may as properly he denominated
sovereign, as the powers reserved by the several States. The
General Government has power to lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts, (fee, — to borrow money on the credit of the United States,
to regulate commerce with foreign nations — to establish a rule of
naturalization — to coin money — to establish post offices — to
promote science and arts, by securing to authors and inventors, the
exclusive right to their writings and inventions — to establish courts
— define and punish piracies — declare war — raise and support
armies — provide for organizing and disciplining the militia, &c. &c.
But this matter of sovereignty, either of the States or of the gen-
eral government, does not relieve the question before us of its diffi-
culties. It matters not by what power a citizen is placed in the
dilemma before us. He is there, and it is for him to decide
whether, as a patriot and christian, he will adhere to the Declara-
tion of Independence and the spirit of the Constitution, or as a
time-serving politician he will cling to the fugitive slave clause.
And if his " conscience " prompts him to take the former course,
that " conscience " ought not to be made the butt of ridicule by a
late Professor in Andover Theological Seminary.
But our author goes on to establish the astounding doctrine, that
we can restore the fugitive without participating in the guilt of
slavery. He says, (p. 49) :
" What participation then have we of the North, in any injustice that may be
done to the slave in making him property V Not the least in the world. We
have simply agreed to deliver up to the inhabitant of another State, that to
which he has a claim, sanctioned by the law of that State. We have merely
renounced, in an express manner, a jurisdiction which in fact we never
had and cannot have. The renunciation removes all ground of doubt or dis-
pute. What is the harm or sin of this ? And what is the use of assuming a
jurisdiction which never did and never can belong to us?"
In opposition to these views, we would remark, that nothing
seems to us clearer than that if we restore the fugitive, we partici-
86
pate directly in the guilt of slavery. We certainly aid in uphold-
ing the system — a system which the Professor himself says, has,
" as existing among us, taken its worst form" — a system that "de-
grades men made in the image of their God and Redeemer into
the brute beasts, or (which makes him still lower) converts him
into mere goods and chattels." Now, the idea that we can do this
without " harm or sin " is as false as it is weak. If I have a
neighbor who is doing any great wrong — for instance, committing
murder, — and I in any way aid him or uphold him in the wrong,
am I not a participator in his guilt ?
But our author asks, in continuing his remarks, " What right
now has Massachusetts to decide for Virginia on such a question
(the question of property in man) ? Virginia may do wrong (I
fear she is doing so,) but Virginia is not under our supervision or
jurisdiction, nor are we in any degree accountable or responsible
for her errors or sins."
What ! can I deliver up the fugitive who has as inalienable a
right to liberty and all its blessings as I have, who has just escaped
from a system that degrades him below the very beasts, a system
that Professor Stuart would not have upon his conscience the guilt
of extending, " for ten thousand worlds," a system the licentious
features of which are so revolting and horible ? can I aid in restor-
ing a fellow being to such a depth of degradation and infamy, and
yet not be " in any degree accountable or responsible ? "
To advance such an idea is an outrage upon the common sense
of every freeman in this nation.
Suppose that I go to Africa, and their aid in the work of man-
stealing, would not this be a crime ? Do not indeed the laws of
the United States declare the slave trade to be piracy, and the
slave trader worthy of death ? I ask, then, how long must the
stolen man be held in slavery, in order to have slaveholding cease
to be a sin ? Because several States in this Union have persisted
in a career of wickedness for so many years, has that wickedness
ceased to be wickedness ?
Does Professor Stuart tell me that I can restore the fugitive,
because he has so long worn the chain, without being " accountable
or responsible ? " Is not the act of restoring the suffering fugitive,
87
as bad as the original theft ? Has the man by being once cursed by
this atrocious system of American slavery, lost his inalienable rights F
Is he no longer a man ? Has he been, by the God of our race,
thrown beyond the bounds of human sympathy and the human
conscience ? Men may laugh at this idea of sympathy. They may
ridicule this conscience. Then I say let us be consistent. Let us
no longer exhibit to the world the spectacle of solemn mockery, in
weeping over oppressed Hungarians, and denouncing European
despots. Whatever else we are, let us not stand before the civilized
worid, and before the Supreme Judge, a nation of hypocrites !
But Mr. Stuart says, p. 60 : "I may think that Virginia, for
example, does a moral wrong by her slavery laws ; but it is clearly
no political wrong done to others. The matter belongs to her alone ;
not to her neighbors."
This is the favorite argument with all slaveholders and slavery
supporters, that we have nothing to do with their political or domestic
institutions. In conversing recently with a clergyman from South
Carolina, upon this point, I asked him if he was in favor of foreign
missions ? " Oh yes," he rephed, " very much interested in them."
