CONSCIENCE AND THlE CONSTITUTION
WITH'
REMARKS ON THE RECENT SPEECH
OF THE
HON. DANIEL WEBSTER
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
ON THE SUBJECT OF
SLAVERY.
BY M STUART
LATELY PROFSSOR IN THE THEOLOGICAL SAY AT ANDOEAL
AoVfjo ti;s,7g, u # FoX ue,%ir(.-PAuL
BOSTON:
PUBLISHED BY CROCKER & BREWSTER.
1850.
I'll, 
Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1850, by
CROCKR & BREWSTR,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.
ANDOVER: JOHN D. FLAGS,
9TEEOPE ArD Pl 
CONSCIENCE AND THE CONSTITUTION.
~ 1. Introduction.
I HAVE not selected a passage of Paul's first epistle to the
Corinthians, to stand on- my title page, without some hesitation.
It is not because I am anxious about myself in the matter, that-I
have hesitated; for let my motto be whatever it might, unless it
were some favorite passage of the so-called anti-slavery party, it
would probably be read by one portion of the community, in their
present state of excitement, with strong forebodings of a pro-slavery
effort.  Let it be so, then, if it needs must be.  I am willing, for
myself, to shoulder the burden, and to stand under it if I can. But
I rather shrink from putting the great apostle in the fore-front of
such a battle, and exposing him to the contumely which any one
else must meet with, who perils a declaration of the same purport
as his, on his own responsibility.  The reader who does not understand Greek, may find a translation of Pauls words, in the first
clause of 1 Cor. 7: 21.  There it stands, as translated, in the follows
ing words: ART THOU CALLED, BEING A SERVANT, CARE NOT FOR
IT. Had I adopted some motto devised by myself, expressed it in
other words of just the same import as those of the apostle, and
then placed this instead of the words of Paul at the head of my
little pamphlet, I should unquestionably find that a cataract of oblo
quy and indignation would speedily be pouring upon me.  Still I
could have dared to commit such a deed had I not deemed it more
to my purpose to quote what Paul says, than to quote myself  That the great apostle himself may be brought into some disrepute. among a certain class of readers, by my exposure of his &se
\a
Irl
d 
4
tinents on the present occasion, is what I fear; and this is the only
ground of the hesitation to which I have adverted. If I know my
own heart, I would sooner expose myself to contumely, than occasion
its coming upon him. Still, he has a better shield to protect himself
than I have; and his words are likely to stand, unchanged and unrepealed, when the lips and the pens of revilers will be beyond the
reach of harming him or his doctrine.
It is not my present object to go minutely here into the interpretation of the words I have quoted, and of the surrounding context.
This belongs to another part of my little work. I have produced
the words of Paul at the beginning of my inquiries and remarks,
that such of my readers as still preserve a regard for the apostle's
words and sentiments, may reflect on the advice which he gives to
those who are under the yoke of slavery and who have to bear its
pressure, and ask themselves, whether those who do not bear the
yoke, and are in no danger of having it put upon them, may not
seriously inquire, whether the Fox' Ior'co (care not for it) is
not, on every ground, more applicable to them than to the sufferers.
1 know that there are many who will sneer at any one's suggesting,
that a little more of the laissez faire would become them as believers in the Christian Scriptures.  Yet such a suggestion seems to be
needed; for even religious newspapers, not a few, appear utterly to
ignore the apostle's words, and exhibit not a trace of ever having
had cognition of them.  Instead of "not caring," they occupy whole
columns, yea whole broadsides, and now and then an Extra besides,
with the most impassioned appeals and addresses, and with never
ceasing contumely and vituperation, poured out in floods on all who,
in this so-called Land of Liberty, use the liberty to differ from them
in opinion. On all such, the rebuke of the apostle seems to be
somewhat cutting.  I cannot help it.  I should be glad if that
rebuke could be spared; for I do not court, and do not love, the
business of applying it. I come to it with about as much reluctance, as Jeremiah (20: 7-10) felt to bring the message with which
he was charged to the Jews. Probably I shall share the same fate
that befel him.
Be this as it may, I have counted the cost, and am not satisfied
that it should deter me from doing what I deem to be a sacred duty.
It lies within my proper sphere of duty to hold up before the world
the declarations and doctrines of God's eternal word; for I have 
5
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 on 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.  Statesmen and
jurists may discuss the great questions, now occupying all heads and
all hearts, with much force and eloquence.  They have done so, on
both sides. Never, since the Declaration of Independence, and the
formation of the United States Constitution, has there been so much
deep feeling excited, or so much effort called forth.  But there is,
for all who profess a reverence for the Scriptures, another aspect of
the great questions in agitation than that which statesmen and
jurists, hampered by parliamentary tactics, can venture themselves
to discuss.  The majority in all our legislative bodies, as I fear,
would look upon a man who should address scriptural arguments to
them in the halls of legislation, as if he had risen from the dead,
after having once been a member of the Long Parliament, in the
time of Oliver Cromwell; and all the names which Butler has conjured up in his Hudibras, or Dr. South in his Sermons, or Tory
writers in their diatribes, and have bestowed on the Puritan legislators, would be added to the name of the luckless wight who should
once make such an appeal.> Yet, forsooth, we are in a Christian land
Is this really so? Then may those whose life has been devoted to
the teaching and diffusing of Christianity be pardoned, for sounding
the words of prophets and apostles in the ears of our great community.  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 Gospel of the blessed God" may
come in their simplicity and power and authority before the public,
in any manner that will attract their attention. It is too late for me
to cast off the authority of that Gospel, or to shun my responsibility
for proclaiming it. -It would be reproachful to me in the highest
degree, if:I should desert the: cause which I have so long and so
deliberately espoused, in the day of assault or of peril.
By this time some of my readers will begin to inquire, perhaps
with a degree of wonder, what has led me to such an introduction to
what I iave to say, on -the present occasion.  I feel. that some
apology for, or rather -that some:account of, my proemris due to
1* 
6
them. I will narrate briefly and simply what has called me out, and
led me to the utterance of the preceding sentiments.
I have never been a politician, at least, I have never been what the
world usually styles a politician. In my early days, while in my
college-studies, and afterwards in the study of the law, I was warmly
engaged against the Jeffersonian politics and administration. When
I became a pastor of the First Church at New Haven, in Connecti cut, I renounced all active pursuit of politics. I never preached a
political sermon in my life. Usually I did not go to any meetings
for the election of state or town officers. My people were some what divided in politics, and I did not like unnecessarily to offend
those who differed from me, by voting against their wishes; for
such was the violence of party in Jefferson-times, that offence would
of course have been taken.  But I never shunned voting, because
I feared the consequences as to myself. It was principally because
my vote was altogether unnecessary, and therefore (in my circum stances) inexpedient, there being then an overwhelming majority in
Connecticut of anti-Jeffersonians. I have been more than forty
years a resident and freeman in this commonwealth. During all
that period, I have never voted at the elections, more than some ten
or twelve times. In seasons of what I thought to be peril, I began
to vote somewhat regularly; and it was under the imperial reign of
Gen. Jackson, that I commenced such an exercise of my franchise rights. But I never preached politics, or taught them, in public.
I have frequented the Lecture-room, in the Theological Seminary
here, near forty years; yet I believe none of all my pupils will
charge me with occupying their time in political lectures. I have
never written a political piece for our newspapers or magazines;
except in one case now to be mentioned.  In that one case, I put
my hand to a critique on a speech of Mr. Webster, delivered at
Andover; and subjoined  a defence of Mr. Webster's course, in the
matter of continuing to hold office under President Tyler. The
people of the glorious old Bay State had been led, at that time, by
the newspapers, (some of which were filled with inuendos against
Mr. Webster made by interested politicians), into a disapprobation
of Mr. Webster's course then, in like manner as I believe them now
to be misled. When the whole case was fairly laid before them,
they hastened, as a body, and with that noble spirit which they
cherish, to do him justice; I hope they will not refuse the like 
7
justice on the present occasion, if as good an account can be given
of Mr. Webster's course.
If it was a sin in me, who happened, (from circumstances unsought for and unexpected, and, I may add, quite peculiar in my
life), to become acquainted with the true history of Mr. Webster's
Secretaryship- if it was a sin to develop the matter to the public,
so be it. I do not reproach myself as yet, however, for such a sin,
because I have never been able to see any atrocity in helping to do
justice to a man, to whom the public were so much indebted. After
a short period, from that day to this, I have neither heard nor seen
any reproach to Mr. Webster, from any respectable quarter, for the
course he then pursued. Yet for myself I did not, for a time, escape
severe censure, on the part of some of my fellow citizens. Anonymous letters full of reproaches were sent to me; various newspaper
paragraphs, for my edification, were carefully despatched to me by
mail, fraught with bitter and sometimes malignant vituperation.
Yet I survived. When the tornado had passed, I rose gently up,
and finding no very serious bruises, I wbnt quietly along my humble
and peaceful way, as usual.
Since then, I have never meddled with politics. I have been
engaged, when able to study, in other matters that I relished far
more; and if I did not understand them better, it was my own fault.
My increasing age and my many infirmities have given me a disrelish for the melee of political contest. It was not until within a few
weeks, that I ever thought of approaching the arena of that contest,
even near enough to look on and see what was doing. Unluckily
for my quiet, the paper expressing approbation of Mr. Webster's
late Speech was presented'to me by a friend, and I was asked
whether I agreed sufficiently with his views to sign it. My ready
reply was in the affirmative.  I put my name to the paper, and there
I hope and wish it may stand. It is not a pledge, as I view the matter, that I am ready to support every shade of sentiment, on every
topic upon which Mr. Webster's speech touches. That gentleman is
the last man who would demand the surrender of their own individual
views from his friends. But it is a pledge that I did, and it still signifies that I do, from the bottom of my heart, assent to, and agree
with, all the important parts of Mr. Webster's reasoning in general;
and specially, it indicates my assent to his aim and desire to cherish
our Union as inviolable, and to persuade both parties to make all 
8
such mutual - concessions as they can - make, consistently, with their
consciences, for the sake of peace, of mutual good, and of firm eonsolidation. If I have erred in this case, it is at least in company
with those who are not often impeached for want either of interngence: or integrity.  Moreover, if "a man may be known by the
company he keeps" then I am, for the present, in circumstances quite
agreeable with respect to this matter. - I win not say with Cicero,
that'I had rather err with philosophers, than think.rightly with the
populace;' but I must confess, that if error is imputable to me as to
the present affair, my case is attended at least'with not a few comforting alleviations.  I can say to each of my fellow-signers, so far
as I have the pleasure to know them, that, as to the matter now im
question, tecum amem tivere, tecum obeam Ubes.
And now, what is the consequence of my alleged politic faux
pas?  The public have little interest, indeed, to be informed of. my
individual experience; and were it not that they stand connected
with my undertaking to write the following pages, I should of course
pass them by in silence.  But as thematter now is, what has befallen
me may serve to cast some light, on the manner in which many of
Mr. Webster's accusers manage their cause.. Some other things,
also, may perhaps have light cast upon them by what has befallen
me. But I reserve, for the sequel, any remarks that I may find
occasion to make respecting those matters.
Within a week after my name was set to the paper approving of
Mr. Webster's Speech, I began to receive anonymous iletters; and
soon after, various newspapers of diverse character and complexion
began to pour in.  One anonymous letter states, that the writer once
had much respect for my opinions and views, but that I have now
showed him that he was much mistaken in me.  Another says, that
the only apology he  can make for me is, that I have had a two
years' sickness, which has doubtless very much impaired my mind;
so that he can, on the whole, pity me rather than blame me.   A
third says, that I have now arrived at three score and ten, and like
most men of that age, have become a child the second time; other,
wise I never could have become the advocate of slavery. Another
challenges me to show one text in all the Bible, which allows of
slavery, or justifies my course in according with, and approv'ng o
Mr. Webster's Speech.  Another of my obliging friends, (it may: i
that he resides in our metropolis), sends me asip of a   newsp, 
9
on which is a paragraph, giving an account of the drove of slaves
lately marched from Washington on Sunday, by Bruin, (I think this
was the name), who charged some $1800 for a good looking young
wench, whom he (Bruin) wished to sell to some gentleman; and to
this slip of information is added, in a note written in what I take to
be a dissembled hand, the following monition: "You, by putting
your name to Mfr. Webster's paper, have put your seal of approbation on all this transaction; and you have moreover approved of the
violation of the Sabbath, by the said Bruin." Another letter writer
says, that'I am neither more nor less than a downright wolf, in
sheep's clothing.' Another wonders how a man could study the
Bible for 40 years, and yet never have learned that slavery is a sin.
These are only some of the many specimens.
As unique in its kind, I advert to one anti-slavery paper, (which
it is needless to name, for there can be but one such), that was sent
to me, as I suppose, by its philanthropic editor. In this, after a flood
of Billingsgate on Mr. Webster's "SATANIC SPEECH," he includes
within a square enclosed by funereal dressings, my name, that of Dr.
Woods, of Dr. Emerson, and of President Sparks, and Professor
Felton. Here we are - dead and gone - and (what is a little remarkable) all buried together. It is all well, and for one I am quite
content; for a man, as people say, may be known by the company in
which he is buried, as well as by those with whom he associates
while living. But this is not all. In another paragraph, myself and
my two venerable Colleagues are named together, and then the editor
says: "These individuals have formerly been called preachers of
evangelical truth; but," he adds, "they are never more to be so
named. They are to be classed with the Jewish high-priests, who
accused the Saviour of the world at the bar of Pilate." - This, by
the way, is merely a specimen; but thus much may suffice. I should
not have noticed even this, but for a purpose that will appear in the
sequel. I have, and can have, no contest with the editor of that
paper. I wish to settle all the accounts, if any lie open, between me
and him, by the simple remark, that he has my full and free consent
to utter against me all the slander and contumely and vituperation
that the compass of the English language will afford him the means
of uttering - he is entirely welcome to' let his tongue walk through
the earth' in its pestiferous howlings; _  and then, if he looks for any
signs of excitement or impatience in me, he will find me as quiet 
10
and peaceable and harmless as he could wish. He is in no danger
of any suit for slander, nor even for blasphemy, (which, as most persons think, he not unfrequently utters), from me, or from my respected
friends whom he has entombed with me.  Al I ask of him is, that
he may never, on any occasion or by any means, be persuaded to
utter one word in my praise, or in commendation of me. Should I
see such a paragraph in his paper, I should begin forthwith to think,
that his obituary notice had something ominous in it. At all events,
I should severely tax my memory and my conscience to search diligently after, and find out if possible, what egregious folly or downright betise I had been committing, which had drawn down upon me
the misfortune of his eulogium.
But there is a class of men different from all, who have thus far
been brought to view, some of whom conduct papers highly respectable and useful in regard to most of their contents. Some of these;
edited by even personal friends whom I heartily love and respect,
have thought proper to make-me and my colleagues the butt of allusion or remark, in nearly every number of their paper that has been
issued since our unlucky deed of subscription. The pieces of this
nature, if I ken aright, do not come from editorial hands, but from
some of their zealous friends, who seem to consider themselves as
officers in the corps of life-guards who keep watch in the temple of
Liberty.  After speaking of Mr. Webster as our misrepresentative,
and as having done sacrifice to base electioneering purposes, and
thrown out a gilded - bait to catch the South; after alleging that all
the confidence of the Bay State in him is about defunct; some confidential Ariel of the editors, who hails from Boston, and seems to
know everything about everybody, goes on to say,' that as to the merchants' (whose names are on Mr. Webster's testimonial),' they cannot
afford to have a conscience; as to the politicians, their conscience
varies with the wind; and as to Professors, etc., their railroad must
no longer run over the heights of Zion, [qusere - Andover Hill?
but through the valley of Hinnom.'  I do not, with the little that I
know of exegesis, feel able to make out an interpretation of this last
clause, and must therefore give it over to the reader to manage for
himself as he best can. But there is another declaration of this
sharp-sighted sentinel of the life-guard of Liberty, that I thinkI
can cognize.  He implicates.l- of us, who have subscribed the testimonial, in the accusation of being either the advocates of slavery, or 
11
apologists for it.  He says we make no more scruple ", in riding over
the ten commandments," than a merchant (he seems to have a peculiarly degrading opinion of merchants) does in riding to his -cotton
mills over the bales of southern cotton.  In this, however, I think
there is somewhat of a faux pas.  At least, there seems to be disclosed a keenness of vision in seeing a mote in a neighbor's eye,
without even dreaming that a beam may be in his own. When he
says, or at least implies, that I, (I speak now only for myself, for
others whom he has joined with me need no defence from me)that I am the advocate or apologist of slavery, he speaks WHAT IS
NOT TRUE; and thus he rides over one of the ten commandments
which says: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."  When he appeals to the ten commandments  as plainly and
palpably decisive against all slavery, "he rides over" (to-use his own
Choice and delicate expression) a certainfourth commandment, without once seeming to recollect, that this commandment requires men-'" to
keep the Sabbath holy," and that "neither they, nor their sons, nor
daughters, nor THEIR MEN-SERVANTS, nor THEIR MAID-SERVANTS,
shall de any work" on that sacred day. In the ten commandments,
then, servants male andfemale are recognized as a standing and permanent part or portion of the Jewish people. The fourth commandment prescribes their duties specifically as servants. And what is
the conclusion from this? There is indeed no command here to
make slaves; but it is equally true, that there is none to unmae
them. One thing, however, is palpable, viz., that there is a cognizance of them in such a way as to render it quite certain, that Moses
expected the Jewish nation to continue to have such a class of people as servants or slaves anong them. He elsewhere gives them
express liberty to do this, Lev. 25: 44.-46. Who then rides over
(cum pace aurium delicatiorum!) the largest number of commandments? Is it Ariel himself, or his vituperated neighbors? I take it
for granted that the other nine commandments have nothing about
slavery in them; how is it, then, with the fourth?  Or is there some
eleventh commandment which we have rode over, because, being less
sharp-sighted than Ariel, we did not see it?
Withal, this same life-guard watchman has a singular faculty of
quoting and interpreting the Scriptures for his purpose; specilly in
applying them to the confounding of Mr. Webster and his friends.
We shall have occasion by and by, to look a little into this part of
. 
12
his development; not because of any special importance that attaches to what Ariel says or does, but because he has seized on the
same weapons of assault which are common to most who agree with
him in anti-slavery notions, and which they brandish to the right and
left with the expectation of either scattering all opposing forces by
striking them with terror, or else of laying them low. We shall see,
in due time, whether the weapons are sharp enough to do much execution, or well tempered enough to bear an opposing blow without
shivering to pieces.
There are some other declarations from other assailants of Mr.
Webster and his friends, in the same journal, which I intend to
notice when a fitting opportunity occurs; not because I design to
attack thejournal, but because those declarations give expression to
sentiments of late often avowed and widely proclaimed. I have
referred to the journal in question, for the very reason that I regard
it as edited for the most part in an able manner, and until quite
recently as holding out fair promise of great and extensive usefulness.
It would not be worth my time or labor, to hunt up and bring forward the violent diatribes, which have issued of late from the
second, third, and fourth rate papers; for their name is legion. I
have referred to a paper highly respectable, in order to show, that
matters are becoming somewhat serious, and that it is high time they
should be examined on all sides. Statesmen and jurists will doubtless take care for themselves and their cause, as to what comes within their appropriate sphere.  But in a Christian land, there are
many - many thousands, sincerely desirous to know what light can
be obtained from the Bible, to aid them in discerning and performing their duty, in times like these. To all such I have something to
say; not so much in the way of apology for my own sentiments and
course of conduct, as for the sake of "stirring up their pure minds
by way of remembrance."
And now, after producing only a tithe of what has been brought
before me, either to chastise or to edify me, may I be permitted to
ask, why I should be doomed to such a lot? I can easily see, why
Mr. Webster's Speech should have roused up the ire of those who
call for emancipation to-morrow, and who are bent upon all possible
measures to foreclose our unappropriated domains against the prospect of slavery, even at the risk of violating our plighted national 
13
faith, of setting aside the solemn compacts which we have made, and
of dissolving the Union and covering the land with blood. Such a
speech, addressed to the sober, candid, law-loving, peace-loving, cov enant-keeping freemen of our country, threatens much, no doubt, to
the cause of the violent. Such Paixhan guns as he brings into the
contest, threaten demolition to the tottering walls and brick-built
citadels. No wonder they look with concern upon the issue of the
contest; and of course, no wonder that he should become the object
with some of impassioned, and with others of embittered, attack.
All this is easily explained. But why, in my peaceful retirement
from the world, in my inaction and quietude as to politics, and while
I am standing on the verge of the grave with one foot already in it
- why I should have become, all at once, such a target to be fired at,
seems to me somewhat inexplicable.  Whom have I harmed?  And
who can expect any harm from me, in such a condition? However,
straws (they say) show which way the wind blows. So an experience like mine shows the violence of party spirit that is abroad.
In such of our journals as are published for the canaille, and well
adapted moreover to gratify their taste, all this perhaps might be
expected. But to find such violence in many of our religious papers,
even in some which are among those of the first rank, this is an
indication of a day approaching, which may be like that seen in
vision by the Hebrew prophet, "a day of darkness and gloominess,
a day of clouds and thick darkness, a day of trouble and distress, a
day of wasting and of desolation." If my feeble hand can be
employed in even giving a signal for halting a little time, until we
can survey the ground more effectually before we hasten on in our
forced march, yea, even for deliberating whether the present direction of our march had not better be abandoned, at least for a while
-  then my poor remnant of life will not have been spared in vain.
Such then, as I have shown above, is the state of things in which
I undertake to speak a word of caution, well meant, although it
may not perhaps be well spoken. If I look merely at the commotion which seems to surround me, I almost believe that I might be
pardoned, if I should feel somewhat as the trident-god did, when he
was called away from his quiet resting place in the depths of his
watery domain, by the heavings of the ocean and the booming and
dashing of its waves above, which had been lashed into fury and
elevated to the skies, by the tornados that Eolus had let loose, with                            2 
14
out the knowledge or consent of his Neptunian majesty. When the
monarch raised his head above the surface of the deep, and saw its
commotion, and the Trojan fleet like things of cork upon it, his first
feeling was indignation; his second and better thought was, that he
must, without dqlay, calm the raging element.
Quos ego- sed praestat componere fluctus.
If my first feeling was like his, it was very soon succeeded by the
better second thought.  I have no power indeed, such as Virgil
attributes to Neptune, to calm the raging billows; but if I can pour
even a little oil upon them, it may possibly be reckoned as a contribution of my mite, toward smoothing down their angry crests.
Let me, once for all, before I advance to the main objects that I
have in view, here make a frank statement of my feeling in regard
to a large class of men, who entertain views different from, and in
some respects opposed to my own.  Those who belong to this class,
are not all of the like character; and therefore they should not in
any way, either directly or by implication, be amalgamated together.
I have already excepted one excellent journal and its editors, and
stated my reason for making any reference or appeal to it.  That
its editors are high-minded Christian men, I cannot doubt. As little
can I doubt that great numbers of the so-called Free Soil party are
men of intelligence, of patriotism, and of integrity.  They appear
to me, to be adorned with every civil and social virtue.  All this I
most cheerfully concede and believe. Many of them, also, are men
of exemplary Christian lives.  Some of them, moreover, as we
know from the developments which they have made, are men, whose
eloquence can charm not only the mass of our citizens, but hold in
breathless suspense our Senates and our Houses of Representatives.
Not to go beyond the boundaries of our own Massachusetts, I have
the pleasure of some personal acquaintance with a number of Free
Soilers, who adorn private life by their virtues, and public life by
their learning, their talents, and their eloquence.  Nay, I could, if
it were decorous, readily point to this man and that among them, and
say with all my heart: 1 nostrum decus  Of such men I can- fully
believe, that their aim is good; that their principles (as to main
positions) are humane, patriotic, becoming high-souled freemen.  I
believe those principles, bating some excesses to which excited
feeling has carried them, are such as meet the approbation of a 
15
tribunal higher than an earthly one can be.  But in matters ofexciting moment, where great and humane -objects are sincerely
believed to be at stake, it often happens, even to spirits of the nobler
order, to become excited beyond the bounds of moderation and sober
wisdom.  I do not call this crime, in such men.-  I might almost
say, that it is -the fault, or rather the infirmity, of excessive virtue.
