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] 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 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