Why, said I, do you send missionaries to the heathen ? Do you
not send them to interfere with their institutions — to overthrow
their religion, break down their cruel laws, change all the habits and
customs of the people ? Are not our missionaries in the Sandwich
Islands, Ceylon, India, China and Africa, laboring to do all this ?
He could not deny it. I then told him that if I had a right, acting
on the principles, and with the spirit of the gospel, to interfere with
the domestic institutions of China, I had an equal right to exert
my humble influence to break down the barbarous institutions of
Virginia. This right he could not deny.
There cannot, indeed, be a more absurd idea advanced, than that
we can aid in upholding slavery, without participating in the guilt
of slavery. There is at the North, a vast responsibility in this
matter — a responsibility that should lead us to exclaim, in the
words of Jefferson, •' I tremble for my country ivhen I reflect that
God is just, and that his justice canyiot sleep forever.''^
88
XII. — THE TEXAS QUESTION.
This is a question not to be trifled with. It is a solemn ques-
tion — a question of deep, vital, and I may add, infinite moment.
It pertains not simply to the reputation or consistency of Mr.
Webster and Prof. Stuart, or any other man, but relates to matters
of far higher importance, to the welfare and happiness of the
millions who are to occupy this portion of our newly acquired terri-
tory. It is the question, whether there shall be four States, created
like Massachusetts, blessed with freedom, wtih public schools, vigorous
churches, noble benevolent societies, and a virtuous, law loving
community, or four States like South Carolina, or Louisianna,
cursed with slavery, with no system of public school instruction, few
and feeble churches, with httle or no literature, a languishing agri-
culture, paralyzed commerce, without enterprise, industry or philan-
thropy.
It is also a question, whether the slavery power in our national
councils shall be greatly increased, by a large addition of Repre-
sentatives and Senators from new slave States, and thus the system
of slavery be perpetuated, and the balance of power be thrown in
favor of this system, for ages to come.
This question, therefore, I repeat it, is a solemn and momentous
question, and should be approached by every American citizen, and
especially by our Legislators and rulers, under a deep sense of their
responsibility to the nation, and their accountability to God.
Mr. Webster, in his slavery speech, takes the ground that we are
bound to admit four new slave States from Texas, which may be
formed south of the Missouri Compromise line. His remarks are
based upon the second section of the resolution of the 1st of
March, 1845, for the admission of Texas, which is in these words :
" New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition
to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the
consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, ■which shall be en-
titled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution. And such
States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-
six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri
compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as
1
89
the people of each State asking admission may desire ; and in such State or
States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compromise
line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited."
Upon this Mr. Webster offers the following commentary :
" Now, what is here stipulated, enacted, secured ? It is, that all Texas
south of 36 deg. 30 min., which is nearly the whole of it, shall be admitted in-
to the Union as a slave State. It was a slave State, and, therefore, came in as
a slave State, and the guarantee is that new States shall be made out of it, and
that such States as are formed out of that portion of Texas lying south of 36
dec 30 min., may come in as slave States to the number of four, in addition to
the State then in existence, and admitted at the time by these resolutions. I
know no form of legislation which can strengthen that. I know no mode of
recognition that can add a tittle of weight to it."
Again he says :
" Now, I know no way, I candidly confess, in which this Government, acting
in good faith, as I trust it always will, can relieve itself from that stipulation
and pledge, by any honest course of legislation whatever. And, therefore, I
say again that, so far as Texas is concerned — the whole of Texas south of 36
deg. 30 min., which I suppose embraces all the slave territory — there is no
land, not an acre, the character of which is not established by law, a law which
cannot be repealed without the violation of a contract, and plain disregard
of the public faith."
The whole subject of this Texas question may be reduced to a
few simple points, which we shall endeavor to present as concisely
and clearly as possible.
In the first place, what is the nature of the contract that our
government has formed with Texas ? It is, that new States, not
exceeding four, that may be formed out of the territory of Texas,
shall be entitled, on having suflBcient population, to admission to the
Union under the provision of the Federal Constitution. Those States
applying for admission south of 36 deg. 30 min., " shall be admit,
ted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each
State asking admission may desire." Those coming in north of
36 deg. 30 min., shall come in free.