But still, if the means which they employ to carry their cause
through with success, are lacking in prudence, in sober foresight, in
moderation, in justice, and in comity to opponents-then the public
suffer far more- from these distinguished and excellent men, than
they would from all the efforts of the Ledru Rollins and the Red
Caps —who are in the midst of us.  On the yeomanry ofiMassachusetts,: at all events, Parisian Socialism and Parisian Liberty and
Equality, are not likely to make much permanent impression.;  If
the people of this State are in the end misled, itmust be by men
whose lives and talents have given them a commanding influence.
Hence it is that I have ventured on the declaration, that when -such
men fall into excess of zeal, and lead the way to measures correspondeat with this and indicative of it, the community suffer far more
than they would be liable to suffer, from the excesses of all those
who live on excitement, and are never gratified so much, as when
they can allure or drive others into the like condition
I have thus done, as I trust, the justice due to a large class of
men among us. If at any time, in the hurry or excitement of writing,
I should let drop one word that would seem to disagree with what
I have now expressed, let such of my fellow-citizens as may be
implicated in my remarks, draw their pen over that word, and be
assured that it comes from inadvertence and not from design.
I wish I could speak in a similar tone of another class among us,
who seem to be kindred spirits with the Liberty-men of Paris.  I
refer of course to such, and to the like of them, as have deluged me
with the gall that I have briefly described in the pages above.
What there is in all this, which is manly, patriotic, just, profitable,
or decent, I am not able to see. By their fruits, at all events, they
may be known, and by these they must expect to be judged.  It
would ill become me to occupy much time or paper with them.
Such men, if I rightly judge, hive little or nothing to lose, by a
breaking up of the Union.  No change can be much for the worse,
so far as they are concerned; and the chance, as they believe, is, 
16
that change may in some way present a better opportunity to help
bring in Socialism upon us. When property (to use the language of
their transatlantic coadjutor) becomes a crime, and equal division is
made of the whole, then they may have "high life below stairs," as
well as others can now have high life above stairs. If they will
promise me now to keep their temper, I will tell them a short story,
and then, wishing them better views and better feelings and more
civility, I will bid them, for the present, a hearty adieu.
The story is this. In Jefferson-times, when party spirit was
higher, if possible, than it now is, the inhabitants of New Haven,
in Connecticut, where I then lived, were as a mass strong Federalists. As soon as Mr. Jefferson was fairly seated on his throne, and
had got a Senate, a House of Representatives, and a Cabinet,
obedient and entirely subservient to his will, he displaced a Collector
of the Customs at New Haven, appointed by Washington, (a man
of, great integrity and distinguished ability for business, and then
enjoying the highest confidence of his fellow citizens), and appointed
in his room a gentleman above eighty years of age, a man indeed of
.unblemished character, but unfortunately the father of a real Jacobinic son. This son had been at Paris during the reign of terror,
and, like Thomas Paine, with whom he sympathized both in religion
and in politics, did all he could to aid the Mountain party. It was
believed, of course, that he was the real appointee; and this was
soon confirmed by his open appointment at his father's death. No
man could have been more obnoxious to New Haven, at that period,
than the son in question. The commotion of course was very great.
Soon after the appointment in question came the Fourth of July.
It was celebrated with a mixture of enthusiasm and of indignation.
At the dinner which followed the exercises of the day, where some
hundreds were seated at the table, an aged merchant of the town, a
shrewd man and a high Federalist, was called on for a volunteer
toast.  He rose instantly and gave one thus: "Our New Collector,
A. B.!   When the-political pot boils, the scum is sure to come to
the top."
' Sed- paullo majora canamus.' I come now merely to mention
further, that from some respected and cherished friends, I have
received letters, stating their doubt and perplexities on the present
agitated questions, and requesting me to point out, if I could, some
way of Ch?istian politics, in which they might conscientiously pro 
17
ceed.  The tone of respect and kindness which pervaded these
letters, induced me to give some special attention to the subject —of a
Mristian examination.  My undertaking was ifurther stimulated, by
other letters of a similar tenor; and these assured me, that the writers of them knew many serious and conscientious persons, who were
in the same predicament with themselves, and would be greatly
relieved if the path of Christian duty could be pointed out. After
some examination of the matter as an affair concerned with Christianity, I became so far satisfied in my own mind, that I could not
well doubt for myself. When we get into this state, after a serious
effort in the way of examination, we are apt to feel that what convinces ourselves, may perhaps help to convince others. The subject
gradually grew upon me, until I finally concluded that I would
make the attempt to communicate my views, provided no serious
obstacle should be found in the way, and if I should continue to
be in such a state, that I could perform the labor necessary.
My next step was, to see that Mr. Webster should be consulted
on the question, whether he would have any objections to my canvassing his speech. I did this through the medium of a friend; for
between Mr. Webster and myself no communications had yet
passed.  That friend gave him my letter, on his coming to Boston.
The reason why I took pains to get Mr. Webster's views, was, on
my part, a regard to delicacy and respect, and not for the sake of
forming my own opinions, which had already been formed. The
letter of mine, that was put into his hand, stated merely that my
special design was, if he concurred, to take a Christian view of the
agitated questions.  In answer to my letter, Mr. Webster sent me
the following communication, which, with his consent, I shall here
subjoin, premising merely, that I should have omitted the first paragraph, had it not been a plain case, from the temper of the times,
that any omission would be supposed by some readers, to have been
filled up with matter which it would not do to publish, and which
some might guess was very different from what- Mr. Webster has
actually written.  If I be amenable at the bar of delicacy, for publishing a paragraph expressive of kindness and regard to myself, I
hope to obtain a pardon, in case of condemnation, for the reason
already stated.- -Here is the-letter:  -. 
2.   ~S   
18
"Boston, April 31, 1850.
" My DEAR SIR, -  I cannot well say how much pleasure it gave
me to see a name so much venerated and beloved by me as yours is,
on the letter recently received by me from friends in Boston and its
vicinity, approving the general object and character of my speech in
the Senate, of the seventh of March. I know the conscientiousness
with which you act on such occasions, and therefore value your
favorable sentiments the more highly.
"Is it not time, my dear Sir, that the path of Christian duty, in
relation to great and permanent questions of Government, and to
the obligations which men are under to support the Constitution and
the fundamental principles of the Government under which they
live, should be clearly pointed out? I am afraid we are falling into
loose habits of thinking upon such subjects; and I could wish that
your health and strength would allow you to communicate your
own thoughts to the public.
"We have established over us, as it appears to me, a much better
form of Government than may ordinarily be expected in the allotments of Providence to men; and it appears to me that the consciences of all well meaning and enlightened individuals, should
rather be called upon to uphold this form of Government, than to
weaken and undermine it, by imputing to it objections, ill considered
and ill founded, dangerous to the stability of all governments, and
not unfrequently the offspring of over heated imaginations.
"Allow me to conclude, my dear Sir, by offering you my highest
respects, and my affectionate good wishes for your health and happiness."                                DANIEL  WEBSTER.
REV. MR. STUART.
I should, of course, have spared the public all this, so far as I
myself am concerned. But I well knew, that concert between Mir.
Webster and me would be charged upon my pamphlet, and it would
be put mainly to his account. He has more than once, in some
journals which have a Christian name and wear a Christian face,
been taunted with getting up a subscription-paper, declarative of
approbation by his particular friends, in order to keep himself in
countenance, and to prop him up in his falling condition. Nay, I
have repeatedly seen statements, that the whole State of Massachusetts had been scoured, from Cape Cod to Berkshire, in order to
get underwriters for him; that every store and shop and stall and
bar-room and kennel had been rummaged, in order to increase the
number of vouchers for his speech; and that after all the running to
and fro over the whole land by his partizans, they had been able to
collect from the whole Bay State, only between seven and eight 
19
hundred persons, who were willing to vouch for the propriety of his
speech. Now those who can say this, of course can say anything.
Those who have said it, at least some of them, know that no signers
were sought for or wished, except from Boston and its suburbs.
Andover, at all events, is at the greatest distance from Boston,
where any application for subscription was made; and there but in
a few cases. The names on the list are the pledge of all this. If
there are any names, (I have not seen the full list, and therefore
speak conditionally), on the subscription paper, which belong at any
distance from Boston, it comes about merely from the persons' being
in Boston when the paper was carried round. What could be the
inducement to publish such a palpable falsehood, it would be difficult, in one point of view, to say; but still, not very difficult in
another.  Delenda est Carthago.  If Mr. Webster's reasoning cannot
be answered, (and this is somewhat of a hard task), he must in some
other way be put down. At all events, this last point must be carried; and what would help more in the present exigency, than to
persuade the public, that Mr. Webster has lost the confidence of his
own State? No matter, think they, if the falsehood is discovered
and exposed, by and by. Justice has a lame foot, and moves very
slowly; and she will not come with her scorpion lash, until we have
realized all that we hoped for. It may be so, I answer; but when
justice does come- what then?  Can you, who have made such
statements to the public, expect any longer to be trusted by them?
The real truth seems to be, that we are acting over again the scenes
of old Athens, in the days of Aristides. His rival, Themistocles,
went about the whole city, whispering all manner of surmises against
him, so that at length the populace were ready to thrust out the best
and most distinguished man in their commonwealth.   On the day
when the votes of Athens were to decide the fate of Aristides, he
asked one of the citizens on his way to the voting-hall, to whom he
was personally unknown, how he was going to vote.  He told him
he should vote to banish Aristides. Why? said he, what has he
done? Why nothing, replied the simple clown, that I know of; but
I am tired of hearing every body call him the Just. So is it, I fear,
among us at the present moment. The man who has commanded
more listening ears, and made more hearts beat high, these twenty
years past, than any other man in our great community, is called
upon by the spirit of the Levellers to come down to their humbler 
20
place, and take his lot with them.  "A  bats le Senateur!  There
are other men who have as good a right to reign as you; and if we
cannotbring you to a level by argument, we can do it by contumely
and vituperation."  This is the brief, but, I am pained to say that I
feel constrained to believe, the true history of the matter.
Mr. Webster, forsooth, asking for underwriters in politics, and
drumming up all Massachusetts to get them!  Tell it not in Gath!
It is neither true that he would ask for any such thing, nor true that
his friends would condescend to devise and execute any such measure.
Let those who are doing such deeds of violence against fact and
truth, call to mind, that Athens, when'she had banished her Aristides for six years, felt obliged to recall him before the end of that
period, and to give him her highest confidence and her posts of
highest honor.  Let them call to mind, that when the immortal
.Eschylus, in one of his lofty and glowing tragedies, introduced a
sentence replete with eulogy of moral goodness and integrity, every
eye, in the assemblage of those very Athenians who once voted -for
his banishment, was filled with tears of emotion; and was spontaneously fixed upon Aristides, who was then present. — -And so will it
be with us, if the impetuous zeal of the present hour is to: march
forward until it gains its ultimate end.  We are full surely preparing for a future repentance.
In one word, no man who regards truth has any right to say, that
lfr. Webster has procured his friends to prop him up, in -the way of
subscription to a paper commending his speech, or that he- has
enlisted me now in his service.  He has not lifted one finger, in the
way of accomplishing either object. And yet, in the way of helping
to depreciate him, a respectable journal asks:'How is it that his
political Orthodoxy needs vouchers?  What is the matter with it?
What if Dr. Woods should be vouched for on the score Of Ortlhodoxy,
by an Association of Ministers in Boston, or elsewhere?:: Would it
not seem passing strange, that he was in-need of such vouchers?'
Yes it would, I answer, in present circumstances.  But- suppose Dr.
Woods were unjustly assailed in different quarters, and many things
were laid to his charge without any -foundation or good- reason;
would it be- strange if Dr. Wood's friends, who best know him,
should rally, and volunteer their anited testim ny to put down: the
f'   acc-usations?  No, it would be: strange  ffthey did not do so. 
21
Why then may not Mr. Webster's friends who have long been his
neighbors and best know him, in a time of unrestrained and unmeasured obloquy, rally around him, and bid him God-speed in his
patriotic and noble course? They may do so; they have done so;
and they are none the less resolved to hold on in their course, by
any false statements, so long as what they consider to be palpable
injustice is done to him.
But- enough of preface to my little book, unless the porch is to
be larger than the building. I can only say, once more, that little
if any of all this preface would have been written, had not the facts,
now brought into view, contributed to throw light on the character
of the times, and on the moderation and comity of some of those,
whose opinions I expect to call in question. I must say, however,
that I do not think the old proverb: "A man is known by the company he keeps," will apply, in the present case, to a large portion of
those who dissent from Mr. Webster's views. 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
as I have described above (p. 14), and such as many of those are,
who have loaded me with such favors as I could well dispense with,
(see p. 8 seq.), and for which I am not specially grateful. But
such is the doom of party spirit, when it runs high. We may and
should regret it; but I see no way to prevent it.
One more remark, and I shall proceed to my main business. This
is, that I have learned to suspect, that there is some distrust in the
strength and goodness of their cause, when men begin to vituperate,
to slander, and to satirize those, who are opposed to their views. I
have seen some service, in my day, in the wars of pens, and sometimes felt obliged to act as well as to see. Long ago I learned by
observation, a lesson that impressed itself deeply on my mind.
Those who feel a sober conviction from serious and repeated examination, that the views which they cherish are well grounded, and
will bear assault without any lasting harm, are very apt to keep
quiet, and cool, even when listening to declamation and obloquy.
Why not?  They are in no real danger.  It is for those who are
afraid that their underpinning may give way, and bring down the
whole superstructure upon them, to keep constantly on the qui vive,
and to make so much noise and bustle as will turn the attention of
the public to the commotion, rather than to the foundations of the 
22
edifice whence the noise proceeds.  One part expect to be heard for
much speaking; another, for loud speaking; another, for their ingenuity in the formation of vituperative epithets - and another, for their
skill in substituting fiction for fact.  Some write for a reason as good
as Voltaire assigned, for a false statement (which however was quite
piquante) in one of-his histories. When advertised of the matter by
an acquaintance of his, who was surprised to see it, he very coolly
replied:'My dear Sir, I must be read.'  Some of these writers
think in like way, and are well prepared to say: Si non coelumAcheronta Gmoebo.  But- all badinage apart- it is my sober conviction that very much less of excitement would now exist, did not
the array of Mr. Webster's arguments appear so formidable.  If he
is willing to risk his reputation and honor, in uttering sentiments
which every tyro in the Free Soil political ranks can refute, why
then lassez faire.  There is no need of attacking him.  He is undoing himself as fast as his enemies could wish.  But- do they feel
so? Do they believe all this? Not a word of it. It is the Paix
han guns that they fear, when directed against chinky walls -and
ditadels of mouldering brick.
My preface is through.  I advance, then forthwith to the first part
of my main design. This is,
~ 2. To exhibit the attitude of Slavery as presentqd by the Old
Testament.
I must prepare the way for this exhibition, by a few remarks on
the positions assumed by the anti-slavery party (so called) of the
present day.
One leading position, a thousand thousand times repeated, is, that
slavery, on the part of the master is a crime of the first magnitude;
a real malum in se; a crimen eapitis; a misdeed to be placed by the
side of murder, adultery, robbery, treason, and the like.  Often is
this position advanced without making any distinction between the
case of an involuntary master of slaves, (one who has inherited them
and cannot, without the most imprudent risk of doing them injury,
free them immediately in the circumstances in which they are), and
those who have trafficked in them, or been concerned with the piratical business of bringing them away from Africa.  The bare possession is, as they assert, an outrage; the bare relation is in itself a 
23
sin.: —  Immediate repentance and the -proclamation of their freedom are duties to be done without the least delay.: Stolen goo, the
fruit of robbery, they say, are:not to be retained a single hour, after
the man who has obtained them has come to:a proper  sense -of -his
duty. 
,:Is all this really so?  Is this alleged malum in se a case so entirely clear as it is said to be:in all its extent and in all its. ramifications?  Will the Scriptures bear us out in this position?  For after
all, this -must be the ultimate test to which all sincere Christians
are bound to appeal. A thorough Protestant, at least, professes to
believe, that -"the Scriptures are the sufficienrt and only rule of faith
and practice."
We begin our investigation with the Old Testament.  Our first
object is to develop the matter as it there  stands; our next will be
to subjoin some remarks on this development.
Of the  great antiquity of slavery no one can doubt.:The cuse
of Noah that lighted on the progeny of the unfilial Ham, was, that
Canaan his son should be a servant of servants unto his brethren,
Gen. 9: 25.  This language, uttered soon after the flood, shows
plainly that slavery had an existence before the flood; for otherwise,
it would not have been intelligible.  No wonder it was so, "for the
earth was filled with violence" (Getn. 6: 11); and slavery, for the
most party originates in violence, and has its deepest foundation in
the simple but utterly unjust principle, that might is right.
Under many modifications, however, did slavery exist among the
patriarchs of the Jewish nation. - Abraham, " the father of the faithful," (when his nephew Lot was taken captive, his goods rifled, and
himself carried off by marauding banditti), could bring into the fieldd
318 armed and disciplined -servantsrborn in his own great household,
and make pursuit after the robbers, and disperse them, Gen. 14:
12- 16.  If one:ftjth be taken as the proportion among his servants
of such men, viz. those who were capable of bearing and using; arms,
Abraham's family of slaves must have consisted of at least 1590
persons; somewhat larger, I think, than any like family among our
fellow citizens of the - South.  However, we must call to mind here,
that Abraham's relation to thee slaves was somewhat different from
that of master to slave  among us.  The patriarch resembled, in his
mode of life, the Nomades who still roam over the very:country
from which he sprung. - The Sheikhs among them often have.under
r 
their control a whole tribe; and this tribe stand in such relation to
their Sheikh, as the serfs under the old feudal law bore to their
master. Bodily service in the way of labor when needed, and
special military service in predatory and warlike expeditions, were
always at the command of the master. So, moreover, did the
administration of justice, and the power of life and death, pertain to
him. But in the East, where servitude everywhere prevails, the
slaves, for the most part, are generally treated with less rigor, and
more as human beings should be treated, than they are in most
countries called Christian.  Especially do the family-servants find
much favor in the eyes of their master. It is a frequent custom
now, among the Persians for example, to bestow legacies on this
class of slaves, and nearly always (if they have behaved well) to
give them their freedom. See how exactly the case of Abraham
illustrates this. He had no child until he was 100 years of age;
and in making arrangements for the disposition of his property after
his death, (before the promise of a son), he had made the steward
of his house his heir who was a slave of Damascene origin, one
born as a slave in his own house, Gen. 15: 2, 3. When, therefore,
the example of the patriarch is referred to as justifying modern
slavery, it should be remembered, that what the Arabian Sheikhs
now are to their pettytribes,Abraham was to his 1590 servants.
One striking circumstance respecting slavery, quite revolting to
our occidental and Christian views, deserves mention here. If the
mistress of the house was childless, a favorite female slave was
selected by her, and offered by her to her husband, to take the place of
a wife. In case of offspring, the children of this slave were regarded
as the children of the real wife. The case of Sarah and Hagar fully
illustrates this, as told in Gen. 16: 1-3; and it was as  Abraham's
son, that the blessing came upon Ishmael, Gen. 17: 20. And when
Abraham was about to die, he bestowed gifts on all his sons born of
his concubines, and sent them away free from the domination of
his heir, Gen. 25: 5, 6.
Of Isaac, the patriarch's regular heir, we read that he "had in
possession a great store of servants," Gen. 26: 14. When Rachel,
the favorite wife of Jacob, Isaac's son, found herself childless, she,
like Sarah, gave to her husband her favorite female servant, in order
that she might claim the rights of a mother, and this slave bore to
Jacob two sons, Gen. 30: 1-8. Jacob's other wife Leah, although
24
I 
25
she had already borne four sons, was so ambitious of outstripping
her rival in progeny, that she too gave her handmaid to her husband;
and she increased the motherly rights and joy of the mistress, by
bearing two sons, Gen. 30: 9-13. Thusfour of the twelve patriarchs were the sons of favorite bond-women, voluntarily substituted
by lawful wives to take their own place. Nor do we ever find any
difference made between those four and the other sons, as to the treatment they received, or the rank which they held.
Such was, and still is, the manner of slavery in the East. If an
appeal be made to the example of the patriarchs in order to defend
slavery, we must carry the matter through all their domestic arrangements. We should soon come in this way to the conclusion,
that wives among us, not blest with children, may readily supply the
deficiency, as Sarah, and Rachel, and Leah did, and the children thus
born would become lawful heirs of the husband; a matter that now
and then would be of serious importance to slighted wives, for whom
no adequate provision had been made. But modern Christian views
have introduced a very different taste and manner of conduct among
our wires. Few, even if it were allowable, would be so fonrd of the
mere name of mother, as to give up their husbands to their servants.
If we appeal to the patriarchs to justify slavery, then why not appeal
to them in order to justify polygamy and concubinage? Undoubtedly
they neither thought nor intended to do wrong in either of the cases
that are before us. But this will not justify us in imitating them.
The gospel has given us better light.
I shall enter into no argument here in defence of the patriarchs,
as to the usages now in question. In one sense they do not concern
us; for the blessed God, by his gospel, having scattered the darkness of early ages, has made us to walk in the clear light of the Sun
of Righteousness, so that polygamy and concubinage are no more
regarded, in Christian lands, as lawful or proper. Perhaps we may
see, before we are through, that slavery is as little commanded or
even permitted by the highest form of Christianity, as those practices. Still, it is proper to say in relation to the patriarchs, that
every man's conduct is to be judged of in most cases, at least in
some good measure, by the light he has, and by the age and circumstances in which he lived. When Sir John Malcolm was introduced
as English ambassador to the Shah of Persia, the first question after
the formal salutations were over was  How many wives has the
3 
26
Shah of England got?   Sir John replied:  May it please your
Majesty, ONE.   One, said the astonished monarch, One?   Why
not more?  Because, replied the ambassador, our customs and laws
permit but one.   Then, rejoined the Shah with great emphasis,
nothing would tempt me to be the Shah of England.  Had George
the Fourth then been on the throne of England, Sir John might
have replied, that the Shah of England would very much like to be
in his Persian Majesty's place; for the latter had then 1800 wives
and 100 sons. Instead of this being regarded by him, however, as
a disgrace and a stain upon his character, he gloried in his preeminence above all who had been seated on the throne of Persia, in
respect to the multitude of his wives and children.
This now is a specimen of oriental feeling.  Much of the like
feeling is evident even in the patriarchal history that has just been
brought to view.  Christianity alone makes marriage a sacred, an
exclusive, an inviolable compact. Christianity alone has brought us
back to the primitive state of man, in regard to this matter. Adam had
but one Eve.  But Abraham and the other patriarchs lacked our light.
If they had possessed it, there cannot be a doubt that they would
have followed its guidance, and rejoiced in it. Noble traits of character they had; but it needs the blessed gospel of God to make men
"perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work." What Christ
has commanded is our rule; and not what the patriarchs did, who
lived when the light wasjust beginning to dawn.