Observe, that the whole number to be admitted, slave and free,
shall not exceed four. If, therefore, one, or two, or three States
are admitted north of the line free, only three, or two, or one slave
State can be admitted, south of the line as slave States. Besides;
8
90
the stipulation in regard to the free States, is positive — " Slave-
ry, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall he prohibited.''^
The stipulation in regard to the other States is, that they shall come
with or loithout slavery, as the people may desire. If the people
will it, all may come in free. Yet, Mr. Webster says :
" The guarantee'is,'that new States shall be marie out of it, (Texan territory)
and that such States as are formed out of that portion of Texas, lying south of 36
deg. 30 min., may come in as slave States, to the number of four, in addition
to the State then in existence, and admitted at that time by these resolutions.'
Besides, he dwells upon the idea, that they shall he admitted as
slave States, when the contract is, that they shall be admitted with
or without slavery. Why did he not in his recent speech dwell
upon the ivithout, as well as the with ? And we might with pro-
priety ask, why did he go out of his way, when the question before
Congress was, the admission of free California, to build up an argu-
ment in favor of the opinion that we are solemnly bound to have in
the Union five slave States from Texas ! four in addition to the
original State ! Where was the necessity, at the present moment
of deep excitement, while the South is opposing so vehemently the
admission of a free State, of holding up before the North their
solemn obligations to create out of Texas four slave States ! Would
it not have been soon enough to have pressed this obligation, if any
exists, when these slave States had applied for admission ?
In the second place, let us inquire into the validity oi the contract
that our government has fonned with Texas.
The sentiment of Massachusetts in respect to the admission of
slave States to the Union, has been expressed through her Legisla-
ture in the following resolution :
« Resolved, That tbe people of Massachusetts will never consent to use the
powers reserved to themselves, to admit Texas, or any other State or Terri-
tory now without the Union, on any other basis than the perfect equality of
freemen ; and that while slavery or slave representation forms any part of the
claim or condition of admission, Texas, with her consent, can never be admitted."
In accordance with this resolution, all the Representatives from
Massachusetts, but one, in both branches of Congress, opposed the
91
admission of Texas in February and March, 1845 ; and in December,
1845, when the final vote was taken on admission, all the Repre-
sentatives from Massachusetts voted against it.
Nor has the sentiment of Massachusetts in regard to this matter
under-one any change, as the resolutions passed by the Legislature
at theh- last session abundantly prove. (See a portion of those re-
solutions, in Art. 2d of this Revriew, under "Mass. April 2i,
1850 "^
This noble State, therefore, stands pledged to resist by all the
means in her power, the admission of any new slave States from
Texas, as she stood pledged in 1845 to resist the admission of Tex.
as itself. And in the resolutions passed, April 27, 18o0,just
referred to, she says : — " That the people of Massachusetts, m the
maintenance of these, their well known and invincible principles, ex-
pect that all their officers and Representatives will adhere to them,
at all times, on all occasions, and under all circumstances:'
Let us now see what ground Mr. Webster took in 1845, in refer-
ence to Texas.
It should be remembered that the resolutions of annexation that
passed Congress on the first of March, 1845, passed on condition
that Texas complied with certain requisitions and accepted certain
guaranties. These resolutions were then submitted to the people
if Texas for their approval. They having complied with the con-
ditions, and accepted the guaranties, an act was passed in Decem-
ber following, by Congress, admitting Texas into the Umon. At
this time Mr. Webster was in the Senate, and in accordance with
the views of Massachusetts, opposed the annexation bill, and voted
against it. He thus refers to his opposition and vote in his recent
speech :
" The annexation resolutions passed the 1st of March, 1845 ; the Legislature
of Texas complied with the conditions and accepted the guaranties; for the
phraseology of the language of the resolution is, that Texas is to come in ' up-
on the conditions and under the guaranties herein prescribed.' I happened to
be returned to the Senate in March, 1845, and was here in December, 1845,
when the acceptance by Texas of the conditions proposed by Congress were
laid before us by the President, and an act for the consummation of the con-
nexion was laid before the two Houses. The connexion was not completed. A
final law, doing the deed of annexation ultimately and finally, had not been
92
passed ; and when it was upon its final passage here, I expressed my opposi-
tion to it, and recorded my vote in the negative ; and there that vote stands,
■with the observations that I made upon that occasion."
Among those observations are the following, which express Mr.
Webster's strong opposition to the bill :
" It may be said, that according to the provisions of the Constitution, new
States are to be admitted on the same footing as the old States. It may be so >
but it does not follow at all from that proTision, that every territory or portion
of country may at pleasure establish slavery, and then say we will become a
portion of the Union ; and will bring with us the principles which we may have
thus adopted, and must be received on the same footing as the old States. It
will always be a question, whether the old States have not a right, (and I
think they have the clearest right,) to require that the State coming into the
Union should come In upon an equality ; and, If the existence of slavery be an
impediment to coming in on an equality, then the State proposing to come in
should be required to remove that inequality by abolishing slavery, or take the
alternative of being excluded."
He also said :
" I af^ree with the unanimous opinion of the Legislature of Massachusetts, I
a«^ree with the great mass of the people ; I reaffirm what I have said and
written in the last eight years, at various times, against the annexation. I here
record my own dissent and opposition, and I here express and place on record,
also, the dissent and protest of the State of Massachusetts."
What is the language of this protest ? I-et us hear it. On the
26th of March, 18-45, the Massachusetts Legislature passed the
following resolution :
" And whereas the consent of the Executive and Legislative departments of
the Government of the United States has been given, by a resolution passed
on the 27th of February last, to the adoption of preliminary measures to
accomplish this nefarious project, fthe admission of Texas, with the stipulation
to admit four more States out of its territory ;) therefore be it
" Resolved, That Massachusetts hereby refuses to acknowledge the act of the
Government of the United States, authorizing the admission of Texas, as a
legal act, in any way binding her from using her utmost exertions in co-opera-
tion with other States, by every lawful and constitutional measure, to annul its
conditions, and defeat its accomplishment.
" Resolved, That no territory hereafter applying to be admitted to the Union,
as a State, should be admitted without a condition that domestic slavery should
be utterly extinguished within its borders, and Massachusetts denies the validity
93
of any compromise whatsoever, that may have been, or that may hereafter be
entered into by persons in the Government of the Union, intended to preclude
the future application of such a condition by the people, acting through their
Representatives In the Congress of the United States"
Such were the views entertained by Mr. Webster in December,
1845, when he voted against the admission of Texas ; and let it be
remembered that this negative vote was given after the G-ovemment
had pledged its honor and faith that Texas should he admitted, on
complying with the conditions, and accepting the guaranties of the
resolutions of annexation.
Now let us suppose that the very next week after Texas is ad-
mitted, a slave State south of 36 deg. 30 min., applies for admission
under the conditions fixed upon, the week previous. Could Mr.
Webster, after his solemn declarations of the unconstitutionality of
the whole business of annexation, turn round and vote for the ad-
mission of this additional State ? Could he do it consistently with
his own views ? Could he do it authorized by Massachusetts, to
whose protest he had a few days previous appealed ? Could he do
it on the ground that the solemn agreement and compacts of the
Government must be fiulfilled ? But he had just violated those
compacts by voting against the admission of Texas. He did what
he could in December, 1845, to render null and void the solemn
stipulations entered into by the Government in March, 1845. He
would, therefore, have felt bound, the week after, to vote against
fulfilling the stipulation of the week previous, as he then felt bound
to vote against the action of March 1, 1845.
Now, if it would have been unconstitutional to have admitted a
slave State from Texas, the next week, it would have been equally
so the next year, or five or twenty years afterwards. To this point
I wish to direct the reader's special attention, for on it turns our
whole argument on this question. Mr. Webster labors, in his re-
cent speech, to prove to us that we are bound in good faith to
receive these slave States, when they apply for admission. I wish
to show on his own authority, that u'e are not hound to receive
them, but that it lies with the Congress, before which applications
from States for admission may be made, to decide the question of
admission. He did what he could in December, 1845, to undo the
8*
94
action of the Government in March, 1845, and had there been
but a few more negative votes at that time, Texas would not have
been admitted, notwithstanding she had coraphed with the condi-
tions of admission. In the Senate the vote stood, 27 for admission,
and 25 against it.
Suppose Mr. Webster had, the following week, risen up in the
Senate, and uttered what he has in his recent speech, would not his
inconsistency have been most apparent to the whole nation ? And
does the lapse of five years at all lessen the inconsistency ? Let
us imagine him saying then, what he has recently said in the fol-
lowing extracts :
" But now that, under certain conditions, Texas is in, -with all her territories,
as a slave State, with a solemn pledge that if she is divided into many States,
those States may come in as slave States south of 36 deg. SO min., how are we
to deal with this subjeet ? I know no way of honorable legislation, but, when
the proper time comes for the enactment, to carry into effect all that we have
stipulated to do. * * * I wish it to be distinctly understood to-
day, that according to my view of the matter, this Government is solemnly
pledged by law to create new States out of Texas, with her consent, when her
population shall justify such a proceeding, and so far as such States are formed
out of Texan territory lying south of 36 deg. 30 min., to let them come in as
slave States."