We proceed at once to the Mosaic Constitution and Laws.  The
foundation of all the ordinances respecting slavery, is disclosed in
Ex. xxi. But it should be noted here, that the regulations there
exhibited have respect only to Hebrew servants, and not to those of
foreign origin.  It will be seen by an inspection of this chapter, that
Moses, at the outset, provided Tor many mitigations of the usual rigors of slavery. Hebrew men might be bought and sold; yet only
for the term of six years. The seventh year set them free. If the
man, who was sold into bondage, had a wife and children before the
sale, they also were freed with him.  If he married a wife given
him by his master, then she and her children were to be regarded as
belonging to the master; unless the year of jubilee intervened, when
all were to be free, Lev. 25: 39-41.  if a man purchased a concubine, and lost his fondness for her, then she might be redeemed
by her friends for a moderate.  sum.  If he betrothed her to his son, 
27
then he must treat her after the manner of daughters.  If the master
took another in her room, her support and comfort and conjugal
rights were not to be disregarded. If they were, then she was ipso
facto free.  If a man should smite his servant, male or female, so
that he or she should -die, his punishment was made imperative.  If,
however, the smitten servant survived, and continued-for some time,
the presumption was that the master did not  mean to kill;: and the
loss of the slave was regarded as his fine-.  If a man smote out an
eye or a tooth, i. e. if he in any way maimed his  man-servant or
maid-servant, then freedom  was of course to follow.  I subjoin the
passages here, for convenience' sake, which -show the ground of the
preceding statements:  -..'
Ex.; 21: 2. If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve:'and in
the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. (3) If he came in by himself, he
shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
(4) If his master have given him a- wife, and she have borne him sons or
daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out
by himself....  7) And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she
shall not go out as the men-servants do. (8) If she please not her master, who
hath btrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her
unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully
with her.  (9) And if he have betrothed her Unto his son, he shall deal with her
after the manner of daughters.   (10) If he take him another tife, her food,
her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish. (11) And if
he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.....
(20) And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under
his hand; he shall be surely punished.  (21) Notwithstanding, if he continue a
day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.....      (26) And if
a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; -he
shall let him go free for his eye's sake. (27) And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maid-servant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his
tooth's sake.
Of the treatment of slaves, something will be said in the sequel.
It is proper to show, first, HOW  MEN  MIGHT  BECOME  SLAVES.
(a) As a general thing, all captives in war were- regarded as slaves,
I believe, by all the ancient world; see Num. 31-: 18, 32, 35, 40.
But this does not apply to the case now  before us, which is that of
Hebrew slaves, Deut. 20: 14. 21:10-12.   (b) By  debt; see 2 K.
4:1. Is. 50: 1. Matt. 18: 25.  (c) By theft; for the thief, if poor,
was sold to repay the property which he had stolen.  (d) By birth,
when the mother was a slave; so that children of the house, or bon 
28
zn the house, became as it were a kind of proper name for slaves;
see Gen. 14: 14. 15: 3. 17: 23. 21: 10. Ps. 86: 16. 116: 16. (e) By
sale and purchase. A man might sell himself (Lev. 15: 47), which,
however, was not very common; or another who owned a slave
might sell him; but the seventh year, and above all the jubilee year,
broke the bonds of slavery; Lev. 25: 25-28, 39-41.   (f) There
was one way more of making slaves, viz. by stealing and selling
them. This the law of Moses punished with death, Ex. 21: 16.
Deut. 24: 7. The latter passage, however, shows that this law, in
its primary design, applied only to the stealing of Hebrews: "If a
man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel,
etc." Yet that this extended to the slaves of foreign origin resident
among the Hebrews, I doubt not. All servants of every kind were
to be circumcised, Gen. 17: 12-14; and thus they became quasi members of the Jewish community, and rested, like the Jews, on the
Sabbath and on feast days, i.e. they partook of their religious priv ileges, Ex. 20: 10. Deut. 5: 14. 12: 17, 18. 16: 10, 11. If one of
these servants was stolen, then, it would seem at least probable that
the law was to be extended to his purloiners.  But to quote these
passages, as is every day done, to show directly the criminality of
foreign slave making, is doubtless uncritical and unfounded, as it
respects the original and main object of the Jewish law. Yet the
spirit of that law, (now the partition between Jew and Gentile is
Abroken down), would seem to be fairly applicable to all cases of
man-stealing. All men are now as much, or at any rate as really, our
brethren, as the Hebrews in Moses' time were brethren of each
other. Hence the law, almost if not quite universal among Chris tian nations, which makes foreign man-stealing piracy, is, in my
view, altogether in the spirit, although not after the letter, of the
Mosaic statutes.
We come next to THIE TREATMENT or SLAVES. (a) A Hebrew sold
for poverty, i.e. for debt, was not to be treated with rigor as a bond servant, but as a hired servant; and he and all his were to be free on
the coming of jubilee-year, Lev. 25: 39-43. (b) The master who
killed his (Hebrew) slave, was to be punished in an exemplary man ner, Ex. 21: 20,21. (c) A masterwho maimed his servant, was com pelled to set him free, Ex. 21: 26, 27. (d) Slaves should enjoy the rest
of the Sabbath, Ex. 20: 10. Deut. 5: 14; and be invited to the solemn
feasts and festivals, Deut. 12: 17, 18. 16:10, 11.  (e) They should 
29
have a comfortable support, Deut. 25: 4, as expounded by Paul
1 Tim. 5: 18. 1 Cor. 9: 9, 10.  (f) As stated above, and apparent in
the passages there quoted at length, every seventh year, and the
jubilee-year, severed the bonds of slavery; see also in Lev. 25:
39 — 1.  (g) It appears, by a comparison of Lev.  25: 49  and
2 Sa. 9: 10, that slaves were permitted the enjoyment of some
little property as their own.
Such is the picture of the slavery of Hebrews among Hebrews.
There remains, however, one extraordinary circumstance in the legislation of Moses, in relation to this subject.  When Moses came
out of Egypt and gave the law of Sinai, he declared that Hebrew
men-servants should be free after six years; but not a word of this
nature is said, as to the female-servants. But after 40 years, when
on the borders of the promised land, he made the law, which before
was applicable only to males,  equally applicable thenceforth to
females.  Very plainly are the-prudence and sagacity of the Jewish
lawgiver developed here.  Such was the universal feeling on the
subject of slavery, when he began to legislate, that it would have
been hazarding disobedience and rebellion, if Moses had freed
females as well as males, after six years' service.  Their universal
degradation in the East, rendered sutch a measure revolting to the
Jews, and quite impracticable. But when Mloses had been moulding
the manners and customs of the Hebrew nation for 40 years, he felt
that this matter ought to be placed on its proper basis.  Accordingly,
Deut. 15: 12-15 declares, that a Hebfew bondsman or bond-woman
shall go free on the coming in of the seventh year, and that they
should be liberally supplied by their master, from the flocks. and the
grain-floor, and the wine-press.  A truly noble advance in legislation, and worthy of such a man.!
Whynow 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, before the law 
would or (morally speaking) could be obeyed.  How different Such
a       policy was from that which is trumpeted by the immediate Emancipationists of ouir, day, it needs'no words of mine'to show.- However, the' great Jewish legislator seems to' be —a very insignficant
3* 
80
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 contrive to ignore it in all feasible ways. No wonder. It
is a precedent of frowning aspect on all heated rashness and extravagance, specially in respect to great questions where national and
universal usages of long standing and deep root are concerned.
One  more passage in the Mosaic code claims our particular
notice. This is in Deut. 23: 15, 16, and runs thus: "Thou shalt
not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his
master unto thee.  He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in
that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh
him best; thou shalt not oppress him."
The first inquiry of course is: Where does his master live?
Among the Hebrews, or among foreigners? The language of the
passage fully develops this, and answers the question.   He "has
escaped from his master unto the Hebrews (the text says-thee, i.e.
Israel); he shall dwell with thee, even among you... in one of thy
gates." Of course, then, he is an immigrant, and did not dwell among
them before his flight.  If he had been a Hebrew servant, belonging to
a Hebrew, the whole face of the thing would be changed. Restoration, or restitution, if we may judge by the tenor of other propertylaws among the Hebrews, would have surely been enjoined. But be
that as it may, the language of the text puts it beyond a doubt that
the servant is a foreigner, and has fled from a heathen master. This
entirely changes the complexion of the case. The Hebrews were
God's chosen people, and were the only nation on earth which worshipped the only living and true God. On this ground, as they
were the living depositary of the oracles of God, great preference
was given to them, and great caution exercised, to keep them from
all tangling alliances and connections with the heathen. In case a
slave escaped from them and came to the Hebrews, two things were
to be taken into consideration, according to the views of the Jewish
legislator. The first was, that the treatment of slaves among the
heathen was far more severe and rigorous, than it could lawfully be
under the Mosaic law. The heathen master possessed the power of
life and death, of scourging, or imprisoning, or putting to excessive
toil, even to any extent that he pleased. Not so among the Hebrews. iHumanity pleaded, then, for the protection of the fugitive. 
81
The second and most important consideration was, that only among
the Hebrews could the fugitive slave come to the knowledge and
worship of the only living and true God. The clause which says:
"Thou shalt not oppress him," of course means, that he shall be
denied none of the privileges of a resident in the land, and that he
shall not be subjected to peculiar taxation or labor. The verses
before us do not say, that such a refugee servant shall be circumcised; but the admission of him to the privileges of a freeman
implies this. The servants of Hebrews, whether of domestic or
foreign origin, were all to be circumcised, Gen. 17: 12-15. Of
course the admitted denizen, in the present case, would be required
to comply with such an injunction. By the rite in question he became
incorporated into the Jewish theocratical commonwealth, and therefore entitled, as even bond-men were, to all its religious privileges.
Moses, therefore, would not suffer him to be forced back into the
darkness of heathenism, nor allow that he should be delivered up to
an enraged heathen master.  Was he not in the right?
But if we now put the other case, viz., that of escape from a
~/ebrew master, who claimed and enjoyed Hebrew rights, is not the
case greatly changed? Who could take from him the property
which the Mosaic law gave him a right to hold? -Neither the bondman himself, nor the neighbor of his master to whom the fugitive
might come. Reclamation of him could be lawfully made, and
therefore must be enforced.
With this view of the matter before us, how can we appeal to the
passage in question, to justify, yea even to urge, the retention of
fugitive bond-men in our own country?  We are one nation- one
so-called Christian nation. Christianity is a national religion among
us. I do not mean, that all men are real Christians, or that Christianity is established by law; but I mean, that immeasurably the
greatest part of our population, North and South, profess to respect
Christianity, and appeal to its precepts as a test of morals, and as
furnishing us with the rules of life. What State in the Union does
not at least tacitly admit Christianity to hold such a place?
When a fugitive bond-man, then, comes to us of the North, from
a master at the South, in what relation do we of the North stand to
that Southern master? Are our fellow-citizens and brethren of the
South, to be accounted as heathen in our sight?  No, this will never
do. I know not what the proportion of real Christians in the 
32
South Imay be, compated with those of,the North'; but this I do
know from personal observation made at the South, to som'e extent,
and from a considerable acquaintance with people of the South, that
there — are among them many warm hearts and active hands in the
cause -of true Christianity.  There -is no State where stuch spersons
may- not -be found, and many of them  too.  A bond-man, fleeing
from them to us, is a case of just the same kind as would have. been
presented -among the Hebrews, if a Hebrew -bond-man had fled from
the tribe of Judah to that of Benjamin.  We do not send back the
refugee from the South to a heathen nation or tribe.  There is many
a' Chrtstian master there, and many too who deal with'their servants as immortal beings.  It may be, that the fugitive has left a
severe and cruel master,' who will wreak- his vengeance upon him
fbr escaping.  And it may be, also, that if the fugitive takes up his
abode here, he will find those who will maltreat him,'aid- defraud
him, and do other grievous things.  Crimes of this sort have- notas
yet quite vanished from the North.  But be the master as he rmay,
since we of the North are only other tribes of the same great corn,monwealth, we cannot sit in judgment on cuel -masters belonging to
tribes different from our own, and having, by solenin com"pact, a:
separate and independent jurisdiction in respect to"all matters of
justic'e between man and man, with which  no stranger can on -any
pretence whatever intermeddle.  We pity -the restored fugitive, akd
have reason enough to pity him, when he is sent back to be delivered
into the hands of enraged cruelty.  But if he goes back't6 a lenient
and a Christian master, the matter is less grievous.  The responsibility, however, for bad treatment of the slave, rests not in the least
degree on us of the North.   The Mosaic law does"'not authorize us
to reject the elaims -of our fellow  country men -and citiz'ens, for
strayed or stolen property- property authorized and guarantied as
such by Southern States to their respective'citizens.  These States'
are not heathen.   We  have acknowledged them as brethren and
fellow citizens of the great community.   A fugitive from them is
not a fugitive from' an idolatrous and polytheistic people.  And even
if the Bible had neither said nor implied anything in relation to this
'h6le;matter; the solemn  compaet which we   ave""made' before
h'ea-ven and e'arth, X deliver up fugitives when they'are e'n'  hel'td
se:ce in the Stte fromwhi'ch they have fled,'is;senough:tbo sette
th:question of l-eal rightion the part'of the m-aster, whate'ver we 
83
may think of his claim when viewed in the light of Christianity.
But of this, more in the sequel.
In the meantime, I cannot quit this topic, without adding a few
remarks on the assumption, that every slave-holder must be denied
the title of a Christian, and denied the regard which is due to a
Christian brother. It is not too much to say, that no man, in his
sober senses, can believe or say, that there are no Christians in the
South, who are owners of slaves. There are thousands of masters
and mistresses, of exemplary  Christian lives and conversation.
There are many thousands, moreover, who have never been taught
to doubt, and never have doubted, the lawfulness of slavery.  They
have felt that they violated no sacred obligation in holding slaves,
provided they should treat them in a Christian manner. Whether
they have neglected their duty in putting by all discussion of the
subject, and all serious examination into it, is another and a different question.  I suppose there are Christians elsewhere, besides in
the South, who neglect some of their duties, and who are not absolutely perfect.  If perfection is the only proper test of a Christian
state, I fear that we of the North  eight have our title to such a
name called in question. But I will say all that I intend now to
say on this subject, by adverting to two notable cases, which may at
once serve to illustrate and to justify my assertions.
The celebrated and eminently pious John Newton, of London, was
master of a slave-ship that went to Africa, several times, under his
command. He tells us, that until the question was raised in England, by Wilberforce and others, he never once had a doubt in his
mind of the lawfulness and propriety of the Guinea trade. To
come nearer home; who does not know that the immortal Edwards
-immortal as much for his great piety as for his intellectual powers- left behind him in manuscript an Essay on the Slave-trade
(probably still extant), in which he defended the trade with all his
ability, on the same ground that Moses required the fugitive heathen
slave to be detained, viz., on the ground that it would bring the
perishing heathen within the reach of Christian influence.  That his
logic, in this case, would not well compare with that in some of his
printed Treatises, I am fully satisfied. But the simple and proper
question is: Did he intend any wrong? Had he any motives of
self-interest, which led him to argue as he did concerning the slavetrade? Unhesitatingly we answer both questions in the negative. 
34
May it not be,:then, that'there are some Christians in the South who
are in the same plight, in which Newton and he were?  -For' one, I
say emphatially_E.:
When will the time come, in which men shall cease- to pronoun"rce
sweeprmg judgments- of condemnation on th-eir fellow men, without
extmnin- g into their case, "and giving them a'fair and impartial hearing?- I- earnestly hope  the' day-break'is approaching, although  at
present it seems to-be receding.- Bit —it is sometimes darkest-just
beforeday..      -
Thus far I have treated onlyr of librews, made  slaves- arotng the
Hebrews, with the exception of one  peculiar case -of a- foreign
refugee.  I now-come, after exhibiting the full state of things"among
the Jews in respect- to slaves-of -Hebrew origin, and the many
m6difiiis n swhich-Moses inserted' i:is: lIaws to mollify:the hardthips ad rigors of'their condition, to consider'-T'-E C-O'ND ITI(ioN  Or
SLAVYES, WHO  WERE  OF HEATHEN - ORIGIN.'  -: 
Here the abettors of the proposition, that all slavery is a malum
in se and is to be ranked  with murder and robbery, will find matter
'f'serious diffiCulty.  With nc a   few of the- -high-toned Abolifionists, I fear I shall bring Moses into much:discredit, by quoting his
enactment. But here it is, and it would not become me to offer' an
apology for him. Let him speak for himself:
Lev. 25: 44. Both thy bond-men, and thy bona-maids, which thou shalt have,
be of the heathen that are round about you; of: them shall ye buy bondmen and bond-maids.  (45) Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do
sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with
you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. (46)
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to' inherit
themfor a possession, they shall be your bond-men for     ever'r'   
What now have we here?  Simply and plainly an unlimited lib.
erty to purchase, (not to steal), bond-men and bondi-maids -of the
heathen around and out of Palestine, or: of heathen dwelling within
it.- -But when Moses says: "Ye shall buy bond-men and bondmaids," -he is not to be understood as- giving command, but permission".  Our' translators have here made the Fut. tense in Hebrew
imperiati,e; and as it were jussive;, but every one acquainted with
Hebrew knows, that the Fut. tense is very often permissive, i. e. it is
tsed as a -Subjunctive mode. However, on the liberty to buy, there 
35
is no restraint whatever.  When bought, slaves are declared.  be
heritable property-  to.belong to the children -of the owners.to
inherit them for a possession.": Then follows the clause which:ive%tS
fast the tenure of the property  " They shall be your bonds e4     OR
EVER.,",  There.is no seventh freedom-year here; there is no jubilee
liberation.  -These belonged to Hebrew slaves.  The heathen bondmen are not put on a level with them.   The tenure of them is
perpetual, the:tenure-,as of heritable. property.  "The middle wall. of
partitione between Jews and Gentiles" was not yet broken down, but
just erected.  The time for declring that there was one  God and
Father of the Jews and:Gentiles, to whom all stood in the same
common relation, was yet: far distant.          -
There,. then stands the Mosaic statute, which was the perpetual
law.of.the Jews.  There it stands, not to be erased by the hand of
the most zealous Abolitionists   He will probably think very ill.of
Moses, and not be very:courteous.-toward.me for venturing to quote
him.  However, if there.is any blame here, it falls on the  great
Jewish.legislator himself, and not on me..- He, moreover, can afford
to beag it.
.In the name of all that is called reasoning now, in morals or
religion, how is the: ownership of slaves which heaven has given
express leave to purchase, to:be deemed a crime of- the. deepest dye
-  a malumn in se -  an Offence to be classed with murder -and'treason?  Let those answer this question, who decide a priori what the
Bible ought to speak, and then turn it over in order to see how they
can make it speak what. they wish.,. But there is no bending or
twisting sof Moses" words.T-:.There.they are, so plain that- "he who
runneth may read.".  If Abolitionists are right in -their positi'on then
Moses is greatly in the wrong. M/ore than this;, then has the.God
of the -Hebrews sanctioned, with his express. leave, the commission
of a crime as great as that which he has forbidden in the sixth or
seventh commandment.. There.is no - retreat from this.:The pos
tion: of thle Abolitionists plainly taxes high Heaven with misdemeanor, -with encouragement to commit one  among  the foulest of
crimes.    -: 
What shall we say then?  Shall'we consign Moses over to-repra
bation?  Or are we to regard him as an ignoramus  -One. —w the
other, or both, follow from the reasoning and the premises offhearid
Abolitionists.     -..       
36
I have said that Moses needs no aid of mine in the way of apology. When he speaks the words of the God of the Hebrews, it is
for us to listen, not to call in question. Yet it may be consistent
with all the reverence due to him as the head of the ancient dispensation, to say a word that may help to open closed ears. Let what
I have hinted, once and again, be here brought distinctly into view.
The Jews were a separate, chosen, peculiar people. The Mosaic
dispensation was a preparatory one, and not a complete, perfect, or
permanent one. High was the wall of partition, while it lasted,
between the Jews and heathen Gentiles. That slaves might be
purchased of the latter, on conditions entirely different from the
purchase of Hebrew servants, resulted, no doubt, from the fact, that
the Jewish nation were to be trained up in such a way, as to consider
the condition of the heathen as inferior to their own. In this way,
contamination by familiar intercourse with them, on the terms of
equality, was in some good measure prevented. To look on nations
as fit to be enslaved, produced the same kind of feeling that the
sight of African slaves now produces, in the minds of slave-owners,
toward the people of Africa. Hence heathen marriages were forbidden as degrading to the Hebrews. The abominations of idolatry
were such, both in respect to cruelty and pollution, that no intimacy
was to be allowed. But the slaves purchased from the heathen were
not likely to influence the religion of their masters. They were
obliged, moreover, to be circumcised, and to keep the Jewish sabbath and feasts. Their degraded state prevented the danger of contagion from their heathen notions. The whole tenor of the Mosaic
legislation on this subject seems to show, that the permission to purchase heathen slaves, was one of the means employed by Moses to
render heathenism contemptible in the eyes of the Hebrews.
At all events, none can reason from the case of the Jews - the
one favored, preemninent, secluded nation- to the case of men, who
lived after the coming of Him, "who broke down the middle wall of
partition between Jews and Gentiles," proclaimed one common God
and Father of all; one common Redeemer and Sanctifier; that this
God is no respecter of persons; and that he has "made of one blood,
all the nations that dwell on the face of the earth "-I say none
can now crave liberty to purchase slaves of the Gentiles or Jews, on
the ground of Mosaic permission. He might as well insist on the
liberty of polygamy and concubinage, both of which Moses allowed 
37
-I cannot say encouraged, for evidently this is not the case.  He
allowed it for the same reason that he allowed divorce at the will
of the husband. Our Saviour has told us what this reason was, viz.
"The hardness of their hearts." The light of the gospel dissipates
all these deeds done in claro-obscure light. All reasoning of this
kind is null, if it be at variance with the spirit and prects of the
gospel; which is now our supreme law. 
I have only one remark more to make, and then I go from Moses
to his disciples in later periods. This is, that it is well worth the
labor of every serious man, who prizes his Bible, to look into the
accounts we have, in books of Grecian and Roman antiquities, of the
state of slavery among the two leading nations of the world, most
renowned for learning and civilization. They gave to masters the
power of life and death; they authorized them to scourge and
imprison at pleasure; see Juvenal Sat. vi. 219. The master could
put to death by crucifixion, at Rome; and this was the usual punishment.  If the master of a family was slain at home, and the murderer could not be discovered, all his domestic slaves were liable to
be put, to death. Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 43) mentions a case, in which
400 slaves in one family were put to death under this law. Slaves
were not supported among heathen nations,..except by special kindness and comity; see Julius Pollux, Onomast., on the word iravatx:,a.  They were rarely permitted to marry, or even to enter into
that connection with a female, which the Romans called contubernium. Slaves, moreover, were debarred from all participation in the
civil and religious festivals and rights of the citizens. Compare all
this now with the laws of Moses. Does it not lie on the very face
of his legislation, that he far outstripped all the legislators and sages
of antiquity?  How came he, issuing from Egypt the very hot-bed
of polytheism and slavery, to know so much about the rights of men,
and to do so much for the interests of humanity? There is but
one satisfactory answer to these questions; and this is, that he had
light from above.
But we come now to his followers.  The first question which
spontaneously presents itself here, is: Did subsequent prophets and
teachers undertake to repeal or amend the laws of Moses?
The ready answer is in the negative. Repeal them they could
not; for their commission and business was, to explain and enforce
them. Amend them they could not; for they were already what
4 
38
God designed they should be, under the Jewish dispensation. All
they could do was to rectify mistaken views of them, correct popular errors, and urge the strict observance of all the Mosaic code.
Yet we are every day presented with examples of quotation, from
the prophets or other sacred Hebrew writers, which, by the interpretation given them, are made to speak in direct contradiction to
Moses. This practice has become so familiar and popular, that a
multitude of Old Testament texts are pressed into the service of
Abolitionists, which have no special bearing whatever on slaves or
slavery.   Oppression is forbidden  defrauding the laborer of his
hire is forbidden; and (in a word) every injury which a man might
do to his neighbor is prohibited. All this is put, by Abolitionists,
under the category of denunciation against slavery.   How little
foundation this reasoning has, for the most part, we shall soon see.
It becomes necessary to adduce examples, in order that the reader
may fully understand what I am intending to say.