That he has not reached this change of opinion at a single leap,
may be shown from his other speeches. In March 23d, 1848, he
said, " It shall be in tlie poiver of Congress hereafter to make four
other new States out of Texan territory."
In 1845, he took, as we have seen, strong and decided
ground against admitting Texas.
In 1848, he simply declares, that it is in the poiver of Congress
to make new States out of Texas, and now he says : — ''I wish it
to be distinctly understood, to-day, that according to my view of the
matter, this Government is solemnly pledged by law and contract to
create new States out of Texas," &c.
While Massachusetts has not changed on this question, but has
reiterated in 1850 the same sentiments that she expressed in
1845, Mr. Webster has changed. Now, shall the country change
with him? For one, I answer, no. Massachusetts, through her
legislature, has answered no. With all our respect for Mr. Web-
95
ster, with all our gratitude for his past services, with all our admira-
tion for his splendid talents, we cannot, we will not bow to the senti-
ments of this pro-slavery speech.
Still farther evidence of Mr. Webster's former views of this an-
nexation scheme, may be found in his speech on the loan bill, deliv-
ered in the Senate in 1848. He said :
" Experience shows us that things of this sort may be sprung upon Con-
gress and the people. It was so in the case of Texas. It was so in the 28th
Congress- The members of that Congress were not chosen to decide the ques-
tion of annexation or no annexation. They came in on other grounds, political
and party, &c What then ? The Administration sprung upon
them the question of annexation. . . . It obtained a Po-iop judgment upon
it, and carried the measure of annexation I think I see a course
adopted that is likely to turn the Constitution under which we live into a deform-
ed monster — into a curse rather than a blessing, into a great frame of national
government, not founded upon popular representation, but founded on the
grossest inequalities ; and I think if it go on — for there is danger that it will
go on — that this government will be broken up.
From this language, we perceive that Mr. Webster, no longer
ago than in 1848, considered the admission of Texas, not only as a
violation of the Constitution, but such a violation as is likely to turn
the Constitution into a deformed monster — to make it a curse, rather
than a blessing ; and yet he now tells us that we are bound " in
honor and conscience " to perpetuate this deformity — to persist in a
course that will make this instrument a deeper curse to this nation !
Is it, I would ask, worthy of the great expounder of the Constitu-
tion, to give to the American people such advice as this ? Is it
worthy of the American people to follow such advice ? Will they,
even at the bidding of the late defender of the Constitution, tram-
ple this instrument under their feet, and hug to their bosoms a de-
formed monster? Will Massachusetts do this — the noble State
that resisted the preliminary measures for annexation — that resist-
ed the action of March 1, 1845 — that resisted the final action in
December. Never, never, never. Massachusetts is bound by her
solemn and oft repeated declaration, to resist the admission of any
and every slave State to this Union. And when a State from Texas
shall be found knocking at the door of the Union, pleading for
admittance with her curse, slavery, Massachusetts will, to the ex-
96
tent of her influence, refuse her admittance. And if, in time to
come, any Senator or Representative is found advocating the admis-
sion of a slave State from Texan territory, be will be supporting not
the Constitution of the United States, but a deformed monster, the
Hon. Daniel Webster being the judge. He ■will be found
sustaining not the national honor, but the national disgrace.
He will be ratifying a measure, that Mr. Webster tells us is likely
to turn the Constitution into a curse.
But one of the most remarkable and humiliating features in this
whole matter is, that such men as Professor Stuart, Dr. Woods,
President Sparks, and others, should cordially and fully endorse
these sentiments. After thanking Mr. Webster for the services he
has rendered to the country by his recent speech, and for recalling
them to their duties under the Constitution, they say, " We desire
TO EXPRESS TO YOU OUR ENTIRE CONCURRENCE IN THE SENTIMENTS
OF YOUR SPEECH." And Professor Stuart in his pamphlet seems
to be burning with indignation towards the Hon. Mr. Mann, and
others, for opposing Mr. Webster on this Texas question. He
says, after, referring to some of their arguments, —
" Such are the envenomed arrows, which this new Free Soilism and Aboli-
tionism stores up in the quivers of its advocates. I know of no better exhibi-
tion or proof of the tendency of the spirit which it engenders, than is to be
seen in the cases of such men as Judge Jay and the Hon. Mr. Mann. It can
furnish gentlemen, scholars, men of cultivated minds and hitherto blameless
lives, with the whole stores of annoyance that exist in the magazine of vitupe-
ration and calumny, and prompt them to the active appropriation of these
stores. This is enough to make any sober, quiet man pause, and ask whether
such is ' the armor of truth and of God.'