Of all the prophetic texts, I believe Is. 58: 6 has been the subject
of appeal most frequent, and confident too.  What says it?  "Loose
the bands of wickedness; undo the heavy burdens; let the oppressed go free; break every yoke." The prophet further enjoins,
that they shall give bread to the hungry, house-shelter to poor
wanderers, and clothing to the naked. He then adds: "i Hde not
thyself from thitne own flesh." And who then are they that are thus
described? Plainly fellow-countrymen, citizens of the same commonwealth, and kindred by blood. Let the reader, if he doubts this
interpretation of the expression one's own flesh, open his Bible at
Gen. 29: 14 and 2 Sam. 5: 1. 19:13, 14. Judg. 9: 2. It is clearly
the oppressed and degraded Hebrews, then, of whom the prophet is
speaking in this whole passage. It has no special relation to slaves
at all, whether heathen or Jewish. Surely heathen slaves would not
be called, by Isaiah, the "own flesh" of the Hebrews.   Yet this
passage is printed in staring capitals every day, as the sentence of
an ultimate and supreme tribunal, which decides the cause of the
Abolitionists in their favor.
For the sake of further illustration, let me revert once more to
the respectable religious journal, to which I have made reference on
p. 10 seq. above. The same keen sighted Ariel, who dates from
Boston, and who has already been noticed (p. 10 above), after quoting some eight or ten names of subscribers to the commendation of 
39
Mr. Webster's Speech, and putting Dr. Woods's name and mine in
capitals, goes on to quote a sentence from Mr. Webster's reply to the
communication he had received.  The quotation is: "The day has
come, when we should open our ears and our hearts to the advice of
the great Father of his country,'" (Washington). Ariel then asks:
"When will the day come, in which we will open our ears and
hearts, to hear that Father who is in heaven?"   Forthwith he
cites some five different texts from the Bible, and joins them into
one mass, without any reference to the places where they may be
found, just as if they all stood in juxta-position in the sacred volume.
The first passage is Jer. 22: 13, which runs thus: "Wo unto him
that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by
wrong; that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth
him not for his work." It seems not to have occurred to him, that
it would be strange to hear the prophet speak of defrauding slaves
of their wages.  Did Moses ever expect or demand, that a slave
should have wages?  This inquiry would of itself set a considerate
man to examining the case, in order to find out what such language
means.  But no; the text sounds all to Ariel's purpose, and so it is
brought in. Unluckily however for him, the context (v. 11) shows
us plainly, that the oppressive and tyrannical Shallum, the degenerate son of Josiah and heir of his throne, is the sole object of the
denunciation. Hie built "large chambers, wide houses... ceiled
with cedar and painted with vermillion," by exactions upon his subjects. The woe, therefore, is applicable to him, and (in this place)
only to him.
Prov. 31: 8, 9 is next cited.  It runs thus: "Open thy mouth for
the dumb, in the cause of all such as are' appointed to destruction.
Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor
and needy." And who then are " the dumb, and those appointed to
destruction?" The next verse shows that they are "the poor and
needy," whose mouth has been stopped by some unrighteous and
bribed judge, who refused to hear their plea, and so forced them
to be dumb. And were slaves permitted to bring causes before the
Hebrew courts? Possibly our Ariel may think so; but no one
of course, who understands the matter, will be inclined to think with
him.
Thl third passage is Ps. 82: 3, 4. "Do justice to the afflicted
and needy... Rid them out of the hands of the wicked." The 
40
Psalmist is addressing judges who act unjustly, (v. 2). The wicked
here are such persons as bring the poor and needy into court, in
order to enforce exactions upon them by bribing the corrupt judges.
Were the slaves of the Hebrews, then, sued in court by their masters? I trust not; their masters needed no court but their own, and
had a summary process within their own power.
The next appeal is to Jer. 34: 17.  "Ye have not hearkened unto
me, in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every man
to his neighbor." The context (vs. 12-16) informs us, that the
Jews of that day paid no regard to the liberation of Hebrew slaves,
when the seventh or liberty-year had come. The masters still continued their bondage. Jeremiah threatens them, therefore, with
divine judgments, on account of their perfidy to the law of Moses.
But   not a word or syllable is here, about the bondage of heathen
slaves.
The fifth and last appeal is to Isa. 16: 3.  "Hide the outcasts;
bewray not him that wandereth." And who are the outcasts and the
wanderer? They are the fugitive daughters of Moab, who flee from
the conquering invaders of their country, and seek safety in the
land of Israel. The prophet presents them as addressing the Hebrew people, beseeching them, in the words quoted, to conceal them
in a place of safety, and not to tell the pursuing enemy where they
are, i.e. not to bewray them. This is all. But how this is to be put
to the justification of concealing runaway slaves, or made into a
command to aid and protect them, I have not sagacity enough to
divine.
I should not refer to Ariel, who has thus exhibited his profound
acquaintance with the Old Testament, if it were not, that he has
merely given utterance to what is resounding on all sides. Such
are the conclusive texts, which are every day appealed to with the
most undoubting confidence, as speaking to the point which the Abolitionists are eager to establish. How much reason they have for
such a confidence, has now been shown. Probably, however, it will
be labor lost on most of them; for they seem very much prone to
ignoring. Be it so; I still hope that the cautious and sober inquirer
after scriptural truth, will at least be put on the alert, as to such
quotations, and as to the interpretations which are given to them.
As to Ariel himself- I know not who he is, and am glad $hat I
do not, because I can now speak the more freely, without subjecting 
41
myself to the imputation of personalities. I suppose, by his frequent appeals to the Scriptures, that he may be a minister of the
Gospel. If so, I can only condole with his people, that they have
not a more dicriminating guide, to lead them to a right knowledge
of the meaning of the Scriptures. If the quotations above, and the
construction put upon them, do not show him to be a mere sciolist in
the knowledge of the Bible, it would be difficult to say what could
exhibit proofs of such a predicament. I add only, that the last
three texts above are printed in staring capitals; why, I know
not, unless it be to proclaim to the world what a capital exegete
he is.
I stop with these examples; for if I were to follow up and examine all the texts of Scripture which are every day abused in this
manner, it would of itself require a little volume. I add here only
a few brief reflections.
Let us now take a momentary retrospect. Where do the Hebrew
Scriptures place and leave this whole matter?  The answer is plain 
and undeniable. The Jews were permitted to purchase and hold
slaves, who were of their own nation, i. e. native Hebrews. But
this could be done only for six ears at a time.  When the seventh
year came, each Hebrew was free; and so at the jubilee-year they
were all free, whether the six years had expired or not. Many privileges were granted to such persons, which were not usually granted
among other nations. Moses made great advances in the matter of
humane treatment. But the unlawfulness of such slavery, so modified, is a thing that Moses never once intimates.
But how was it with slaves purchased from the heathen? The
Jews had unlimited liberty to purchase them, and to hold them as
heritable property. There was no seventh year, and no jubilee-year,
to them. Lev. 25: 44-46 has put this matter at rest, for all sober
and honest inquirers. There it stands, (and even Abolitionists cannot abolish it), that the Jews might have slaves ad libitum.
Have the prophets contradicted this? Did the expounders and
enforcers of Moses' laws occupy themselves with repealing and contradicting them?   So the Abolitionists virtually conclude and
declare, every day. I do not mean that they venture directly upon
such assertions, but that they quote and apply'the words of the
prophets in such a way, as to set them in direct opposition to Moses.
If they are not conscious of this, (as many of them do not seem to
4* 
42
be), or if they do not intend it, it is none the less a matter of facta thing too plain to be overlooked. Why then should they vituperate, with so much unsparing violence, those who believe-and maintain that Moses and the prophets have not contradicted each other,
but are in perfect concord?
One more suggestion, and I have done. It should be remembered,
that the Jewish commonwealth was a theocracy, or a monarchy, and
not a democracy. The people had not the right of electing rulers
and magistrates; nor any right to repeal or modify their laws.
These laws were ecclesiastico-political. They spread over all the
duties of religion and civil polity. They determined all the various
relations and relative duties of the community. What Moses had
ordained, no subsequent legislative Congress could repeal, or even
modify. If, then, he gave full permission to purchase and hold
slaves, (which he surely did), then, so long as the Jewish dispensation lasted, this permission could not be abrogated.  God only could
change the Mosaic law; and therefore, if any Hebrew disliked slavery, he could only refrain from it himself, but could not demand of
his neighbors to refrain from it, much less denounce them if they did
not refrain.
Last of all; let it not be forgotten, that Moses was forty years at
the head of the Jewish nation, before he ventured on giving to
female slaves the same rights of freedom after six years, which the
Hebrew bond-men had.  What do or can the zealous advocates of
immediate emancipation do with his example?
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 allege that the
Hebrews were permitted to hold slaves, because they were an obstinate and rebellious pople.  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.  Crimes mala in se cannot be transformed into no crimes, by heaven or earth. Slavery, therefore,
under the Jewish dispensation, by purchase from the heathen, was
not one of these crimes. The G6d of the Bible could never sanction
the commission of such.  And yet, if Abolitionists are to be heard, 
43
that God has sanctioned not only a positive evil, but one of the
greatest of all crimes.
Enough for the Old Testament; come we now to the New.
~ 3. The attitude of Slavery in the New Testament.
We pass now from the ancient dispensation of the Law, which, in
its very arrangements for worship and ritual, was confined to one
nation, and was never designed to be a permanent and universal religion. The moral and spiritual part of it, however, has its basis in
the relations of God to man, and of men to God and to each other.
They are unrepealed, and irrepealable.
First of all, let us call to mind, that in our Saviour's time, the
Jews were under a foreign power; whose appointed governor in
Judea was a stern and jealous military commander.  It needed a
strong hand to keep the Jews under, and make them quiet; and
such an one was laid upon them. They had no choice of officers, no
appointment of magistrates, no means of vindicating their freedom
and independence.  It was in circumstances such as these, that our
Saviour made his appearance among them as a religious teacher,
and the head of a new dispensation.  It is a deeply interesting
question, when we ask: How did he, "who knew no sin," demean himself among the Hebrews with whom he lived and conversed?
There are a sufficient number of cases, by means of which we may
see how carefully our Lord avoided all appearance of opposition to
the government under which he lived, notwithstanding  his full
knowledge of- the tyranny and injustice of the Roman  governor.
His disciples were applied to for tribute-money, and were asked,
whether their Master paid tribute. The answer was. that he did.
When Peter applied to him to know what he would do on a particular occasion, he asked him: "Of whom do the kings of the earth
take custom or tribute?  Of their own children, or of strangers?
Peter saith to him: Of strangers.  Jesus saith to him: Then are
the children free." The meaning of this seems to be, that he, the
Son of David and Son of God, as the sovereign of the Jews and of
all men, might rightfully decline to give tribute to a heathen power.
Still, he ordered Peter to take a fish, in whose mouth a piece of
silver was found, and this was given to the eXkactor of tribute, both 
44
for himself and for Peter; see Matt. 17: 24-27.  In other words;
he would set an example of being "subject to the powers that
be," even when they required what he was not under obligation to
give.
In Matt. 22: 16-21, is an account of a plot laid by the Herodians, to ensnare Jesus, by asking, whether it was lawful to give
tribute to Cesar. They expected him, as a Jew, to answer the question in the negative; and then they meant to accuse him of sedition
before the Roman governor. Or, if he should answer in the affirmative, then they meant to make him odious to the people, for his
want of Hebrew patriotism.  His answer was admirable: "Render
unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's, and unto God the things
that are God's." It is easy to see how utterly he frustrated their
insidious designs. No wonder that the evangelist subjoins, that his
enemies "marvelled, and left him and went their way."  Yet he
could, and doubtless did, regard the Roman sway over Judea, as
merely the predominance of might over right.
When the Pharisees came to him, tempting him, and seeking to
entangle him in a quarrel with the Jewish expounders of Moses'
law, in regard to the matter of divorce at the will of the husband,
he boldly answered at once, that Moses permitted this only "because
of the hardness of their hearts; but that in the beginning it was not
so." Mark 10: 2-9.
In John 8: 3 seq., we have an account of a woman taken in adultery, and brought to him by his enemies, in order that he might condemn her.  He confounded them by saying: " He that is without
sin among you, let him cast the first stone." One by one they all
slunk away, and left the woman alone.  "Jesus said to her: Where
are those thine accusers?  Hath no man condemned thee?  She
said: No man, Lord.  He said to her: Neither do I condemn thee;
go, and sin no more." The object of his enemies was, to lead him
to meddle with a case which belonged to the civil and judicial tribunals.  This he declined to do.  And when he said: "Neither do I
condemn thee," he meant merely that he did not undertake to give a
judicial condemnation. Still, he left the woman no room to suppose
that he was ignorant of her crime, or indifferent to it, for he said to
her: "Go, and sin no more."
Thus much in respect to the Saviour's cautious forbearing to
intermeddle with, or oppose, the civil power. Had the civil juris 
45
diction been in his hands, or been assumed by him, there can be no
doubt that every abuse of the then existing Jewish government
would have been reformed. As the case was, he comprehended all
his great design in one sentence, when he said to Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world."
Let me now put some questions respecting the teaching and doctrines of Christ.  In what part of the Gospels is there any record
of his taking special cognizance of slavery?  Where is even a diretion to masters, or a declaration respecting the demeanor of slaves,
to be found in them? I believe indeed, and I. shall hereafter
endeavor to show, that the Saviour uttered sentiments,which, 
their ultimate effects, must abolish-  totally and forever abolishall slavery, except in cases of crime. But where did he intermeddle
with the then existing relations between master and slave?  Not a
word is to be found in the Gospels indicative of such an interposition. And yet, there seems to have been great need of some interposition.  It should be remembered, that the Roman power and laws
were then dominant in Palestine. The Jews had only the power
of controlling religious worship and rites. Of course, the cruel Roman laws were dominant there, which gave the power of life and
death to the master of a slave. The Jews of that generation, also,
were surely as bad as those whom Jeremiah denounced, for misusing
their Hebrew servants. And yet, while almost every prevailing sin
of the day is expressly and strongly denounced 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. Why
not?  On the ground of the Abolitionists, who make it a malun in
se, it is impossible to free him from the imputation of gross neglect
and abandonment of duty, as a preacher of righteousness. I call
now upon them to explain these facts. My statements they cannot
deny.  I ask then- I have a right to demand - some satisfactory
explanation.
My own explanation (to which they doubtless will not accede) is,
that Christ purposely and carefully abstained from meddling with
those matters which belonged to the civil power.  Slavery was one
of these.  An undertaking to dictate on this subject, would have
subjected him to the accusation of being pragmatical in the affairs
of the civil government. He would have been accused before the
Roman governor. Nor was this all which influenced his course. He 
46
doubtless felt, that slavery might be made a very tolerable condition,
nay, even a blessing to such as were shiftless and helpless, in case
of kind and gentle mastership. It was not like murder or robbery.
It might therefore be tolerated for a while, rather than embroil himself and his disciples in a quarrel with the Jews and Romans. His
policy differed, no doubt, from that of the immediate Emancipationists. He took care to utter truths and establish principles, which
in their gradual influence and operation would banish slavery from
the face of the earth; but he would leave the completion of the work
to time, and to the slow but sure operation of the principles which he
inculcated.  He doubtless thought and said with Paul: "Art thou
called, being a servant, care not for it." He, it would seem, believed
that the sudden breaking up of the then existing frame-work of society, would have occasioned evils greater than slavery. He did not
therefore issue any commands for immediate action, in respect to
this matter.
His whole conduct, however, in regard to slavery, is every day
practically called in question and condemned. Few venture indeed
directly to attack him or to vilify his character. Still we have some
bolder spirits, it would seem, in Boston, who do not scruple to cast
contumely upon him, even in public assemblies; as some late scenes
in New York testify.  There are many, I fear, in our country, who do
not think that any serious regard is to be paid to his teachings or his
example, in respect to the matter before us. But still, there are
many, I do hope and trust, who, although they seem never to have
seriously reflected on this subject, may be induced to pause and
examine, before they advance any farther in the career of violence.
Thus much in respect to Him who knew no sin; who spake as
man never spake; and to whom was given all power in heaven and
on earth. We come next to his apostles and disciples. Have they
trodden in the steps of their Lord and Master?
Let us begin with Paul. The first passage which I shall quote,
is Eph. 6: 5-9:
(5) Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh,
with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; (6) Not
with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will
of God from the heart; (7) With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and
not to men; (9) Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same
shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.  (9) And, ye masters, 
47
do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Mas.
ter also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
Servants then, in the Apostle's view, are bound to be obedienteven withfear and trembling, i.e. with a high sense of reverence for
their masters. In singleness of heart, i.e. with sincerity. As unto
Christ strongly expresses the high sense of duty which they should
cherish.. The sixth verse has made this idea intense, by precluding
all mere show or pretence of obedience, and requiring an obedience
like that due to Christ, i.e. an obedience of the heart such as God
requires, and because such service is the doing of God's will. Verse
6th requires all this to be done with good will, i.e. heartily, cheerfully, not grudgingly and with morose feelings. The 8th verse
encourages such obedience by promise of reward. In the 9th, the
masters are taught their duty.  The clause do the same things unto
them is somewhat obscure and difficult.  Same as what?  Surely
not the same as the obedience required of the servant; for this
would make no sense. I do not see anything in the preceding context ith which same may be compared, excepting the clause:
"Whatsoever good thing any man doeth." The servants were to do
good by ready, hearty, and cheerful obedience. The masters to do
good to the servants, by kindness, lenity, and forbearance. So the
next clause appears to explain it, "forbearing threatening."' Paul
would have servants rendered obedient by kindness which would win
them, not by severe looks, threatening words, and a rod held over
them.  I believe there is many a master at the South, who honestly
aims at obedience in this particular. Those who do not, should
ponder well the last part of verse: "There is no respect of persons
with God."  In his sight, an obedient servant is as good as his
master, even if his master is kind and gentle; unspeakably better,
if he is severe and rigid in his exactions.
If such were Paul's injunctions, in respect to master and slave,
how do the language and conduct of most Abolitionists- accord with
them?  They do not scruple to tell the slave, that he owes no duty
to his master, and that he ought to escape from his service if possible. They hesitate not to furnish him with all the means of escape,
which are in their power. It has been publicly declared in this
place, by one of the most distinguished orators of the anti-slavery
party, that a servant would have as good a right to cut his master's 
48
throat, if itwere necessary in order to make his escape, as he would
have to take away his life in defence of his own, when-he was
assailed with a deadly weapon.  And this- all this- what is it,
compared with Paul's view of the subject? And how is conscience,
that mighty arbiter of all questions- how is it to be disposed of, on
the present occasion? This question must be met; it must be met
fairly and honorably. No evasion will answer the purpose. Nor is
this passage to be ignored. Men, ministers of the gospel, politicians,
Christians, are bound to meet it, face to face. If not, then let Paul
be abjured. This is the only honest course, when we refuse to
hearken to him. It is hypocrisy, if we profess to acknowledge him
as an inspired teacher, and then flout at his doctrines, and ridicule
and contemn those who inculcate obedience to him. The time has
come when this matter is to be met directly and honestly. Tergiversation will not do. If Paul is cast off- that is one thing. An
honest deist, if such a rarity can be found, might consistently ignore
Paul.  But this will not do for Christians.  Many say, that to be
the master of a slave, proves the want of Christianity, an unfitness
for Christian fellowship.  In what part of the New Testament is
that found? On the other hand, one may with very much more
reason say, that a refusal to obey Paul, an ignoring of what he has
taught respecting slavery, and a vilification of all who plead for the
duty of obeying him, is unspeakably stronger evidence of the want
of Christian principle.
The Ephesian church was not the only one to whom Paul preached
after the same tenor, in regard to slavery.   To the Colossians
(3: 22-25 and 4: 1) he says:
(22) Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not
with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:  (23)
And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; (24)
Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for
ye serve the Lord Christ. (25) But he that doeth wrong, shall receive for the
wrong which he has done: and there is no respect of persons. 4: 1, Masters,
give unto your servants that which is just and equal: knowing that ye also have
a Master in heaven.
As these words are mostly identical with those already commented
on, much need not be said. One sentence only, in respect to servants, needs to be noticed.  It is this, which is addressed to servants:
"But he that doeth wrong, shall receive for the wrong which he hath 
49
done; and there is no respect of persons."  In other words: The
servant who  does the wrong of withholding hearty and cheerful
obedience, shall be punished; for God will punish the wrong-doing
slave, as well as the wrong-doing master.  One other declaration
respecting masters, needs some notice, specially since it has so often
been misinterpreted and abused.  It is this: "Masters, give to
your servants what is just and equal."  The shade of meaning in
the original is not given by our translation. It stands thus in the
Greek: " Show to your servants justice and equity," viz., in your
dealings with them, and in your requirements of service from them.
All excessive and rigorous demands are forbidden by this passage;
and nothing more is meant by it.  The Greek word (a66,rra) means
literally, when applicable to objects of sense, equality. But in the
m'al sense, (which is plainly the one here intended), it means
equity.  Many a time has this passage been produced to show, that
masters are bound to make their servants equal to themselves, i.e.
to make freemen of them. If so, then how could the Apostle insist,
as he does in the preceding verses, on the sincere and thorough obedienceof the servants to their masters? How could they be bound
to obedience, after they became freemen?  No -such an exegesis is
felo de se.  It is absolutely preposterous.  On the other hand, that
masters should be charged not to make unjust and inequitable
demands on their servants, and that they should treat them with
gentleness and lenity, was a doctrine worthy of him who preached it.
In 1 Tim. 6: 1-4, Paul has again given us his views very
graphically:
(1) Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters
worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
(2) And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because
they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and
beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.. (3) If any
man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, (4) He
is proud, knowing nothing.
Here comes before us an injunction on servants to "count their
masters as worthy of all honor," i. e. to treat them with high
respect, and ready obedience.  But why so?  "In order that the
name of God and his doctrine [the Gospel] be not blasphemed."
In other words:'If a course of conduct the opposite of this should be
5 
50
followed, then heathen masters would revile the Gospel, on the
ground that it taught their servants to be disrespectful and disobedient.' But further; in case master and servant are both Christians, the latter is not on this ground to claim a release from his
obligations as a servant, i.e. because they are Christian brethren
and one in Christ, it does not follow that their civil and social relyalations are changed. On the contrary, the masters are to be the
more readily obeyed, because they are Christian brethren. To complete his directions, he enjoins it upon Timothy to teach these precepts, and to exhort those concerned to do their duty.  But what if
any man should teach abolitionism to the slaves, instead of Paul's
doctrine?   Then let him meditate awhile, and seriously too, on
verses 3, 4.
Again in the epistle to Titus (2: 9, 10), we have the same sentiments repeated with new additions.
(9) Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please
them well in all things; not answering again; (10) Not purloining, but shewing
all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all
things.
Here servants are required to "please their masters well in all
things," i.e. to show a ready and cheerful obedience, "not answering again," i.e. not contradicting their masters, or gainsaying their
commands. Here too they are specially forbidden to purloin anything; a vice to which, as we may naturally suppose, tliey would be
very prone. But the Apostle requires all good fidelity of them.
And what if they obey him?  Why then "the doctrine of God our
Saviour is adorned in all things," i. e. even by these acts of cheerful
and faithful obedience in servants. Servants are told that they can
adorn this doctrine as really and truly as their masters, or as nobles
and princes and kings.  Obedience to the gospel, in their difficult
and trying condition, will add another jewel to the Redeemer's
crown.
Thus far Paul. I need quote no more from him of the same kind
as that already produced, although it might easily be done. But if
what he has so many times repeated, is not worthy of credit, nothing
would be added to it by the prolonged reiteration of the same sentiments.
Let us turn now to another apostle, the confidential friend and
t 
51
disciple of Jesus, on whom was bestowed the honor of laying the first
foundation stone in the new and glorious edifice of Christianity. Did
he agree in sentiment with Paul? Let us hear him:
1 Pet. 2: 18, Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the
good and gentle, but also to the froward. (19) For this is thank-worthyv, if a
man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. (20) For
what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, yi take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.  (21) For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also
suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps.
What have we here?  Paul again, through and through.  Here,
however, is one new circumstance added. Servants are to obey,
readily and with reverence, "not only the good and gentle, but also
the froward," (6xoiiot,, unjust, peevish).   Why should they obey
even such masters?  Peter tells us; for he says to servants, that "if
when they do well and suffer for it, and still take it patiently, this is
acceptable to God. Christ did well, and yet suffered on our account,
thus leaving us an example." Yes- a god-like example it truly
was.   What greater honor for servants than to imitate him?  Why
did not Peter tell them:' When your master deals hardly with you,
it is your duty to run away?' We hear this among us, even
preached from the pulpit, at present, almost every Sabbath, and proclaimed on all sides by journals called Christian or religious.
Where do they get the right of wearing such a name?  They certainly do not deserve it, for they have no proper claim to the honor,
while they treat with scorn the idea of obeying Peter.
Thus much may suffice, in the way of precept from the New Testament, as to the duties of master and servant. Turn we now to
that passage in Paul, whence our motto is taken. The whole passage (in 1 Cor. 7: 20-24) runs thus:
(20) Let every man abide in the same calling wherein hlie was called. (21)
Art thou called being a servant? care not for it; but if thou mayest be made
free, use it rather.  (22) For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the
Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. (23)
Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. (24) Brethren,
let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
When Paul wrote this, he had just been discussing the question
whether circumcision or uncircumcision was of any consequence. 
52
He says it is of no consequence, so that no one need to pay the least
attention to it.  Then he utters what has just been quoted.;The
reader should note especially the general proposition in v. 20.  Paul
advises every one to remain in the same condition in which he was,
when he became a Christian. If he was uncircumcised, let him not
seek circumcision; if circumcised, let him not seek uncircumcision.
The full explanation of this last assertion would demand disclosures
of some physical processes, not proper to be inserted here.  But in
passing from this matter to the consideration of slavery and freedom,
Paul applies the same command or sentiment. Hle tells servants,
that if they are called to be the Lord's freemen, while in a state of
civil bondage, they need not have any solicitude about the matterH oi     cot  EIto, do not carefor 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 sentiment 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 too 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.
But we have not done with the passage. The next clause runs
thus: HA'  EL' xa; 6v',aa(at E      o,g6tqo, fA&ol   ZXaQa,  lit.
"but even if thou canst become free, rather make use of"... The
reader of Greek will see that the verb X~eriaa, make use of, is left
without a complement or Acc. case. Then comes the question, how
are we to supply the deficiency? Or, (which is the same question),
what does the ambiguous it of our translation mean? One and all
of the native Greek commentators in the early ages, and many expositors in modern times, say that the word to be supplied is 6ovle'(a,
i.e. slavery, bondage.  The reason which they give for it is, that this
is the only construction which can support the proposition which the
apostle is aiming to establish, viz.,'Let every man abide in statu
quo.'  Even De Wette, (who for his high liberty-notions was banished from Germany), in his Commentary on the passage, seems
plainly to accede to the force of this reasoning and with him many
others have agreed.  No man can look at the simple continuity of
logic in the passage, without feeling that there is force in the appeal.
But still I am not satisfied with this exegesis.  We have full surely
another and different noun, offered by the context, which -we may 
53
supply: " If thou canst become E'EV'Oeog (free), use EEvseQla (freedom) the rather," that is, rather than be a slave. This is certainly the
most facile philology; although plainly not so congruent, at first
sight, with the apostle's sentiment before and after this verse.
What follows this? The apostle subjoins: "He who is called in
the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman;" and therefore he
need not be concerned about his civil bondage. So "he who is
called, being a freeman, is the Lord's servant."  In v. 24 Paul again
recapitulates, at the close, the proposition with which he had begun:
"Brethren, let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with
God."  The meaning of the last clause is:'Let each one, whether a
servant or freeman, continue in his calling, so demeaning himself as
to preserve his alliance with God.' I am disposed to regard the
clause: "But if thou mayest be free, use it rather," as a parenthesis
thrown in en passant. So taken, it would serve to qualify the rest
of the passage, respecting the general duty of servants. The opportunities to become free were not very frequent. The case of those
who had not that opportunity, (by far the most frequent), was the
one first to be provided for; and Paul has given his advice so as to
make the servants contented and happy in their then present condition,
if they will hearken to him. But to suppose that he gravely advises
servants, to whom has been offered their freedom, rather to remain
slaves than accept the offer, sounds strange, at least to our ears. So
it did to Calvin's. I believe, however, that he was the first commentator of any note, who supplied esvOso)a (freedom) after the
verb Xe~aat (use, make use of).  This seems to have been the spontaneous prompting of the spirit of liberty, that beat high in his
bosom. From him came the first germs of the Puritan principles in
England, in respect to civil liberty. I cannot help agreeing with
him here, although it is difficult to put aside the suggestions of the
older commerators, which seem to rest upon the general course of
thought, viz. "let each abide in his own calling."  But I must on
the whole think, that the clause which we are discussing is a parenthetic one, designed to make that case, in which a servant should
have the opportunity of being free, an exception to the general rule.
And I find in the dia,Z (but, emphatic) a philological reason for this
opinion. If we interpret with the ancients, we are obliged to translate a;la' et  al by even if a version which it will not well bear.
In case, however, we make the but both disjunctive and adversative,
5* 
54
which is its proper meaning, then the interpretation which Calvin
gave the passage, is a necessary one. -
Only one verse remains for explanation:" Ye are bought with.a
price; be ye not the servants of men."  That this cannot refer to
civil bondage is very plain; because Paul had just advised servants
to remain contented in that bondage, one case only excepted, viz,
opportunity to become free.  Plainly the verse in question refers to
the preceding one, and was called forth by it.  Verse 22 represents
bond and free, who belong to Christ, as equal in a spiritual-respect, and as equally regarded by him.  What follows?  ". Ye are
bought with a price," i. e. you are all Christ's servants, because bhe
has paid for you the price of his blood.  And what naturally follows this? Plainly, that because they belong to him and are his
#irituatl servants, they are not to serve, i.e. hearken to and obey,
men who enjoin upon them to do anything which would  forfeit their
relation to him.  "His service" [so named] "is perfect freedom.''
They must not lose this freedom, by following the dictates of any
one, who requires them to commit sin, and forfeit his favor and their
privileges.  Such is the view of Chrysostom, Theophylact,- and of
De Wette; and in this view I fully concur.
What have we, then, on the whole?  Plainly this, viz., that  servants are not to be anxious and uneasy and discontented, because
they are servants. If they can easily and peaceably obtain their
liberty, then they should accept the boon.  But they are forbidden
to be fractious, and querulous, and uneasy merely because theytare
in bondage.  It should suffice, that they are the Lord's freemen..
Certainly this is not much like the advice or the conduct of most
of the Abolitionists among us. They excite slaves in every possible
way to change their condition, at all hazards and -in all relations.
They set the whole country in commotion, to accomplish this.  Omnia- coelum, terra, miscentur! - They pour forth vilfiperation and
contumely on every man who ventures to admonish them of the sentiments of Paul. And if the great apostle himself were to reappear
on earth, and come now into the midst of us, and preach the doctrine
contained in his Epistles, he would unquestionably incur the danger
of being mobbed; at all events,we should have a multitude of indignation meetings got up against him,- like those which have reently
'appeared in the great metropolis of our country. -Alas! holy and
blessed apostle, how little do such men  know or partake. of thy
peaceful spirit! 
55
Only one passage more from the New Testament do I design to
recite, in respect to the matter before us.  But this will come in
better under our next category.  The results of our New Testament
investigation are few and simple. One spirit reigns throughout, viz.,
the spirit of peace, of good order, of ready obedience where obedience
is due, and of obligation to contentment with our lot, unless some
peaceful way of changing it can be devised. Not one word has
Christ said, to annul the Aiosaic law while it lasted. Neither Paul
nor Peter have uttered one. Neither of these have said to Christian
masters: "Instantly free your slaves."  Yet they lived under Roman laws concerning slavery, which were rigid to the last degree.
How is it explicable on any ground, when we view them as humane and benevolent teachers, and especially as having a divine
commission - how is it possible that they should not have declared
openly and explicitly against a 2ralum in se?  This problem the
Abolitionists are bound to solve.  It will do no good to dodge the
question.  It will come back again; it will press itself upon them;
and they must give up the New Testament authority, or abandon the
fiery course which they are pursuing. Common honesty and frankness demand this.
But we must not proceed to the next stage of our journey, before
we have looked a moment at the civil condition and rights of the
primitive Christians.
How entirely different were those from our own!  A representative - a republican government?  Who of all the ancients ever
heard or dreamed of this?  Despotism, stern unrelenting despotism,
under emperors, kings, viceroys, or their deputies, was in all countries the order of the day.   Vlhat could a freeman in Palestine do,
in our Saviour's time, toward altering or amending the- government?
Nothing at all.  A mere calling in question its measures was treasonable Any intermeddling with civil relations or rights, would
have been deemed sedition.  Slavery was one of these relations.
The supreme power of the land allowed and regulated. this; and
only such a power had or claimed the right. *-Hence, if Christ, or
Paul, or Peter, had said to masters: I Set your slaves immediately
free,' the answer would have been:  Who made thee a ruler or a
judge over us?  Cease to preach this sedition, or we will immediately bring you before the magistrate.' There were always masters enough ready to say and do this: and then, what was to become 
56
of the infant cause of Christianity? The whole power of the Roman
government would have been brought down upon it, to crush it in
the bud, and never to suffer it again to rise up. Paul, Peter, and
other disciples, thought it best to wait with patience for the greater
prevalence of Christianity, and its more matured state, before they
urged obligations on masters to free their servants.  "The acceptable year of the Lord" had not yet fully arrived.
It is on this ground that I explain the silence of the New Testament, in respect to breaking the bonds of servants. I shall, however,
endeavor hereafter to show, in due time, that there is enough in the
New Testament forever to burst these bonds asunder.  But it lies inl
a kind of occult state. I mean that it is so expressed, as not to excite
the jealousies of heathen masters. It comes to us in simple moral
costume, like the ordinary precepts of morality and piety. In this
shape it excited no alarm.  It roused up no jealousies.  But- simple and seemingly enveloped as it is, it amply covers, after all, the
whole ground in question. This was regarded by Christ and his
apostles, as the safer and better way of leading men successfully to
understand and to do their ultimate duty. But I shall leave the
consideration of this most important part of the subject before us, to
another and subsequent part of these Remarks.
~ 4. The influence which  Christian Principles should have on our
minds, in relation to Conscience, and to the agitated questions of
the day.
There is yet one more passage to be quoted from Paul, which has
a direct bearing on the most fiercely agitated question of the day.
That question may therefore be put first in order, that we may complete, in a continuous course, our examination of those parts of the
New Testament, which have a direct and explicit bearing upon the
matter of slavery.
There is a clause in the Constitution of the United States, which
has given occasion, perhaps more than anything else, to the excitement which now exists. Art. IV. ~ 3 says: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof escaping into
another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be
discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on
claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." 
My first question is: Had the compacting States a rzkt to  ake
such an agreement?
Why not? Observe that the word slave or slavery is not once
named.  The Declaration of Independence had, eleven years before,
published to the world the following noble sentiments, worthy of
Christians, of patriots, and of advocates for the rights of man, viz.,
"We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT; that ALL MENware'created EQUAL; that they are endowed by their Creatorwitk certain
UNALIENABLE rights; and that among these are life, LIBERTY,' and
the pursuit of happiness." There these words stand,:emblazoned in
light which even the blind can see, and never - never to be erased
or obscured.  After such a declaration before heaven and earth,
without one dissenting voice, how could the immortal men, whose
names are appended to that Declaration, publish to the world in
their Constitution of government, that they fullyadmitted in practice
what they had solemnly denied in principle?  How:could they: say:
We authorize the practical denial of equality and liberty, and hold,
that the right to them of a part of the community is not inalienable?
How would the despotisms of the old world have pointed the finger
of scorn, at the palpable disagreement between the Declaration of
Independence, and the Constitution of the United States!
It will be seen, by a moment's reflection, that the appearance of
such a contradiction is in some measure saved, by the softened language employed, viz., held to service or labor. Nor is this all. As
the matter now is, the article in question does not apply to slaves
only, but equally to all other persons lawfully bound to service or
labor, to apprentices, to men under special contract, to alln in such a
predicament, whether free men or slaves.  All this shows the dominant feeling, at the South as well as the North, onthe subject of
slavery at that time, viz., the feeling of repugnance.  Moreover, it
is a correct index of the then dominant state of feeling, as we shall
see further on.
But allowing all that has now been said, still. could not the States
mutually bind themselves to the compact before us?  Surely they
could.  We must begin the examination of this subjectby calling to
mind, that each State was, and still is, a sovereignty within itselfl
Then, it was absolutely and entirely so; but now, in a more modifled and limited manner, since it has assigned over a part of its sovereignty-rights to the General  Government.   Each  State, then,
57 
58
could, and can now, form laws for itself regulating all rights of pro.
perty or of citizenship. It could admit any particular class of men
to the privileges of citizenship, or it could exclude them. It could
decide what rights one man had, or could have, over another, as to
demanding service or labor. The compact in the Constitution merely
declares, that the decisions of each State, shall be respected and
admitted as valid by all the others.
This being all plain and certain, it follows, that when'men held to
service or labor by the laws of one State fly to another, the property
or service can be reclaimed and enforced, as by law belonging to the
citizens of that State from which the fugitives came. The words of
the compact are: "Shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to
whom such labor or service is due." Now what does or can this
mean? First, it certainly does not mean, that obstacles can lawfully
be thrown in the way of such claimants. Secondly, it implies of
course, that the claim to the fugitive should both be valid and be
duly established. Thirdly, the article has, very unfortunately, omitted all special direction or provision, as to the manner of establishing
said claim and all definition of delivering up.  This language of
itself would seem to imply, that the State to which the fugitive
comes, has him, some how or other, in its custody; if not, how can
he be delivered up? It cannot well mean, that the State to which
the fugitive has come, is bound at once to take active measures for
the purpose of accomplishing a restoration; for how can this be
done, except the right of the claim be first established by the owner?
But where and how is this to be done?  The question of property,
or right of ownership, in the case before us, is one which can be lawfully decided nowhere but in the State to which the fugitive belongs.
The ownership is wholly dependent on the laws of the State where
the owner lives, not on the laws of another State. And in accordance with this view of the matter, has the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States been made. All that is to be done by
another State, to which the fugitive comes, is, not to throw any
obstacle in the way of reclamation. To Congress, and to that body
alone, it belongs to legislate, as to the mode of carrying into execution the compact which has been made.  They have thus far failed
to do it effectually; and now the evil resulting from this failure has
become very great, and the difficulty of legislation at present is immensely augmented. 
59
'It is plainly beyond the power of any one State to say to another:
'You shall not claim this or that as property.' It may feel that
other States have wrongly and injuriously decided this question.
It may have a moral or admonitory Christian duty to perform toward
her; but on the ground of national law, how can one sovereignty
usurp authority to decide for another, in regard to their internal relations and concerns?
What now has the constitutional compact actually done? It has
simply bound all States to acknowledge as property, that which any
particular State, acting within its own jurisdiction has decided to be
property, and of course it forbids all detaining of it, and commands
deliverance of it, wherever the claim is properly made out.
What participation then have we of the North, in any injustice
that may be done to the slave, in making him property?  Not the
least in the world. We have simply agreed, to deliver up to the
inhabitant of another State, that to which he has a claim sanctioned
by the law of that State. We have merely renounced, in an express
manner, a jurisdiction which in fact we never had, and cannot have.
The repunciation removes all ground of doubt or dispute.  What is
the harm or sin of this? And what is the use of assuming a jurisdiction, which never did, and never can, belong to us?
' But the States have no right to make men property,' it is said.
That may be so, I reply; and considered merely in a Christian light,
I believe it to be true. But what right now has Massachusetts to
decide for Virginia, on such a question? Virginia may do wrong,
(I fear she is so doing), but Virginia is not under our supervision or
jurisdiction; nor are we, in any degree, accountable or responsible
for her errors or sins!  The simple question before us is: "Whether
full faith and credit shall be given in each State, to the acts of another?" The Constitution declares, that this shall be done, Art.
IV. ~ 1. Shall we now obey it? Every magistrate in the land
takes an oath to obey it. How can he do this, if he does not mean
to keep his oath?
But we are told, that there is a higher law than the Constitution,
the law of heaven written on our hearts and consciences; and that
we are to follow that law. Nay, it is not only proclai.med in some
of our journals, that there is a higher law than the Constitution, but
men are called upon, both in those journals and in the pulpit, to disobey the Constitution.   Conscience, it is said, has decided, and
9 
60
rightly decided that the Constitution should be disobeyed.  But
how? Why? Can my private conscience prescribe to Virginia
how she shall regulate her laws of property? - Can  my conscience
decide, that sovereignties are not to be left to their own sense of
duty?- I do not see how.  I may think that Virginia, for example,
does a moral wrong by her slavery laws; but it is clearly no political wrong done to others.  The matter belongs to her alone; not to
her neighbors.
But let us here look into this matter a little farther about con.
science, and its alleged rights.  Is the conscience in question a Christian conscience? There are, as we well know, all sorts of consciences,
very diverse and even opposite; but I am asking now for a Christian
conscience.  To every such conscience I would say: Come along with
me now to another conference with Paul. I insist upon it that you
shall not decline.
What did Paul do at Rome?   A slave of Philemon, at Colosse,
ran away and came to Rome.  There he was converted to Christianity under Paul's preaching.  The apostle was so pleased with
him, that he was desirous to retain him asa friend and a helper. Did
he tell the slave that he had a right, nay that it was his duty, to keep
away from his master, and stay with him? Not at all. He sent
back Onesimus, the slave, to his master (Phil. v. 12), and he tells
the master, that he could not  venture to retain Onesimus without
knowing whether he would consent, v. 14. "Perhaps," says the
apostle, "he departed for a season, that thou shouldst receive him
forever."-  He then expresses his ardent desire, that Onesimus may
be treated with great kindness, and as a Clristian oughtto be treated.
What now have we here? Paul, sending back a Christian servant,
who had run- away, to his Christian master; and this even when
Paul had such an estimation of the servant, that he much desired to
keep him as a helper, while he himself was in bonds for the gospel's sake.  Yet he would not continue to do this; although it was
so desirable to him.  He enjoins it upon Onesimus to return to his
master forever.  This last phrase has reference to the fact, that
Paul supposed that the sense of Christian obligation, which was now
entertained by Onesimus, would prevent him from ever repeating
his offence.  And all this too, when Philemon, being an active and
zealous Christian, would in a moment have submitted to any command of Paul respecting Onesimus. Why then did Paul send him 
61
back? There is only one answer to be given, viz. that Paul's Christian conscience would not permit him to injure the vested rights of
Philemon.  He could not think of keeping the servant, even to
minister as a friend to his own necessities while in prison. Paul's
conscience, then, like his doctrines, was very different from that of
the Abolitionists. Paul's conscience sent back the fugitive slave;
theirs encourages him to run away, and then protects him in the misdeed, yea justifies, applauds, glorifies him, as a noble, independent
fellow. The conscience of Paul sends back the fugitive, without
any obligation at all on the ground of compact; theirs encourages
and protects his escape in the face of the most solemn national compact. And all this for conscience' sake! That may be the case,
perhaps; for conscience, when misled by rashness and heated partyspirit and enthusiasm, can turn into any shape whatever. Paul himself says, that he acted conscientiously, when he persecuted Christians
unto death, and laid waste the church of God, Acts 23: 1.  Ignatius
Loyola had a conscience.  Xavier had more conscience than most
men ever had.  Yet the conscience of one founded the tribunal of
the Inquisition in Europe, and of the other, the same in Asia. St.
Dominic had a conscience. Mary queen of England had a strong
conscience.   So had James the Second, and evenJeffties made noisy
claims to one.  The Hindoo mother, who throws her child into the
Ganges, has a conscience. The hangers of witches among us surely
had a conscience. The Quaker men and women, who went about the
streets, and into public assemblies, in puris naturalibus, had a deal of
conscience. And so, when judgment is kept down, and passion set up,
and men become in their own conceit wiser than all others, they can
manufacture a conscience intoany possible convenient shape.,
Such would seem to be the fashion of many consciences at present. Conscience bids them violate the Constitution of our country.
There is a higher law than this, say they.  But I ask: Who has
discovered and determined such a law? The honest answer would
be, their own passions and prejudices.  It is a conscience wholly
$ubjective.  Talk of conscience in violating a.solemncompact?  Of a
conscience which condemns the conduct of Paul, when acting under
divine guidance? Must we trust in a conscience which plainly accuses him of either having no conscience, or else a very bad one?
Can we respect a conscience, which puts the broad seal of disgrace
and infamy on those immortal men and patriots, who formed our
6 
62
Constitution, and who in all our States accepted and approved of it?
And where now has conscience been, these 60 years past?  What
sort of men have adorned our legislative halls, our pulpits, our
churches? Men, it would seem, who did not understand even the
first rudiments of religion, or of civil freedom and the rights of man.
Has conscience slept profoundly so long in the fathers, and now have
their children become all at once "wiser than Daniel," and discovered what poor, grovelling, half-witted men their fathers were? All
this is wonderful to me, I must confess. I am astounded at the rapid
railroad progress of new discovery. If there was not a syllable in
all the Bible respecting slavery and the manner of treating it, it
could not be treated with more neglect than it now is, in regard to
this subject.
Look at some of the demonstrations. To recur to that respectable religious journal, which I have more than once made the subject
of remark; not long since, a writer in this journal, who has chosen
a star for his signature, came out and told the public, that the article
in the Constitution about delivering up fugitive slaves, is a breach
of heaven's higher law; that his conscience forbids him to obey it;
and he tells his countrymen that he shall disobey it. If now a star
cannot give better light than this, methinks it will but "'disastrous
twilight shed." I hailed with joy the rising of that star above the
horizon, and heartily welcomed it. I did fondly hope, that in its
progress it would come and stand over Bethlehem, "the place where
the young child was." I watched with interest its movement. Alas!
how was I grieved by the last observation I had of it, during the
recent anniversaries at New York- grieved to find that it had
passed on from Bethlehem, and was hovering over the land of the
Philistines. May its return to Bethlehem be speedy! A noble
star it may be if it does not wander from its orbit.
The question: Where was conscience, when our Constitution was
formed and approved, brings to my mind another question, viz. What
would those exalted and noble patriots have thought, or how would
they have felt, could they have been called forth from their graves,
and have made their appearance in the midst of the two different
anti-slavery meetings recently held at New York? I could not
help thinking more particularly on one great and good man, who
took an active part in all the formative process of our general government, and by his skill and wisdom saved our new settlements from 
63
the horrors of Indian aggression. Every one will of course know,
that I speak of the illustrious JoHN JAY.  What if his portrait had
been hanging in the hall where the Anti-slavery Society recently
met, under the presiding auspices of his descendant? Would it not
have brought to every mind, the recollection of what the earl of Chatham said, when addressing a descendant (then in the house of Commons)- of a noble ancestor, whose picture was in full view?  His
words were:  "From the tapestry which adorns these walls, the
immortal ancestor looks down, and frowns upon his degenerate
offspring." I must except, in my application of this declaration, the
last two words. They should not be applied to such a man as the
Hon. William Jay. But I may say: Would not his immortal ancestor have looked down with a mixture of sorrow and of frowning,
on a descendant who could exhort his countrymen to disregard and
trample under foot the Constitution which his father had so signally
helped to establish; and who could pour out an unrestrained torrent
of vituperation upon Mr. Webster, who has taken up the Constitution where Mr. Jay's ancestor left it, and stood ever since in the
place'of the latter as its defender and expounder? How would that
agitated and frowning face, moreover, have gathered blackness, when
the presiding officer of that meeting went on to say, that Mr.