" No. Mr. Mann ; ' a wanton surrender of the rights of the North,' is not to
be said of Daniel Webster. Swords would leap, if it were lawful and necessa-
ry, from hundreds of thousands of scabbards, to defend him against such an
assult."
Not quite so fast. Swords leap from their scabbards! The
swords in Massachusetts, and New England, would rust in "hundreds
of thousands of scabbards," rather than be drawn in defense of
such sentiments as Mr. Webster has advanced. Of all the States
in this Union, Massachusetts is the very last to defend such views.
We cannot indeed, contemplate the noble career of this State, her
97
philanthropliy, Christianity, her high moral and intellectual charac-
ter, without the most enthusiastic admiration. When we remember
that more than two hundred years ago, this people being then colo'
nists, sent back to Africa the first cargo of slaves that was landed
upon their shores, and from that hour to this have steadily resisted
and fought against the system of slavery — when we remember
that here the foreign missionary enterprise, the temperance reforma-
tion, and a large number of our religious and benevolent societies
had their birth — when we remember that here the first college in
our country was established, the first public school house was
erected, and that the enterprise of this State built the first railroad,
erected the first manufactory, and that she now boasts of more of
the substantial comforts and blessings of life, more general intelli-
gence, liberality and piety, than can be found within any other ter-
ritory of equal population upon the globe, — we are confident that,
in this crisis, she will stand firm, maintaining, with an unfaltering
energy, those glorious principles of liberty, justice, and right, for
which she has always contended. And if, in this 19th century, in
this enlightened age, in this free. Christian nation, the monstrous
and horible system of American slavery is extended, it will be done
in spite of her solemn protests, her earnest efforts, her fervent
prayers.
XIII — CONCLUDING REMARKS.
In reviewing the ground which we have gone over, we find that
the views on slavery which are advocated by the editors of the Atlas,
by the friends of freedom in Congress, and by the mass of the peo-
ple who dissent from Mr. Webster, are the same that were held by
the immortal Washington, by Lafayette, Jefferson, Patrick Henry,
Monroe, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, Adams, and a large number
of the framers of the U. S. Constitution. We have seen that they
coincide with the opinions recently expressed by very many of our
Northern State Legislatures, and our most influential ecclesiastical
bodies. We have seen that the positions that Professor Stuart has
attempted to maintain, are utterly untenable, and that the Bible
98
condemns slavery as a moral evil. We have seen that the views
advanced by Mr. Webster in his recent slavery speech, are totally
inconsistent with his opinions as expressed in 1845 and 1848, and
that by following his advice we become violaters, rather than sup-
porters of the Constitution of the United States.
But the question presses upon our attention — What shall be done
in the present crisis? We answer — let California be admitted
forthwith to this Union, untrammelled by other and foreign matters.
From every free State — from every northern Legislature, there
should go forth long and loud the cry, admit California ! We
have been trifled with long enough in this matter. The rights of
the North have been trampled under foot long enough.
But the slave-holder tells us " we must compromise ; " " if free-
dom is to be extended, we claim the right to preserve the balance
of power, by extending -slavery." To this we would reply, liberty
cannot compromise with slavery. It is an element so entirely
hostile to slavery, that it cannot meet it on equal ground.
It is at war with slavery. It ever has been at war with
it, and ever will be. It seeks the destruction, the annihilation of its
foe. As well might truth compromise with error, virtue compro-
mise with vice, Christianity compromise with heathenism.
Suppose for a moment that the missionaries sent to the heathen
by the American Board, should meet to frame a compromise with
idolatry. They are told that strong prejudices exist against Chris-
tianity in the community — that heathenism is of great antiquity —
that it existed before the flood, in the time of Moses, when the
prophets wrote, and in the apostolic age. They listen to a plan
of compromise which requires, as a condition on which they may
remain in the country, that for every child that receives baptism, a
heathen child shall be thrown to crocodiles ; that for every convert
admitted to a Christian church, a heathen shall be crushed under
the wheels of Juggernaut : that for every village brought under the
blessed influence of the Gospel, an equal number of persons in
another district, shall be brought under the cursed influence of
idolatry ; and that fugitives escaping from heathen to a Christian
district shall be restored to the cruelties, ignorance, and superstitions
of the horrible system from which they have fled !
99
What would the prudential committee of the American Board
think of such a compromise ? And suppose that the missionaries
write home, that the matter is producing a great excitement, and
that in some way the agitation must be calmed down, or the most
disastrous results may follow !