Webster had not made his Speech from any conviction of sentiment,
but because the cotton merchants and manufacturers of Boston
demanded such views to be maintained, and these gentry had of
course given it their approbation. This - all this -of such a man
as Mr. Webster! And all this too - of the Boston gentlemen who
commended Mr. Webster's Speech!  To one who knows them as
well as I do, this is absolutely shocking. At all events, it is ungentlemanly; it is passionate; and what is more than all - it is absolutely false. To see the Hon. W. Jay, presiding over such a meeting,
and opening it with declarations which degrade and villify his illustrious ancestor, and hold him up to contempt, forces from one the
spontaneous exclamation: 0 quantum mutatus ab illo!
And what did the meeting do, who were thus presided over?
They passed a long string of resolutions, which are about as good
proof of the matters which they assert, as the resolve of Anacharsis
Cloots was, which he proposed to the National-Assembly of France,
and which ran thus: "Resolved, That there is no  God; reason
dethrones equally the King of heaven and the kings of earth." Here
is a specimen of the Hon. Mr. Jay's Society-doings: 
64
Resolved, That DANIEL WEBSTER, by his disregard of early professions, his
treachery to Humanity and Freedom, and his servility to the Slave power, has
forfeited the respect and confidence of his constituents and country.
Resolved, That we view with astonishment the abetting of the Massachusetts'
Senator in his apostasy and inhumanity by men eminent in the learned professions, in literature and in the church; and that the CHAIN recently presented to
him in this city is a fit emblem of the spirit of those who bestowed and him wlo
received it.
"Angels and ministers of grace defend us!" my respected Friends,
and Fellow-signers of the Letter of Commendation. What are we
to do, since we are placed in such an awful predicament?   Where
hide our heads, after thus endorsing "apostasy, inhumanity, and
treachery'?" Yet -wait a moment. From whom, now, does such
a bill of attainder proceed? is a question, after all, which we, my
Fellow Signers, may stop to ask, before we flee for terror into exile.
Yes, from whom? From a Secretary of the Society, who is every
way worthy of such resolutions as these; from one who has long
since lost caste among all respectable and sober men, and exhibits
marked signs of preferring to reign in a certain bad place, rather
than serve in a certain good one. Courage, then, my Friends! Possibly we may yet survive and weather the storm. If so, then,
" Blow winds, and crack your cheeks! "
I now take my leave of this American and Foreign Anti-Slavery
Society, and turn for one moment to, the so-named American AntiSlavery Society, the father and prototype of all the others, presided
over by the Genius of slander, vituperation, and profaneness. But
what have I to say to them? Nothing; if possible, less than nothing. They may be assured that their words pass by as the idle wind,
and are as little regarded.
But - I am making too long an episode. Let us go back to the
conscience, which bids us to violate our solemn compact contained in
the Constitution; that conscience, which stigmatizes Paul as a coward and a pro-slavery man.  I will present one more, and only one,
exhibition of it, and then gladly make my retreat.
A member of Congress from Ohio, not long since, declared in his
place in the House of Representatives, that "he would sooner hang
a man for sending back a runaway slave, than for any other crime
whatever." Alas! for the apostle Paul, if he were now among us 
65
and should fall into his clutches. This noble martyr received from
the Jews, five times, forty stripes save one; thrice was he beaten
with cudgel-rods; once was he stoned; thrice he suffered shipwreck,
besides enduring an infinitude of other vexations and annoyances; but
now he would-fare worse still.  He would be "hanged by the neck,
until he was dead," in the very midst of a Christian land! The
gentleman who said these decent things, has once been virtually sent
home to his constituents, for his disgraceful conduct in the House to
which he belongs.  It were well for the country and our good name
and peace, if he were sent for good to an Insane Hospital, where he
properly belongs.
Enough, and more than enough, of such revolting exhibitions.
They cover our land with disgrace, and hold us up to the nations as
an object of derision, or of exultation in the hope of our speedy dissolution. Well may the advocates of despotism forbode evil, when
defiance to sacred compacts stalks abroad, and waves over our land
the sceptre of truce-breaking and of disunion   They  must needs
forebode evil, when the precepts of Paul are ignored, and the blessed
apostle. is threatened with the halter, for sending back a fugitive
slave. America has already become a by-word among the nations,
for her repudiation of contracts and of laws.  But a short time ago,
a friend of mine made the tour of Europe, and was everywhere
pointed at with the finger of scorn, where he staid long enough to
become known; and often was he saluted by strangers, with Monsieur Repudiation! in France, and Repudiations Buirqer! in Germany. Who does not feel shame mantling his cheek, when he reads
this?  AMERICAN -  a name which was once an open passport to the
best society in Europe- and not long since, none so or as to do it
reverence. We are now but just beginning to recover from that
disgraceful plight, when we are again threatened with the old sin on
a higher scale.
We  have done for the present with a truce-breaking, Paulreproaching conscience. Let us look once more at the requisitions
of the Constitution in regard to fugitive slaves, and inquire into the
expedients proposed, in order to remedy the evil of disobedience to
these requisitions.
A brief history of this matter seems necessary to a right understanding of it. In 1793, Congress passed a general law, empowering
all State magistrates regularly appointed by States, to adjudicate
6* 
66
cases of claim on fugitive slaves, and give certificates of transmission
back to the State from which they had fled.  For fifty years this
was acquiesced in, and no serious disturbance or coniplaint arose.
But in 1842, in the case of Prigg vs. the State of Pennsylvania, the
Supreme  Court of the United States decided, that the subject of
fugitive slaves belonged exclusively to Congress, and no State Legislature had any right to intermeddle with it. The very next year,
the State of Massachusetts, (stung to the quick by the South Carolina law, which imprisons colored Massachusetts' freemen without
judge or jury, and without the allegation of any crime subjects them
to the loss of liberty, money, and time, and all this without providing
for any remuneration), passed a law, that none of their magistrates
should henceforth take cognizance of fugitive slaves, and that no
sheriff or under officer of the like kind should aid in arresting,
detaining, or imprisoning any fugitive, and that no prison in the
commonwealth should be used in aid of those who claimed  fugitive
slaves. A fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment not exceeding
one year, was the penalty affixed to disobedience.
In 1847, Pennsylvania followed suit, by enacting laws equally
severe and prohibitory. Ohio also, by a series of laws at different
times, threw obstacles in the way of recovering fugitives, which
were equally difficult to be surmounted.   Some other Northern
States have done the like; while some have cooperated with the
Constitution, in aiding the restoration of fugitives. The Supreme
Court of the United States, in the case of Prigg, declared, -that
where State magistrates are not prohibited by a State Legislature,
they may lawfully exercise the power of giving certiifcates for the
return and retoration of fugitives, under the United States law of
1793.s1z:Bt@i considerable number of States having enacted such a
proll{oh,omey:                eft for the master but that of going
before the United States District Court, which would often be
atteii&d' wily' id 6 -Adeht  anid ex:n-eis tln tli h'e s-,We  Ai   wrth.
T%0;4tofe t    ma~s,. ihtit u  *hia slcal6~.o:.ltlld-fet 7
was pThatsikoybd State                      n:                     it
up                        d' cuit(~l ad  i     i
case.  That bill makes not only the United States                    L a
tribu'fnaolr      idiad'     ifn  di         a'      I6oe   allf
of t h        chust    or if                      i 
67
cate all cases of this nature, and to issue a mandate of restoration.
This bill moreover declares, that every person obstructing or hindering the claimant in his rescue, or assisting the fugitive (knowing
him to be such) to escape, shall forfeit $1-,000, be imprisoned one
year, and be subject to a private action besides, on the part of the
master, for damages sustained.
This bill, which at the North has been familiarly named a Bill of
Abominations, if it is not quite worthy of so reproachful a name,
contains several things which, as I must believe, would lead to
abominations. The apprehension that Mr. Webster had pledged
himself to support this, in his speech before the Senate, has been,
perhaps more than everything else, the occasion of the unparalleled
excitement that now exists. As his speech was first published,
there was apparently-no alternative but to believe such an apprehension to be well grounded. For myself, I always supposed, from
the first, that there must be some mistake, which had been overlooked; for I felt well assured in my own mind, that Mr. Webster
would never go  the lengths of that bill.  It is now fully apparent,
that L had good grounds for my suspicion.  From one of our most
respectable papers, I have taken the following correction, premising
that it comes from the hand; of a man who might claim a near
place to Mr. Webster'min respect to talent, integrity, and patriotism.
The correction runs thus:
"The truth is, that no person who heard the speech, and no candid man who
has read it, ever supposed Mr. Webster to have pledged himself to the particular and specific amendments suggested by Mr. Mason.  A change of location
of one single word, which probably stands as it now does, by the reporter's misapprehension or mistake, removes all tilhe grfAnd for the elaborate and fuilminating censure of the Atlas.  The speech now reads thus:-' My friend at the
head of the Judiciary Committee has a bill on the subject, now before the Senate, with some amendments to it, which I propose to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent.' Change the position of the word which, and the
sentence would read thus:-' My friend at the head of the Judiciary Committee has a bill on the subject, now before the Senate, which, with some amendments to it, I propose to support, with all its provisions, -to the fullest extent.'
It has been again and again repeated, but is entirely false, that Mr. Webster
namecM.a~!'sqswe#4,p?_ts._as those which he intended to support.
"W) ar        0      a   st two thing s; first-That Mr. Webster did not
reviseths 2otion of his spaeh,'tt~any view to examine its exact accuracy
of phmi                                                                ofiiie-fthe-livei- d  the
speec','7G    Wr                                                u ita tie n ith 
68
a high judicial authority, who has had more to do with these questions than any
judge in the country, and one of which sections provides expressly for the right
of trial by jury. These sections had already been suggested to members of the
Senate most interested in the question, with an intimation that it was intended
to propose them, when the bill should regularly come up for consideration.
"The writer of this article heard every word of the speech, and understood it
to be exactly what it would be with the change of the word as before mentioned."
-irmerely add, that Mr. Webster himself has personally assured
me, that his speech was in accordance with the correction here
made, and that he has now in his desk the amendments to which the
corrector refers. Thus much in respect to this matter, which has
givernso great offence-an offence however which, as the matter stood
at first before the public, was not without some apparent ground. The
worst of the case is, that now, since this mistake has been corrected,
the high-toned Free-Soil and Abolition papers still continue to ignore
the correction. Is this justice? Is this candor?
As to the bill itself, it plainly contains some preposterous provisions. Any postmaster or collector whatever, whether resident in
the State, or merely being in it, (such is its language), may take
cognizance of a fugitive's case, and give orders for his remittance.
All this, too, without any trial whatever, or any other proof than
oral testimony, or an affidavit made before any one who can administer an oath. What hinders the master, then, coming from Virginia
or any other slave State, from bringing a Southern postmaster with
him; and, when they have come to Massachusetts, it may surely be
said of such postmaster, that he is (being) in the State, where the
fugitive is. What hinders a slave-catcher from the South from
coming to Massachusetts with his confederate postmaster, and laying
hold of any free colored man here, so as to bring him to trial before
the said postmaster, or before one of our own bribed postmasters,
and then to take the man off to a slave-market? Do you say:
' There must be proof of bondage?' Very well; but is not the
manufacture of the proof required, completely within the power of
that slave-catcher?  A man who can engage in such a business, is
capable of forging any proof that he needs.
What now shall we say to all this?  Is the great question of
man's natural right-that inalienable right as our Declaration of
Independence calls it - is such a question as that to be put in the
power of every and any postmaster? God forbid, that such trifling 
69
as this with a question of such moment to a fellow being; should
ever be allowed, or thought of!  No! NEVER, NEVER!  No, Mr.
Mason. We of the New England States believe that negroes are
men; we believe that "GOD HAS MADE OF ONE BLOOD all the
nations tha dwell upon the earth." And if they -are men, the question
of freedom cannot be so lightly dealt with as your bill proposes.
The next that:we should hear of would be, that some Bruin is on
our soil, with a postmaster confederate, and hurrying off our freemen
to the land of slavery.  This will not do.  We  cannot incur the
danger of such a thing.
And then the penalty for interposing in the execution of such a
summary process -it looks very much like the expression of passionate severity.  It is immeasurably beyond the demerit of the
alleged crime; although, I must confess, that the law of Massachusetts of 1843 stands pretty well by the side of it in this respect, and
has even less ground of excuse; for the United States Court have
decided, that State-officers may adjudge such cases of fugitives, and
Massachusetts has said they shall not.  At all events, however, any
such law as Mr. Mason's, is a perfect felo de se.  It would operate
just as the bloody code did in England, when there were some 220
or 230 crimes punishable with death.  No jury could at last be
found to convict.   Even murderers escaped, through the horror
which the juries had of legal cruelty. So would it be here. Could
I see Mr. Mason, I should feel disposed to say to him:'Sir, I
regard you as an honorable and a talented man; but you must pardon me for saying, that you do not know the North; above all, you
do not know New England.   Why Sir, it would be as perfect a
piece of Quixotism as was ever exhibited, to bring tHie offenders which
you describe, before (for example) a Massachusetts jury. A juryman
who, for such an alleged crime as you describe, should vote to inflict
the penalty you propose, would lose caste as a New Englander for
ever. Your bill is, therefore, a bill of impossibilties. It utterly
overlooks the state of things and of society at the North.  We  are
born here with an instinctive aversion to slavery; we believe that it
is not doing to others, what we would that others should do to us.
And to fine a man in the enormous sum of $1,000, to imprison him
moreover for a year, and then subject him to a civil action besides,
for injury done to the master -and to do all this merely because of
an interference which humanity pleads for, although the law con 
70
demns it, is Turkish justice, not American- at any rate not New
England justice. Such a bill is as much out of question here, as a
bill of Prudomme's  making would be, which defines property as
meaning crime.'
I do not, be it noted, justify interference. It is against our
United States Court, and the law of international justice. And as
to all the efforts to lead men to trample that Court under foot, I have
given my honest opinion at full length above. But the remedy
against such a breach of solemn compact, must be sought in a more
just and feasible way than that which Mr. Mason proposes.
The Committee of Compromise, in the Senate, have given to the
country a much more acceptable proposal than Mr. Mason's. I
insert their own words here, so that all may read and interpret for
themselves.
"The owner of a fugitive from service or labor is, when practicable, to carry
with him to the State in which the person is found, a record, from a competent
tribunal, adjudicating the facts of elopement and slavery, with a general description of the fugitive. This record, properly attested and certified under the offi-cial seal of the court, being taken to the State where the person owing service or
labor is found, is to be held competent and sufficient evidence of the facts which
had been adjudicated, and will leave nothing more to be done than to identify
the fugitive.
"The committee conceive that a trial by jury in a State where a fugitive from
service or labor is recaptured, would be a virtual denial of justice to the claimant of such fugitive, and would be tantamount to a positive refusal to execute
the provisions of the Constitution; the same objections do not apply to such a
trial in the State from which he fled. In the slave-holding States, full justice
is administered, with entire fairness and impartiality, in cases of all actions for
freedom. The person claiming his freedom is allowed to sue in bforma pauperis; counsel is assigned him; time is allowed him to collect his witnesses, and
to attend the sessions of the court; and his claimant is placed under bond and
security, or is divested of the possession during the progress of the trial, to insure
the enjoyment of these privileges; and if there be any leaning on the part of
courts and juries, it is always on the side of the claimant for freedom.
"In deference to the feelings and prejudices which prevail in the non-slaveholding States, the committee propose such a trial in the State from which the
fugitive fled, in all cases where he declares to the officer giving the certificate
for his return, that he has a right to his freedom. Accordingly, the committee
have prepared, and report herewith two sections, which they recommend should
be incorporated in the fugitive bill pending in the Senate. According to these
sections, the claimant is placed under bond, and required to return the fugitive
to that county in the State from which he fled, and there to take him before a
competent tribunal, and allow him to assert and establish his freedom if he can.
affording to him for that purpose all needful facilities."
4 
71
I do not well see, what more can be done, at present. Here is no
trifling with postmaster jurisdiction. If this measure is carried, and
faithfully obeyed, I do not perceive what more we  can demand or
expect at the North, so long as the Article  in the Constitution
remains, respecting the restoration of fugitives. This looks like
sobriety, and political justice, to say the least. For one, I should be
satisfied to leave the matter in this position, and give it a fair trial.
I do not know what Mr. Webster's proposed amendments were; but
I should suppose he might be satisfied with the present proposed
Committee Bill.
To the position of our honored Legislature, in their recent Resolves, viz. that the case of the fugitive shall be tried "by jury in
the State where the claim is made," I am unable, highly as I respect
their motives, to yield my assent. How is it in all other like cases?
If a fugitive from justice in Massachusetts goes to New Jersey, and
he is there demanded by our Governor, must he have a jury-trial
there of New Jersey men, before they can agree to give him up?
Not at all.  What right have they to try the case of a Massachusetts criminal?  None, by any law or usage whatever.   And are not
fugitive slaves from the South, criminals in the eyes of Southern
law? Most plainly they are. And have not the Southern States a
right to determine for themselves, what and whom they may regard
as criminal? Plainly they have. And when a fugitive slave comes
here, who has done what their laws regard as criminal, have they
not the right to have him remanded, and tried by a jury or court of
their own States respectively?  I must confess this seems a very
plain case to me; so plain, that I cannot in any way accord with the
resolve of our honorable Legislature. I cannot think that it is
based on the common principles of public law, and certainly not on
those of Jus Gentiurm. Besides, what the Committee have stated in
their Report above, is no doubt accordant with what would be matter of fact, in case such trials were allowed.
I have done with this subject. The brief result, as it strikes my
own mind, is, that the CONSTITUTION in respect to fugitives held to
service or labor MUST BE OBEYED.  It is useless to talk about conscience as setting it aside.  It is an imputation on the men who
framed our government. It is holding them up to the world as
having neither conscience nor humanity. Under the regulations
proposed by the Compromise Committee, I can at present, see no 
72
formidable difficulties in the way of obedience.  I do not believe,
moreover, that pains and penalties for the aiding of fugitive slaves,
if they are severe, can ever be inflicted.  In my own view, such
persons should be suable before the United States District Court, by
the owner of the fugitives;. and he should be entitled, in case illegal
interference could be proved, to the full value of the slave, and to his
expenses in the prosecution. Beyond this, I do not believe penalty
can practically be inflicted.
I am happy to be able to introduce a paragraph here, from a late
Speech in the House of Representatives by one of Massachusetts'
most distinguished sons, who adorns private life as much by his virtues, as he does the Halls of Legislation by his soul-stirring eloquence. I refer to the Hon. R. C. Winthrop of Boston. He is
speaking of the allegation made on all sides, of a law superior to the
Constitution of the United States, and of the right which conscience
has to trample on the requisition made bythat Constitution.  These
are his words:
"I recognize, indeed, a Power above all human law makers, and a Code above
all earthly constitutions!  And whenever I perceive a clear conflict of jurisdiction and authority between the Constitution of my country and the laws of my
God, my course is clear.  I shall resign my office, whatever it may be, and renounce all connection with public service of any sort. Never, never, sir, will I
put myself under the necessity of calling upon God to witness my promise to
support a Constitution, any part of which I consider to be inconsistent with his
commands.
"But it is a libel upon the Constitution of the United States  and what is
worse, sir, it is a libel upon the great and good men who framed, adopted, and
ratified it; it is a libel upon Washington and Franklin, and Hamilton and
Madison, upon John Adams, and John Jay, and Rufus King; it is a libel upon
them all, and upon the whole American people of 1789 who sustained them in their
noble work, and upon all who, from that time to this, generation after generation,
in any capacity, National, Municipal, or State, have lifted their hands to Heaven, in attestation of their allegiance to the Government of their country - it
is a gross libel upon every one of them, to assert or insinuate that there is any
such inconsistency! Let us not do such dishonor to the Fathers of the Republic, and the Framers of the Constitution.  It is a favorite policy, I know, of
some of the ultraists in my own part of the country, to stigmatize the Constitution of the United States as a pro-slavery contract I deny it, sir. I hold, on
the other hand, that it is a pro-liberty compact- the most effective pro-liberty
compact which the world has ever seen, Magna Charta not excepted- and one
which every friend to liberty-human liberty, or political liberty-ought steadlstly to maintain and support." 
73
Noble, independent, and manly words are these. I cannot read
them without thanking God, that we have men in Massachusetts
who can speak as he does, and who are so well fitted to breast the
tempest, and keep steadily on the rounds of a leader in the corps
which constitutes the life-guard of the Temple of Liberty.
By the side of this extract from the Speech of this fearless champion of moral and civil obligation to honor and fulfil solemn engagements, mutually made by neighboring nations once virtually
independent, I will place another paragraph, extracted from a late
Speech of Mr. Ashmun, one of our Massachusetts Representatives.
After reciting the article in the Constitution which demands the restoration of fugitive servants, he thus proceeds:
"'This reads very plainly, and admits of no doubt, but, that so far as fugitive
slaves are concerned, the Constitution fully recognizes the right to reclaim them
from within the limits of the free States. It is in the Constitution which we
have all sworn to support, and which I hope we all mean to support; and I have
no mental reservation excluding any of its clauses from the sanction of that
oath.  It is too late now to complain that such a provision is there.   Our
fathers *ho formed that entire instrument, placed it there, and left it to us as an
inheritance; and nothing but an amendment of the Constitution, or a violation
of our oaths, can tear it out. And, however much we may abhor slavery, there
is no way for honorable, honest -nay-conscientious men, who desire to live
under our laws and our Constitution, but to abide by it in its spirit."
Par nobl'e Fratrum! I say, from the bottom of my heart. These
are the sentiments which are to save our country if it be saved; and
the good old Bay State has much reason to thank God that she has
men in our national Council, who can stand up in the face of tumult
and obloquy, and speak in behalf of covenant-keeping and of the
Constitution. And what now becomes of the assertion, echoed and
re-echoed the world around, that Mr. Webster stands alone in Massachusetts in defending the requisitions of our national Constitution?
Alone, forsooth, with such men at his side!  Alone, when in the
single city where he resides and its near precincts, that List of names
was made out and proffered to him, which has so excited the
jealousy and the indignation of impassioned agitators!
I come next to the so long agitated Wilmot Proviso, as it is called.
Mr. Winthrop has shown, that this Proviso originated some years
ago, from his own hand, when the Oregon question was agitated, and
that it was originated at first only for a particular purpose, which is
7 
74
exhibited and explained in his Speech. But it is no matter whence
it originated. The principle itself, asserted by the Proviso, viz. that
the freemen of the North ought not voluntarily to consent in any way
to the extension of slavery, is one to which I give my most unlimited
and hearty assent. But the expediency of applying this Proviso to
new Territories, and even the legal power to do so, is a matter that
may be called in question.  For such an opinion, I am bound to
assign some good reason, and I will endeavor to meet my obligation.
I begin with the original relations of the United States to any
territorial domain. The United States possess the land. On this
new settlers cluster, not within the bounds of any specific State, and
of course not belonging to any State. Then who and what are they?
Are they our subjects, as citizens? A citizen must belong to a
State; and unless he does, he can of course claim none of the specific privileges of a citizen. More than this; unless he does belong
to some State, then what is our right of legislation over him?  He
occupies our land; but this does not confer on him the privileges,
nor subject him to any of the onerous and peculiar duties, of a citien.  The United States have never ventured to tax Territories.
They have never ventured even to legislate for them.  The most
which they have claimed, is the right to appoint a kind of guardiangovernor. A Territory must have its Representatives, or Senate, or
both, within itself, andfrom its own population.  So it always has
been, and so it must be, unless we assume the attitude of European
despots, who govern Colonies by a military governor and a military
regime.. We, who guarantee a republican government to all under
our supervision, cannot assume this attitude.