Would not the committee write back, (to treat, for a moment,
seriously, so ridiculous a supposition) that the missionary's business
is not to compromise, but to destroy ? Would they not tell him
that he is sent to make war upon all the institutions of the heathen,
social, civil and religious — to overthrow every system of iniquity — to
estabUsh in every heart the principles of justice, humanity and piety?
But, says the slave-holder, you must compromise, or tve will des-
troy the Union!
But we have heard this threat too often to be alarmed by it.
This cry of " the dissolution of the Union," was raised by South
Carolina and Georgia, soon after the Constitution was adopted ; and
from that day to this, it has been their resort in every emergency.
In 1820, when the question of admitting Missouri was before Con-
gress, the cry was, " admit this State as a slave State, or we will
desolve the Union," and at that time, no little alarm was excited by
this threat.
In 1832, when the tariff was agitated. South Carolina was found
at her old business, crying " dissolution of the Union,''^ and then
she attempted as a preliminary step, to carry her nullification doc-
trines into effect. But the firmness of General Jackson withstood
the assault, and though Congress apprehended serious difiiculties,
yet the Union survived the storm.
When the Hon. John Quincy Adams stood up so manfully for the
right of petition and freedom of speech on the slavery question, the
same cries were heard, and yet the Union stands as firm today as
it ever stood. Let the reader notice that in 1820 the cry was, "we
will dissolve the Union if you do not admit a slave State ; " the cry
now is, " we will dissolve the Union if you do admit a free State ! "
And how long, I would ask, are we to be frightened out of our
rights and liberties, by this j^erpetual growl f Do not the northern
advocates of " compromise " see any danger to the Constitution
and to the Union by yielding so frequently to the unreasonable de-
mands of the slave power ?
100
" We have been taught," yes, honored teacher,* " we have been
taught to regard a representative of the people as a sentinel on the
watch-tower of liberty. Is he to be blind, though visible danger
approaches ? Is he to be deaf, though sounds of peril fill the air ?
Is he to be dumb, while a thousand duties impel him to raise the cry
of alarm ? Is he not rather to catch the lowest whisper that
breathes intention or purpose of encroachment on the public liber-
ties, and to give his voice breath and utterance at the first appear-
ance of danger ? " Yes, yes ! All Massachusetts answers, Yes !
The whole nation thunders. Yes ! And never was there a more
splendid opportunity for Mr. Webster to have given " his voice,
breath and utterance at the appearance of danger," than when he
uttered his memorable, shall I add, fatal speech.
With the eyes of 20,000,000 of people fastened upon him — with
the heart of a nation beating with intense anxiety to know what the
great champion of liberty would say, with the destiny of future
States and future generations balancing in the scale, he might, while
he was wholly true to the Constitution — true to all the past acts of
this government, true to the reasonable demands of the South, he
might have uttered sentiments and established principles that would
have done honor to the nation, reflected glory upon our age, and en-
titled him to the warm thanks and lasting gratitude of the civilized
world. The excuse, indeed, reiterated in our hearing, is that his
object was to allay excitement and preserve the Union. But
in order to do this was Mr. Webster forced to make concessions,
and advance views that shock the moral sense of the North ? Waa
he forced to yield to the South what she had no more right to ask
than we had to grant ? Let the South be taught that there are
eternal principles of right and justice, from which the North cannot
and will not swerve ; that there are obligations that we owe to man-
kind, and to God, which must be met at all hazards, — that there
are claims touching the extension of slavery, to which we cannot
yield without subverting the great doctrines upon which all our free
institutions rest, and this cry will be, in a measure, hushed. If it
is not, then the responsibility of endangering the Union rests upon
*Mr. Webster.
101
the South, not upon us. If sho in her madness chooses, in every
conflict between hberty and slavery, to put tlie Union on the line
of battle, there to be shattered by the contending forces, upon her
rests the responsibilitu. The God of liberty will never place this
nation in circumstances that will demand of any of us, the sacrifice
of long cherished principles of right and justice.
It would be Avell for us, at this crisis, to listen to the words of
the immortal Washington, as uttered in 179G, in his farewell address.
He said :
" It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great
nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a peo-
ple always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt
that, In the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly
repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence
to it ? Can It be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of
a nation with Its virtue ? The experiment, at least, Is recommended by every
sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas ! is it rendered impossible by
Its vices ? "
Before closing I would remark, that it has been my endeavor to
treat Mr. Stuart's pamphlet with fairness and courtesy. I have
quoted freely from it, that his very words might be before the reader,
to enable him to form his own opinion of the justness of the criti-
cisms that we have offered. Most gladly would we have coincided
with the views expressed by the venerable and learned Professor,
had it been in our power to have done so. But we have felt com-
pelled to sacrifice the promptings of personal respect and affection,
to the stern call of duty ; and if we have uttered a word that will,
in the least degree, advance the cause of liberty, quicken the
friends of humanity, or alleviate the sufferings of a single slave, we
shall not have written in vain.