In permitting Territories to have their own self-appointed legislatures, we renounce the power of internal, civil and domestic control.  But is not the question of slavery, a matter under their own
control? The United States never meddle with that question; at
least they never should, for the Supreme Court have decided, that
they have no right to meddle with it.  Whence then comes our right
to say, either that a Territory shall, or shall not, admit slavery? If
there be any such power, how are we to exercise it? We commit
internal and domestic relations to a legislature of the Territory's
own choosing.  Whence comes our right then to exempt slaveryfrom their own control; and above all, how do we possess a right,
since our Supreme Court have decided, that we cannot legislate at
all in Congress on the matter of civil and domestic relations? 
75
But suppose that as guardians pro tempore we dictate to the Territories on this subject to-day, and say to them: "YoNu shall haVe no
slaves."  To-morrow, they ask for admission as States, and We of
course agree to it in case they are republican, and thus constitute
them States.  As States, all control about the matter of slavery of
course is completely and entirely and exclusirvely in their hands.  All
feel obliged to concede this.  They then convene their Legislature,
the very next week.  That Legislature has adequate power, and
exclusively the only right or power, to say, "We admit the privilege
of holding slaves."  Is there any power on earth to gainsay or oppose
them?  None whatever.  They are a State; they are sovereign to
all intents and purposes, as to their internal polity.  No p.evtious
legislation, on our part, can in the least degree affect them.
These I take to be principles plain and incontrovertible.  But if
so, what is the use or good of Wilmot Provisos?  None, or at the
most, none excepting that for a few days, or months, we may prevent
slavery; although our right or power to do that is, as hasg already
been shown,- certainly very questionable.  Besides, were they to
make h compact With us as a mere Territory, (there is no political
corporation as yet to make one), were they to submit to our dictation of a compact, it would not be binding at all on them as a
State. But as we have no right to make or demand such a compact,
of course it is null; and as they have no acknowledged corporation
to make it, it is therefore doubly null. It must be true of both,
that quod non habet, non dat.
Suppose now we put the old simple question-  Cui bono?  What
is the answer?  No one, I think can be at a loss to give it.  It is
proftable to nobody; for the state of things in which we have even any
show of right to dictate, is one which can usually last but a few months;
or at most not more than two or three years.  And is this worth a
four years' contention, and half of the time of Congress during most
of that period, and of late the whole?  If there was ever a case on
earth of much ado about nothing, this is plainly one of them. Four
years' dispute about a Proviso, which, if made, is ipso facto annulled
by a Territory's becoming a State!  I would we could stop with
saying that it is a mere good for nothing; but we cannot.  It has
occasioned much embittered feeling.  It has called into activlity all
the heated passions of both parties. It has threatened the Union
itself.  It has alienated the North and South, perhaps irreconcila 
76
bly.  And all this -  for what?  Why for the assertion of a right
to dictate, where none existed; or even if the right be admitted, it
can continue to be valid only a few months, or a year or two at most.
I must confess, that to me, a humble, quiet country-dweller, who
never descended into the arena of political controversy, there has
seldom a greater nonsense ever presented itself to my notice, than
this said Proviso. It is impossible to defend it, on any stable grounds
of Jus Gentium which a republic admits.
Mr. Winthrop declares himself ready to drop the matter. He
never originated it for the purpose to which it is now applied. He
meant only to defeat a wrong measure in respect to Oregon.  Mr.
Ashmun declares that he will not insist upon it. Mr. Webster says
that it does no good; that it amounts to nothing in the end; and
that it is not worth quarrelling about, at all adventures. The North
gives up nothing that belongs to it, in abandoning it; it can gain
nothing by insisting on it, even if it should carry the point. It can
decide nothing for the State yet to come into being. Is it not, then, in
reality much ado about nothing? And if so, why should another
.word ever be spoken in favor of urging it?
Is Mr. Webster now to be ostracised, because he looks on the
whole affair as merely jumping up and down, without an inch of
progress? He may be; but- shame on those who are concerned
in such an ostracism!
The next great stumbling block is the admission of new States,
carved out of Texas. When the act for receiving Texas as a State
in our Union was passed, a clause was inserted in the resolutions
(ch. 3, ~ 2) of the following tenor:
"New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to
said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out'of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.  And such
States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of
thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without
slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire; and in such
State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri
Compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be
prohibited."
Several things lie on the face of this clause. (1) Four additional
States may be made hereafter, by the leave of Texas. (2) That if 
71
my portion: of Tekas has a sufficient number of inhabitants and
presents a republican Constitution, (these are the provisions of the
Federal Constitution), "it shall be entitled to admission."  If the
State to be formed, is north of 36~ 30', it must exclude slavery; if
south of that line, it may admit or reject. The first of these prescriptions is a matter of coram non judice.  Ther'e' is not, until thie
State is actually formed, any party in that section of country, which is
a corporate body, and entitled to make such a contract. If the Territory has declared for independence, then Congress has no right to
legislate for it. If it has not, then there is only one legitimate party
for the making of the compact, and it is-of course null.   But leapnig over all this, (and a large leap it must be), then comes up again
the old cui bono question.  The very day that the new State is made,
it can tread under foot all the provisos that Congress can put upon
it, when they respect things over which they have no lawful power
to legislate. That they have none, irn the present case, is just as
clear, as that a State has the only sovereign right to decide on the
eivil and social relations of its citizens, and that Congress have no
right t6 legislate where the Constitution has not conferred this right
upon them.
So then, a new State or States north of 36~ 30' have, and can
have, no legal obstacles in the way of admitting slavery. But as to
the new States south of the line, the sovereign dispensers of civil
and social rights at Washington have graciously permitted them to
do as they please, about the matter of slavery.  Well however
might these new States say: We thank you, most benevolent gen'tlemen, for your consent that we should do as we please; but we
expect to do so, and have a right to'do so, whether you consent or
refuse.
All this now lies on the very face of this whole matter.  And yet'
Mr. Webster is assailed with the cry of apostasy, and with the charge
of deserting New England, or Northern principles, and catering for
the votes of the South.  But what, let us coolly inquire, what has he
donie?  He has said:' We  are bound on our part, to abide by our
solemn compact with a sovereign State.  We  are obliged to admit
four new States: from Texats, if they come with the requisite qualiflcations to ask for such a privilege.  Be they formed how' or where
they may, if Texas consent, and they have a sufficient number of
imnabitants, aind present us: with a republican Constitution, we haveo
7* 
78
solemnly pledged the faith of the nation to admit them.' Is this
now not a matter of fact?  Is there not such a pledge?  Can we
recall it?  Can we violate it?  Yes, we can - but never again
could the United States lift up its face among the nations, if the
faith of solemn treaties or compacts is to be violated. Mr. Webster's
crime is, that he insists upon it, we shall be a covenant-keeping
nation.  Is he to be treated with insult and contumely for this?
Heaven forbid!
I am aware of the game that has been played by some ingenious
and talented men with the words may and shall in the resolution
of Congress above exhibited. There is no good foundation, however,
for playing this game with success. The first may confers power
and liberty for any desired new State formed out of Texas, to ask
for admission ad libitum, provided they come under and comply with
the usual conditions of States to be admitted. The next declaration
is, that coming in this way, "they shall be entitled to admission."
In other words, the United States positively pledge themselves to
receive and admit a new State, on the conditions expressed. These
conditions being complied with, where is the may that some ingenious gentlemen find in this resolution of Congress?  The may
depends on Texas and the new State; the shall belongs to us, when
a new State is desired, and is in a constitutional state of preparation
for admission.'
I am not a little surprised at a paragraph in the Hon. Horace
Mann's Letter to his constituents, in respect to the matter before us.
He makes it out, that Mr. Webster could not tell how much four,
minus one or two, would amount to.  This is capital.   What next?
Mr. Webster, says he, has declared that we have guarantied'that
four slave States shall come in; and that such as are south of 36~
30' may come in as slave States. But Mr. Webster's words are so
placed by Mr. Mann, as to convey a meaning quite different from
that which MIr. Webster intended. Mr. Webster had not the least
intention of saying, that the United States shall, on their part, make
four new States at all adventures; but that if Texas and said new
States agree, and the proper qualifications are exhibited, then the
United States have bound themselves to admit new States to the
number of four. Mr. Mann wishes to know where the four slavery
States are to be found, when one or more free States have been
formed north of the line in question. In this way he endeavors to 
79
show, that Mr. Webster cannot count four minus one, and also that
he has made five new States instead of four. In answer to all this
special pleading, and (if I had not a high regard for Mr. Mann I
should be tempted to say) trickery of argumentation, it needs only to
be said, that neither ]lr. Mann, nor any body else, can at present tell
where the four new States will be first formed, and first apply for
admission. The highest probability is, that they will all be south
of the line in question.  There is no temptation to go north.  The
land on the south is beyond measure more promising and capable of
cultivation. Suppose now that the four States which first seek
admission are all south of 36~ 30', then of course the United States
have pledged themselves to admit them; and this done, Texas can
ask for no more, under the old compact. If another State comes in
north of the line, it must be on the ground of a new contract and
new liberty of admission.   Where then is the absurdity of Mr.
Webster's statement?  Nowhere.  The only expression in it which
can give occasion to doubt, is, that" the guaranty is, that new States
shall be made out of it" [Texas], which might be interpreted as
meaning, that the United States have pledged themselves to cause so
many to be made. But the context removes every doubt as to his
real meaning.
Of M$r. Mann I can never speak but with respect. The glowing
ardor and eloquence of his compositions, the intense love of liberty
with which he is inspired, the humanity by which  he is actuated,
the fine scholar-like accomplishments which he exhibits, all command my respect and admiration. Whether his judgment and
prudence are equal to his ardor and his energy, is another question,
which is not before my tribunal. He professes the strongest regard
and the highest respect for Mr. Webster, and avows solemnly his,
intention to treat him in a manner that corresponds with this
avowal. I doubt not that he was sincere in making his avowal.
But his impetuosity led him astray, after all. After repeating Mr.
Webster's words, that he regarded the compact with Texas as
* solemn and binding, as binding as any legislation could make it, he
goes on to say, that "he knows no form of statement, nor process of
reasoning, which can make it more clear, that this [viz., what Mr.
Webster had said] is an asolute and wanton surrender of the rights
of the North, and of the rights of humanity." And this - from a
man who professes the highest respect and regard for Mr. Webster!
Et tu, Brute2
ik 
80
Such are the envenomed arrows, which this new Free-Soilism and
Abolitionism stores up in the quivers of its advocates. I know of
no better exhibition 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 vituperation 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 necessary, from hundreds of thousands of scabbards,
to defend him against such an assault.  The Athenians, led on by
Themistocles, may ostracise Aristides to-day; but soon - soon I
trust, will they recall him from his banishment, and give him the
honors due.
I pass over declarations of Mr. Mann in his letter, which, if not
equally ungentlemanly and violent, are at least as little capable of
sober defence. Mr. Mann is evidently exposed to many a thrust,
for his paralogisms, and his colored and imperfect statement of facts.
I leave those things, however, to others, who know how to espy the
places which Mr. Mann's shield does not protect.  I am proud of
him as a man, a scholar, an orator, and a lover of liberty; but when
he plays a game like the present, I can only say,-that..I heartily
wish him a more creditable employment.  It is eclipsing a sun, that
might do something much better than' shed disastrous twilight over
half the nation.'
, I do not suppose, that such a gentleman as I take Mr. Mann to
be, designed to compliment himself, when he speaks of' his words
being as cool as the iron of the telegraph wire, while his mind is
like the lightning which darts through it.'  I am ready to acknowledge that there is not a little of the eikctrze fire in Mr. Mann.  But
I- cannot overlook the fact, that this fire c.an sometimes scorch and
smite down, as well as be the swift messenger of tidings.  If Mr.
Mann has performed something: of the last office-of electricity, he
h   also -given us a —pretty fair specimen of the first.
A few questions more, and I quit the stbject of new Statesout-of
T'I  To begin back; Has Mr. Webster ever voted for or advo
0 
81
cated the admission of Texas?  No.  How then did she come in?
By the recreant votes in the Senate of two Free Soilers, now riding
on the whirlwind and directing the storm of disunion. Did Mr.
Webster vote in any case whatever, for the extension of slavery, or
of slave Territory?  NEVER.  Will he so vote?  NEVER, SO long
as he is Daniel Webster. Did he ever vote to make a war of conquest, in order to extend slavery-ground?   NEVER.   Did he not
contend to the last against Texas union and Texas contracts?  He
surely did. Has he lost any of his feeling of repugnance and opposition to slavery? NOT IN THE LEAST. It has been strengthened
by all that he has lately seen and heard; and with good reason. Is
there a man in the United States Senate, who has a more deep,
solid, lasting, unchangeable dislike of slavery and all its attendant
evils? NOT ONE. There are many men who make much more
noise about it, and labor to turn the world upside down in order to
throw it off; but not one of such, I venture to say, has so deep,
steadfast, and immutable a dislike to it and disapprobation of it,
as he.
What has he done, then? He has declared, that bitter as the
task may be, to allow of new slavery States, still he must lift up his 
hand to carry solemn contracts into execution, to keep the plighted
faith of this nation. There is- there can be no repudiating of such
contracts. Even a bad bargain must be kept. If not, who after
this can ever trust to the faith or honor of this nation?
And is Mr. Webster to be maligned, and vituperated, and thrust
out of the confidence of his fellow-citizens, because he will not vote
to violate solemn compacts? If this must be done, such a day
awaits this nation, as no politician has yet imagined, and no prophet
yet foretold. I will never believe that such a day is coming, upon
the State in which are to be found Fanueil Hall, and Bunker Hill,
and Concord, and Lexington, and the descendants of the men who
immortalized themselves there. If such a day must dawn on us, for
one I would say, rather than gaze upon it: "Hung be the heavens
with black!" Patriotism, integrity, firmness, sound judgment, lofty
soul-thrilling eloquence, may thenceforth despair of finding their
reward among us. 
In looking back over the ground that we have travelled, I cannot
suppress my tribute of gratitude to our worthy President, for having
taken the ground of laissez faire toward our newly forming States 
82
and Territories. There is where prudence, e Gahieniu"n, and a
proper regard to our new neighbors, call on him to leave the matter.
I do not expect that the man, who coolly declined the condescending
offer of Santa Anna, when surrounded by more than triple the nuber of soldiers under the American commander - the offer, that in
case the latter would capitulate, liberal terms should be granted him,
and much blood be saved- I do not expect such a man to quit his
position, and bow to the dictates of partizan zeal. God bless him
in his steadfastness, and bless the wise and prudent policy which he
is pursuing!
With all becoming respect for our honored and honorable Congress of the United States, I would say, that I hope  they will
forgive a humble, but from the heart faithful, adherent to the Union,
when he says, from the deep conviction of his soul, that he is much
afraid, lest the spirit of legislating about everything and every
body is becoming dangerously prevalent in our national Councihs.
It can do nothing but mischief. Such Proviso articles, as the whole
country have been quarrelling about these four years, never can
promote the public good.  M~uch very much, better is our President's plan of "letting well enough alone."
One word on the use that has been made of Mr. Webster's deela
ration, that the Wilmot Proviso was useless, because the God of
nature has so formed California, New Mexico, etc., that slavery is
impossible; and that we need not reenact the laws of Heaven.
The Hon. Mr. Chase, of Ohio, and our own Hon. H. Mann, have
both so harped on this string, as to make it produce no very melo dious sounds. They know of only two powers, and these, as they
say, are God and the devi. The laws, then, which are not made
under the guidance of the former, must of course be made unider
the — influence of the latter;-and then they ask: What sort of laws
will these be?  I might answer, perhaps, that they would be some what like the Wilmot Proviso law; but I fear these gentlemen
might begin to talk about demanding satisfaction.  Quitting this,
then-  for I am a man of peace-  let me ask, in my turn, whether
there is any example of a numerous and prosperous slave popula tion, in any country, like these quondam Mexican States?  Has  a
man any inducement to keep slaves, where he cannot raise and
export enough to pay for their maintenance?  The countries in
question are neither sugar nor cotton countries.  Tobacco may be 
raised, perhaps, in the valleys; but what has become of Virginia
tobaccodands?  Can slavery ever thrive, where slaves cost more
than they can earn?  I know of no such thins. It has not been
aad it cannot be; at least it never can be from choice.
Of what use is it, then, to occupy four sessions of Congress with
the discussion of Provisos which are directed against what can
never happen? Suppose now that Congress should say, by their
solemn legislation: We will protect and foster New 3Mexico and
other neighboring Territories, provided they will let water run
down hill, and iron be hard, and lead sink in water, and trees and
grass grow. Another additional resolve declares, that the new Territories shall permit the sun to rise, and shall not stop the moon or
the tides, in their course.  Would not all this be sapient legislation?
Just about as sapient, in my view, as the Wilmot Proviso. HLow
much time, and money, and effort has this absolute nihility cost our
country already!  A mere chase after a Jack-o'-lantern is it; and,
like such wandering: meteors, it has led us, in the chase after it, chindeep into the. swamp. And now, while we are floundering about
there, some are beginning to open their eyes at last, and perceive,
by the time that they axe merely half-opened, that they have been
pursuing a veritable phantom.  But others still say: "We would
make assurance doubly sure by the Wilmot Proviso."  Assurance of
what?  There is not a man in the Union, in his sober senses, but
knows, that if Congress vote that Proviso to.day, and to-morrow
aamrt a Terr'tory to become a State, that State has, from that hour,
full power and right to convene the next day, and adopt slavery if it
pleases.  What is it, then, which is assured?
It is impossible to justify clamorous: demand for suck a perfect
non-entity as said Proviso. Is it not a matter of grave, yea of
alarming and melancholy reflection, that the North and South are to;
be put at irreconcilable variance and hated, the Union, severed,
and the country deluged in blood,. for such a pragmatic and trifling
affair as this?  My hope is. in Godd; that our national Council wilU.
soon view this thing in its proper light, and; adopt the wise and salitary policy of our chief magistrate.
Enough, and more than. enough, of this Proviso.  I. have, only a
few words more to say, on- points touching -    Webster, and then I.
shall pass on to another part of my task,
From Dan to Beersheba the changes havie been. rung-.on  lr. 
84
Webster's omission in his speech, of the topic of the South Carolina
law, which imprisons our colored freemen of the North; and espe    cially his failing to say a word about the treatment which our
honored, and well deserving to be honored, fellow citizen (Mr.
Hoar) received, in his mission to the aggressive State in question.
A few facts I will state in relation to this matter, and then dis    miss it.
~    Mr. Webster had selected ten different topics for his speech, and
had written out his thoughts to the amount of from two to three
sheets on each topic. He carried with him to the Senate Chamber
only a little scrap of paper, on which was merely a notation of each
head.  He was called on to speak, before he expected to do so; for
others had the right of speaking before him, and he did not suppose
they would choose to relinquish that right. Thus situated, and
having no time for immediate preparation to commence speaking, he
was constrained to begin speaking forthwith, and to go on continu    ously, (a thing which he did not anticipate or intend). In this
pressure, his eye passed over two of the ten topics marked for dis   cussion; the one was the South Carolina proceedings, the other the
territorial boundaries of California. The former he inserted in his
Speech as corrected for the press; the other was reserved for
another occasion.
As to inserting, in his printed speech, matter which was not
delivered in the Hall of Legislation; this is a thing done every day
of the Congressional Session, and no one thinks of objecting to it.
But that this affair should be put to the account of Mr. Webster, as
an intended bait for the South, and as a currying of favor in that
quarter by keeping silence in respect. to what was disagreeable to
their feelings, and thus making a sub rosa bid for the Presidency
all this is passing strange to me.   Silence, forsooth!  Silence?
when Mr. Webster forthwith published to South and North too, the
Yvery thing that he is accused of ignoring/And has it come to this,
that such a shallow trick (which is evenino trick) at electioneering,
which none but a half-witted sciolist in politics could ever play   that such a piece of wonderful cunning, can be attributed to Daniel
Webster? And yet, many of our sapient editors keep up the din
about this matter, down to the present hour.  I have a strong suspi   cion, that a good part of their credence in this case is suyective.
They attribute to Mr. Webster, what they might be apt to have
'6a 
85
done themselves. It will take a long time, as I hope and apprehend, before the public can be made to believe, that the Defender
of the Constitution pursues a wily, a crooked, a mean, or a contemptible policy, for the sake of elevation to office. However, the
bruit has not yet ceased. It has about as much substance in it as
the Wilmot Proviso, and therefore it is not a matter of any great
wonder that the agitation should be kept up, even after the matter is
explained to the satisfaction of every candid mind.
If any of those concerned in echoing and reechoing such bruits,
are desirous of knowing how Mr. Webster bears up under such an
oppressive load as this, I can give them some information, inasmuch
as I have seen him, not long since, for a few minutes, and had some
conversation on the point in question. When I witnessed his perfect calmness and dignified composure, it brought to my mind the
story of the Ox and the Fly; which, if I may be permitted to tell it,
will convey to all inquirers on this subject, the information they
need, and all that they can reasonably desire.  I owe the story to
Burke; but not having his Works by me, I am obliged to forego
the exhibition of his exquisite humor and diction, and to tell the
story as well as I can in my own way. The tenor of it runs
thus:
A  stately ox, after satisfying himself, on a summer's day, in a
luxuriant pasture, repaired to the wide-spread shade of a lofty oak,
and there laid himself down, quietly to enjoy his meal a second
time, and to prepare it for digestion. In the meanwhile, a buzzing
noisy fly, which had also taken shelter under the tree, seeing the
soothing quiet of the ox, began to envy him, and finally to make an
effort to annoy him. She lighted on the ox's horn, and there began
a furious buzzing and darting about, hoping to rouse her neighbor
from his repose. It was all in vain. She renewed her efforts, and
made all the racket that such a little creature could make. Still, it
was all in vain. The noble ox kept on, ruminating his pleasant
dinner, and just as quiet as ever. Finally, the fly, determined at
all adventures to attract his notice, spake out and said to him: Mr.
Ox, I beg leave to say, that if I am troublesome to you, and annoy
you, you will be so good as to let me know it, and I will stop buzzing on your horn.  O not at all, Miss Fly, said the ox, you have
not troubled me at all; for I should not so much as have known you
8 
86
were there, unless you had taken the pains to tell me. Verbum sat,
etc.
I think we may now leave Mr. Webster under his overshadowing
tree, for the present, where I wish him quiet and undisturbed enjoyment.
By this time, I begin to fancy that I hear some thousands of
voices crying out, and accusing me of being "a Northern man with
Southern principles."  Not a word, they say, have you yet said
against the South, but all your arrows are aimed at Northerners.
It seems as if you had drained out the very last drop of Northern
blood that was in your veins.  You have turned renegado to your
native soil, and have joined the ranks of the slave-holders, and become their apologist.
- But wait, my good friends, until I have finished my task, and then
you will have a better opportunity to judge. I am now going to
say something to my respected fellow citizens of the South; not
indeed in the way of reproach and vituperation and calumny, but in
the way of respectful and friendly and faithful expostulation. I am
one of those who have come thoroughly to believe, that all weapons
in such a warfare, except those of truth and kindness and due
respect are not only unholy and carnal weapons, but also powerless and inefficient.- I cannot knowingly consent to employ them.
As a counterpart to acts of Northern Legislatures forbidding
their magistrates to aid in the restoration of fugitive slaves, I pro
duce here a law of South Carolina, dated Dec. 21, 1822. The
second section decides as follows:
"If any vessel shall come into any port or harbor of this State, from any
other State or foreign port, having on board any free negroes, or persons of
color, as cooks, stewards, mariners, or in any other employment on board of
said vessel, such free negroes or persons of color shall be liable to be seized
and confined in jail until said vessel shall clear out and depart from this State;
and that when said vessel is ready to sail, the captain of said vessel shall be
bound to carry away the said free negro or free person of color, and to pay the
expenses of his detention; and in case of his neglect or refusal to do so, he
shall be liable to be indicted, and on conviction thereof, shall be fined not less
than $1,000, and imprisoned not less than two months; and such free negroes
or persons of color shall be deemed and taken as absolute slaves; and sold in
conformity to the provisions of the act passed Dec. 20, 1820." 