We firmly believe, notwithstanding the strong efforts that are
made to sustain and to extend American slavery, that this system is
doomed ere long to fall. With the intelUgence, humanity and
Christianity of the age against it, with the testimony of all the
civilized nations of the earth against it, with the united voice of so
many of our civil and ecclesiastical bodies against it, with the God
of heaven against it, it must fall. And in the eloquent language
102
of the Hon. Daniel Webster, of 1820, "I invoke the ministers of our
religion, that V.\oy f loclaim its denunciation of those crimes. * * *
If the ^ idpit he silent J whenever or wherever there may he a sinner
lloody with this guilt, within the hearing of its voice, the pulpit
IS falsl: to its trust."
Since these articles were first puhlishetl, the Fugitive Slave Bill
has been passed bj Congress, and has become the law of the land ;
a bill, the most extraordinary, disgraceful, and atrocious, that was
ever recorded upon the statute books of this nation. AVe are filled
■with astonishment and indignation, that Northern freemen, in this
enlightened. Christian age, could so far forget their obligations to
God, and their duties to mankind, as to vote for such a measure.
Not only have they trampled under foot the dearest right of hu-
manity, but they have virtually made slaves of us all, — yes, con-
signed us over, if we submit to the law, to an ignominious bondage ;
binding us, under the penalty of fine and imprisonment, not only
to refuse to harbor, or give a morsel of food to the panting fugitive,
but to assist in recapturing him and fastening upon him the chains
which he has broken. At the bidding of the most recreant, cruel,
and debased slave driver in the country, every man, woman, and
child, every freeman, philanthropist and Christian, in the land —
every senator, national representative, governor, minister, law-
yer, physician, teacher, merchant, and mechanic, is bound to assist
in carrying into execution this law. However long the fugitive may
have resided among us, and wherever he may be found, whether
engaged in an honorable occupation, or seated at his fire-side sur-
rounded by an affectionate family, or worshipping God in the sanc-
tuary, or partaking of the emblems of the body and blood of his
Saviour, he may be seized, and his minister and fellow-Christians
be commanded to fasten the chains upon him, and drag him back to
the degradation and horrors of Southern slavery. "Will the Ameri-
can people submit to such unparalleled tyranny ? Have we all be-
come so debased, so weak, so timid, as to yield to such a bondage ?
103
Talk of the free States of tliis Union! Under this atrocious law
there are no free States. There is not a freeman in the land, —
we are all bound to work for the slaveholder. If he requires our
services, an hundred times in a day, we are commanded to render
them, under pain of the severest penalties.
What a spectacle for American citizens to exhibit before the
civilized world ! With all our boasted freedom, our Protestant
Churches, our numerous and excellent Schools, our Bible Societies,
Tract Societies, Missionary Societies, and our sympathy for the op-
pressed of other lands, the twenty millions of American freemen
turned Slave-catchers ! ! We, model republicans ! i-ather model
hypocrites.
But this law cannot stand, will not stand. It is too foul a libel
upon our free institutions to be tolerated. It is too deep and bitter
a cup of abominations for even the northern apologists for slavery
to drink. It is too gross an insult to the God of heaven to allow us
to hope to escape his vengeance.
Politicians tell us, indeed, that the slavery questions are settled.
Settled? As well might they tell us that the controversy that
God has with the apostate world is settled. As well might they
strive to convince us that the struggle between good and evil, Chris-
tianity and heathenism, liberty and despotism, heaven and hell, are
settled. This Bill will arouse and excite this nation, as it has never
been aroused or excited before. Already, in the meetings that are
being held, and the expressions of indignation that come to us
through the press, do we hear the deep murmurings of the approach-
ing storm ; a storm that will try the hearts of men, and shake this
republic to its centre. " I tremble for my country when I remem-
ber that God is just," and I tremble at the indications that the day
is near at hand, when we must account to the Great Judge for the
guilt of so long retaining, in so favored a nation, this system of
slavery.
OCT 24 1945
\-&0y,
.■i!;.'';'::iJ'f;';t;4,;tK),HHH
■ '■ ■■■' i' ' ii':;'"i -'1 .Ti'' ■'
,-:.,..■, ....Jir}-:^. ■:
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
I ||||iM>| '|1||!!|| Ijl "'!|||"1H|'
011 898 581 3