A more recent act of the same State, dated Dec. 18, 1844, declares 
87
that no such person as is described in the preceding act, shall be
entitled to the writ of habeas corpus.
Let us now place by the side of these acts, a part of the Constitution of the United States.
Art. IV. ~ 2. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges
and immunities of citizens in the several States.
Here follows another extract from the same Constitution.
Art. I. ~ 9, c. 2. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion and invasion, the public safety may
require it.
Look first at the severity of the penalty, on the captain of a vessel coming into the port of Charleston. One of his colored hands,
probably his cook, is taken without any allegation of crime, or even
suspicion, and put in prison; and if the captain does not take him
away when he sails, and pay all the expenses of his detention, he is
liable to a fine of not less than $1,000, and imprisonment for two
montls. In view of such a process of imprisonment, without judge,
or jury, or allegation of any crime, we may naturally inquire, what
the Amendment, Art. V., of the Constitution of the United States
says:
No person.... shall be deprived of life, liboty, or property, without due
process of law.
Due process of law means of course the usual and sanctioned
process of examination and commitment for some crime or misdemeanor, by a regular court or magistrate. And beyond this; a law
which subjects any one to loss of liberty or property, must be a
valid, constitutional law. If the law of South Carolina, which subjects free colored persons to imprisonment, be not a constitutional
law, then of course no due process can be had under it.
Is it then such a law? No argument is necessary to show that it
is not.  "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the priileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." The colored
persons who go from Massachusetts to South Carolina, are in all
respects citizens.  They can no more be imprisoned without crime
or misdemeanor, than a white man who is a citizen can be put in
prison. The statute of South Carolina, then, is a direct, a palpable, 
88
an open violation of the Constitution of the United States; it is an
affront and an injury of the highest and grossest kind to the State
of Massachusetts, thus to imprison one of her citizens, and subject
him both to the loss of liberty and of property, without any cause
whatever, except the color of his skin.
The crowning part of all, is the suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus. Such a thing in Great Britain would overturn the government Such a law is bidding defiance to the Constitution of the
United States, and to all the principles of Jus Gentium. It has been
pronounced, by Judges in the State of South Carolina herself to be
unconstitutional. That State was well aware, that she could not
stand for an hour before the tribunal of any United States Court.
Hence she has refused to let the question of constitutionality be carried there. She has expelled one of our most honored and respected
citizens, sent by the Massachusetts Legislature to claim our rights
and peaceably adjust this matter, without even giving him a hearing. And is this treating the citizens of another State, as entitled
to all the privileges and immunities of a citizen?
But the case needs no argument. No possible defence can be
made for such an infraction of all law, of even all the rights of
humanity, and (what is no small matter, and a thing which I should
least of all have expected from South Carolina), of the rights of
courtesy.  Never, never can South Carolina come to us with a good
grace, holding an impeachment against us in her hands, for aiding
fugitive slaves, while her hands are reeking with the blood of freedom. She must cleanse them, before she can point the finger of
menace or reproach at us.
With all due submission to our jurists and legislators, I beg leave
to ask, why they have not followed up this matter? Have they any
right silently to suffer their innocent fellow citizens to be treated as
criminals? If South Carolina be in some respects a sovereign State,
and, like the king of Great Britain, incapable as a State of doing a
wrong which is cognizable before courts of justice, yet surely it is in
the power of the wronged individual, who is a citizen of Massachusetts, to prosecute, before the United States Court there, the
sheriff or jailor who deprived him of his liberty and property. If
not, then the old maxim of the law, that " for every wrong there is
a redress," is not true. In my humble opinion, Massachusetts has no
right at all to be silent or inactive in respect to such a matter. The
*
Ifl
is'
11, 
89
injustice is so flagrant, that she is bound to aid a wronged citizen to
seek redress in Carolina. Surely she must protect her own citizens
in the enjoyment of their constitutional rights, or else lose her good
name as to impartial justice.
I am no lawyer; but ifI read aright the Constitution of the United
States, Art. III. ~ 2, "the judicial power of the United States extends to causes between citizens of different States."   What  then
hinders the imprisoned man from instituting a process for depriva,tion of liberty and property, before the United States Court in
Carolina, against the sheriff or jailor? Their defence would be,
that they had acted under the law of their State. But this law has
already been decided to be unconstitutional, even by their own
Court, and with good reason. Of course, then, the State law is
null and void, and therefore it can protect no one who acts under it.
If an appeal is taken from the District to the Supreme Court, by the
sheriff or jailor, so much the better.  This is the very thing that Massachusetts most of all desires.  The question will then receive an ultimate decision.  If the decision be, as it certainly would be, against
the constitutionality of the Carolina law, then has Massachusetts a
guaranty of her rights in the United States Executive, who is bound
to see that the decision of the Supreme Court is enforced. In this
way, it will come about, that South Carolina has not to contend with
Massachusetts, but with the whole power of the general Government. The repeal of such an utterly indefensible law, must of
course be the necessary sequence.
I repeat it once more in the ears of our General Court, that to
my humble capacity it seems plainly to be their duty, to see that
the Carolina question be settled by the highest tribunal in the country. Our peaceable citizens are not to be torn from their lawful
business, and incarcerated, and subjected to large expenses and loss
of time, while we stand by with our arms folded, saying: Will the
Lord do good, or will the Lord do evil?
I advocate proceedings in this case, on the very ground of peace
adnd ultimate concord and unity.  These can never have a place,
while causes of bickering and complaint are every day occurring.
The causes themselves must be removed. -They should be removed
peaceably, and in an orderly manner, and in a final and conclusive
one.  What other way so peaceable, so decorous, so promising as to
success, as to bring the whole matter before the Supremne Tribunal
8*
I
a 
90
of our Republic? If Carolina refuses, why need that hinder us
from proceeding in our duty? Let the first colored man of our
State, who is illegally seized and imprisoned, without any other
crime than the color of his skin, be encouraged and sustained in
bringing an action before the District United States Court in Carolina, and let the Commonwealth to which he belongs, see to it that
the process is maintained and carried to the Supreme Court.  We
have then done with the quarrel; and to the President of the
United States, our Executive, it belongs, to see that the judgment
of the Court is respected. He may be safely entrusted with such a
matter.
While I am writing this paragraph, the New York Observer is
brought to me, which contains a letter from a "Southern Clergyman," (I presume of Charleston), which undertakes to defend the
constitutionality of the South Carolina law.  As it touches the gist of
the question, and contains undoubtedly the sentiments of the leading
politicians in that city, with respect to the obnoxious law, I think it
proper for a moment to dwell on the main positions which it assumes. He says, (1) That' South Carolina has an exclusive right
to determine citizenship for itself.' Very well; I accede. (2) That
such being the case, she is not bound to deal any better with free colored persons from abroad, than with her own free colored population.
These,' he goes on to say,'when they go out of the State, and
attempt to return, are warned off; and if they do not obey, they are
taken and subjected to corporeal punishment [i. e. whipping]; and
if they still refuse to go, they are to be sold as slaves.' So? The fact
that there is such a law is true; but how does this prove, that a citizen of another State is to be treated in the same manner as the free
colored men of South Carolina are? These are not citizens in that
State, they have no right of franchise. Now what does the Constitution of the United States say?  It says, that "the citizens of each
State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens
in the several States." When this is said, the meaning plainly is
not, that a citizen of Massachusetts can go to Carolina, and claim to
vote there, or set up himself as a candidate for office. These are
merely specialities and appendages of citizenship, but not the essence
of it. The essence is defined in the Declaration of Independence,
viz. "an inalienable right to life, liberty and property."  This right
the Massachusetts citizen, although a colored man, possesses as truly
7.-= 
91
and fully as any white man. He is a citizen in the constitutional
sense of that word.  Of what use is it then, for the "Southern Clergyman" to tell us, in the way of appeasing our dislike towards the
South Carolina law, that she treats our free colored persons as well
as she does her own? And how does she treat her own? They are
not citizens, but a kind of non-descript animals, a genus monstrosum.
But how can she transmute our citizens into this genus?  She has
no control over our citizenship. The Constitution of the United
States demands of her, that she shall treat our citizens, as she does
her own citizens, not as she treats her own non-descripts. The right
of a colored citizen in Massachusetts to life, liberty, and property, in
South Carolina, or any other State, is just the same as that of her
own citizens. Nothing but what is local, and which pertains peculiarly to the civil government of South Carolina, with which a
stranger of course cannot intermeddle, can be exempted from the
demands of the United States Constitution.
It is strange that men of sense, like this "Southern Clergyman,"
can overlook the evident paralogism which is contained in such reasoning. But, (3) He employs another argument, viz. the right and
duty of self-defence and self-preservation. This right, he avers, is
inherent and inalienable.  Certainly, I reply, if it is reasonably and
humanely exercised.  But this is an important, yea, an essential
condition. The danger must be plainly great and nearly certain,
before we have a right to deprive others of liberty, and subject them
to fines and imprisonment. But how is Carolina to make otit this
part of her case? I cannot see. Is the arrival at Charleston of a
few colored persons, cooks in vessel-cabins, offensive or inoffensive
though they be, a thing to be so dreaded, as to call forth all the
thunder of State artillery to stay the threatening evil? But our
"Southern Clergyman," says: "We  only have the right to judge
who are dangerous persons, and to prohibit their coming among us."
Be it so; yet that right, as I have already said, must be reasonably
exercised, in order to be respected. What if Carolina should say:
"4 We will not suffer an Abolitionist to come among us, be he white
or black." Is Judge Jay, or the Hon. C. F. Adams, or the Hon.
Horace Mann, to be taken up and put in jail, on their arrival at
Charleston?  Yet according to our "Clergyman," South Carolina
can do this, if she pleases. I doubt not she would do it, if she dare.
At all events, she might do it with just as much right, in every point
of view, as to do what she is now doing. 
92
But there is another point of view, which the "Clergyman"
seems not to have considered.  What sort of a confession is this,
which is pleaded as an apology for the law in question?  Simply
this, viz., that the State of South Carolina is in imminent danger,
(for nothing less than this can be a valid apology), of being overturned, or thrown into domestic war, by the arrival of a few dozen
of colored persons from the North, who are cooks and sailors.  Is
this so?  Then is this one of the most cogent arguments against
slavery, that I have ever yet heard. How in danger? Certainly
not from a few cooks and scullions.  No, not in the least.  But the
combustible material is within the edifice of the State, and it needs
no more than a cook or a sailor to fire a train, which will blow up
the whole building. That is the danger. Our brethren of the South
tell us, in conversation and in their journals, that they have not the
least fear in the world of the negroes. Why then such precautions
as these, which go even to trampling under foot the rights of their
neighbors, and violating the Constitution of the United States which
South Carolina has sworn to support? They are not afraid, forsooth! So said a gentleman from the South, not long since, to a
friend of mine, who asked him, whether he did not sometimes fear
that dangerwas nigh.  Notintheleast, said he.  Afraid?  No; for
every night, when I go to bed, I take care to have a double-barrelled
gun, a cutlass, and a six-barrel revolving Colt's pistol, at the head of
my bed.  What should I be afraid of?  But what, rejoined my
friend, if the blacks should set fire to your house in the dead of
night, when you are asleep? This question seemed somewhat to
embarrass the gentleman; but at length he rallied a little, and
replied: They are too great cowards to do any such mischief.
My friend did not press him with any further questions.  Had I
been there, I could have suggested to the gentleman from the South,
some reasons for abating the confidence which he manifested in his
last reply -reasons drawn from what I personally witnessed, some
25 or more years ago, in Charleston. I arrived there a few weeks
after the plan of an insurrection of the blacks had been concerted,
and was within one day of being executed. The plan was, to set the
city on fire in all parts simultaneously, in the dead of night; to massacre the whites in detail, as they came out of their houses;  and
then to take possession of all the shipping in the harbor, and compel
or bribe the masters on board of the vessels, to carry them of to St. 
93
Domingo.  A servant, who had been treated as a child, out of compassion to his master and his family, betrayed the secret of the conspirators. The leaders were forthwith apprehended, and speedy
execution followed. Some 20 or 25 were hung before I left the
North. But, for some two weeks before I left home, the papers had
ceased to give us any more intelligence respecting the conspirators.
When I arrived at Charleston, one of the magistrates of that city took
me to his home, with the noble hospitality which characterizes the inhabitants of that city. From a room where we sat conversing, the next
day after my arrival, there were visible some hillocks of sand, of considerable height and extent. Pointing to them my friend said: Do
you see that highest hillock? Yes, said I. There, said he, were
executed our insurgent blacks. Well, I rejoined, and how did the
black population behave, who went to witness the execution; and
how did the criminals demean themselves?  Behave? said he, why
they marched by my house by thousands, in perfect triumph. They
sung; they danced; they shouted, so as to make the welkin ring.
And the criminals? said I.  As to them, replied he, they considered
themselves as martyrs to the glorious cause of liberty; and so did
all the procession.   They ascended the scaffold exultingly, and
shouting as if their masters were within hearing, they said: Now we
are going to have freedom, the glorious liberty of the children of
God, and you can no more deprive us of that. But how is it, said
I, that not a word' has been said in your journals, for these three
weeks, about the conspirators?  For a very cogent reason, replied
he, for we found that all the best servants in the city, male and
female, were coming forward, and accusing themselves as partners in
the conspiracy, even those who were as innocent of it as the child
unborn. The spirit of martyrdom had got among them, and they
had a burning thirst for the honors of a martyr's death, who perishes in the cause of liberty. The gentleman himself, i.e. my friend,
had two slaves, man and wife, who were inherited by the mistress of
the house, and who had been tempted to go to Liberia by offering to
them their freedom and $500 besides, and yet they would not look
at the offer.  " Massa," said they, "you better care for us, than we
for ourselves; we cannot go." I doubt not, from what I saw myself,
that there are many such masters and mistresses in the South.
During all my stay in the city, not a black man could appear in
the streets, after evening twilight commenced, without a permit in 
94
his hand from his master.  The city-guard was trebled and quadrupled.  No man could exempt himself from the duty of a watchman;
not even the ministers of the gospel or the magistrates.   Dr. Palmer, a highly respectable minister of the first Presbyterian church;
there, told me that the magistracy would not suffer himto hirea
substitute.'- Gov. Hayne himself went the rounds of a watchman's
duty, and supervised the whole.
And what does all this mean now?  That they were not afraid?
Why private watchmen of individual houses, in addition to the public ones, were employed every night, in places where danger might
lurk.  How long this state of things continued, I know not, for my
stay there was only brief. But my feelings were much wrought
upon by the state of that city.  How often did I say to myself: "For
all the wealth that sinews bought and sold have ever earned," I
would not subject myself to such a condition!
What hold now can any community have, on a population like
these blacks, so excitable, so enthusiastic, so capable of being wrought
up to a desperate fury, and withal so ignorant, and incapable of feel*ing any moral restraint?  At that very time, there was a law of
Carolina, that no black should be taught to read; andof  course the
influence of the Bible could not be summoned to the aid of peace
and good order. But here the Legislature had invaded the high
prerogatives of Heavens Court.  Their law was unlawful, antichris tian, and utterly inexpedient even on the ground of prudence.  A
more dangerous policy could not be pursued. It was foreclosing all
moral restraint upon the blacks. It was commanding masters to do,
what Heaven has forbid their doing.  "Search the Scriptures" is
as much addressed to the colored man, as to the white; and the
command is equally binding in every case where obedience is possi ble. Dr. Palmer told Gov. Hayne, that he should not obey that
law. Through inheritance his wife owned two slaves, and they had
children, who were under his care.  He taught them all to read.  He
told the Governor so; and he, in his gentlemanly and noble-hearted
manner replied: Well, Doctor, we are not afraid that you will teach
them anything bad. Do as you please, only keep it to yourself.
But to return: what now if the Union be severed, and a civil war
ensues, (as it certainly will in case of severance), and the blacks
everywhere have arms put into their hands, and are encouraged to
revolt? What must become of all those places where the colored 
95
population constitute by far the greater portion of the community?
Think'of St. Domingo, of Guiana, of Northampton county in Tirginia, and other places.  But no; I cannot think of these without
disturbing my peace. Would God, that all my countrymen were
free from all danger, even the most distant, of such scenes as were
there enacted!
I have been thus far implicating South Carolina in the charge of
having made a law, which is opposed to the Constitution of the
United States, and to mutual brotherhood and mutual rights between
the different States. I take it that Louisiana has had the same law;
but for many years I have heard nothing of it, and therefore must
presume that it is repealed. -But after all, let us of the North remember, that South Carolina does not stand alone.  Northern States, in
some instances, have as really, although not so flagrantly, stood up
in the face of the Constitution. What else is the law of Ohio, and (I
believe) of some other States, and the hoped-for law even of our new
would-be free Sister, California, but a breach of the Constitution?
These States declare, that no free blacks shall come to them, and
settle among them.  What says the Constitution?  It says that the
citizens of each State shall have the same privileyes and immunities,
as belong to the citizens of the States to which they may come, while
Ohio and other. States, say:'No colored freemen shall ever come
among us to settle down.'  What difference there is, now, as to principle, between this legislation and the Carolina law, I cannot see. It
cannot be made out.
Let Northerners then cast out the beam from their own eye, before they cry out at the mote in the eye of South Carolina. Certain it is, that Ohio has immeasurably less apology, (with her views,
her light, and her circumstances), for her Acts, than Carolina for
hers.
I now take my leave of South Carolina in particular; and in what
else I have to say about slavery, I say it in respect to- all the
slaveholding States in common.   But I cannot take my leave of
her, without testifying my deep conviction, that there are not, in any
State in the Union, -among the upper classes of men, in general,
persons of more generous feeling, more abounding hospitality, more
gentlemanly comity and. courtesy, more high-souled chivalry,- and
more ardent love and pride of country,' than are to be found in.this
State.  Add to all this, that she has within her a large: H ber o
f
p
r 
96
true and warm-hearted Christians. I have been acquainted with
not a few of her citizens, and can bear personal testimony, as far as
my experience goes, and I can truly say of her: "With all thy faults,
I love thee still'."
There are some other topics which I wish to dispose of, before I
come to my expose of what I deem to be the fundamental and irrepealable enactment or principle of the New Testament doctrine, in
regard to the matter of slavery. I shall be very brief as to these
previous topics.
I do not see but that the South and the North have about bqual
ground of'complaint, as to the journals and periodicals of the day.
I do not think there is any room to be worse than many of them are,
on both sides. I do not believe that this comes from the fact, that
the editors in general are worse than any other class of men. They
are everywhere goaded on by partisans, who are aspirants to popular favor. They must yield, or else give up their journal or magazine. Some of them, however, need no spurring on. Every few
days we hear of duels among these hot-headed gentry. The only
pity is, that nailing to each end of a chest, as is sometimes practised
by boxers, is not a part of the law of duelling! Our blessed Repub lic would, in this way, be rid of some of the most formidable adver saries to its peace, that it has at present in its bosom.
I am certain that nothing can exceed some of our New England
journals - some even in the very heart of this Northern domain
I seldom see Southern papers, except in the way of extracts; and
there is a plenty of these, which would make any Northerner's
blood boil, who has not the mastery over his spirit, and who does not
also know, that certain animals which bark loudest and longest, sel dom have courage to do much mischief.
But to extend these remarks in respect to either side, over the
whole editorial corps, would be great injustice; such surely as I
shall never be guilty of. There are certainly not a few of able and
gentlemanly and peace-making journals; and I am exceedingly
rejoiced to see and know it. As to the violent ones, nothing but
extremities will satisfy them. All their own points must be car ried; and that to the very extreme. If the reign of terror does not
-soon follow, it will be no thanks to them. They are doing all in
their power to hasten it. And all this under the specious pretence
of claiming right on one side, and liberty on the other. Talk of
I 
97
r,iht and liberty!: So did the Sans Culottes of Paris in 1793.  A
friend of my early days was in Paris, when Danton, Robesplerre,
and Marat were in the zenith of their power.  He had considerable
acquaintance among the Girondist party.  When  they fell, the
guillotine was summoned to new energies. Sixty or seventy in a
daywere-its usual victims.  Come, said a French friend to him, one
day after its energies had been put to their utmost stretch -come,
let us go to the Place de Guillotine to-day, and see how our friends
the Girondists fare. They went. The first thing which my friend
saw, was the gigantic tricolored banner of the so-called Republic.
On this was emblazoned, in most conspicuous letters, LIBERTY AND
EQUALITY.  Soon the heads began to be rolled bff from the scaffold. Pray, said my friend to his companion, after witnessing the
execution of his Girondist friends as long as he could bear itpray, what sort of liberty do you call this?  Liberty, Sir, replied he
-Liberty?  Why it is liberty to think as the Directory do, or else
to lose our heads.  Our liberty is the choice that we have between
these two.
Very much like to this, at present, is the liberty of sober, moderate, and peace-loving men throughout our country, whether they
live among the fanatics of the North, or among those of the South.
It is time, it is high time, that the sober, earnest, patriotic, peaceloving, law-abiding, and truce-keeping part of our community, should
rise in the majesty of virtue and united strength, and frown into
insignificance the Ledru Rollins and Prudhommes who infest our
country, and are preying upon its vitals.
One word as to some men, not unlike these in character, who
occupy higher stations, and even find a place inour national Senate
and House of Representatives. What painful, what shocking words
have we heard from some of them, during the past winter! These
are the men to carry with them dirks and revolving pistols, and to
produce them (hide thy face, O sun, and look not on it!) in the halls
of legislation.  Catiline himself would dwindle into a dwarf-agitator,
in comparison with them. These are the men to threaten, and to
swagger, and to bully, and to brandish dirks, in order to scare the
poor Northerners out of their wits, and to suspend by a hair, over
the heads of all who are opposed to slavery, the drawn sword of
Union-dissolution.  These are the men to compare our Northern
laborers with the slaves of the South, and holdup the latter as
9 
98
superiors. And like to them are some of the North also; men who
would hang the apostle Paul for sending back a fugitive slave; men
who can seldom utter a word about the subject of slavery without
a tirade against all slave-holders, or talk of anything but lashes, and
starvation, and Bruins; men who scruple not to call every moderate peaceable man of the North, a coward, a renegado, a betrayer
of his country, a base deserter to the South, a caterer for good
opinion there, and the like. Such are the profanum vulgus of high
places, of whom, if one must not say Odi, he may venture to say
Arceo. It is such men, on both sides, that for the present moment
have got the public ear, and are attempting to ride on the whirlwind they have lIaised), who, if they are not put down, are soon to
steep our soil with blood, and to fill our land with widows and
orphans. It will not do for those who love their country, love
peace, love their neighbor although he may have some faults, to fold
their arms, and wait in silence the approach of the desolating tornado. It is their solemn, imperious duty, to rise in the majesty of
their strength, and present a united host, which shall scatter to the
winds these reckless and boisterous destructives.
Just at the moment of finishing this paragraph, I received another
anonymous admonition.  My  worthy correspondent shows himself
to be an ardent Free-Soiler; and as some one has informed him
that I am opposed to insisting on the Wilmot Proviso, and am writing against it, he grows warm in the expression of his feelings, and
asks me several (I will not say impertinent, but rather bold) questions.  They run thus: "Who and what are you?  And what have
you to do in the discussion of questions that belong to Jurists and
Legislators? I would, with all due respect, invite you to take the
old warning into consideration: Ne sutor ultra crepidam."
I will give a very brief answer.  (1) " Who are you?"  I am  a
citizen of the United States, the most glorious Republic that the sun
ever shone upon. (2) " What are you?" Ans. Nothing extraordinary, but like most New England men, who love peace and good
order and the perpetual union of all the States.  I have in my veins
some of the blood which has flowed in the veins of the old Covenanters, in the time of Mary Queen of Scots and James the First of
England, and which is still flowing in the veins of some of the Free
Church party in Scotland. Just before I saw the light, the British
troops, who burned Danbury in Connecticut, passed by my mother's 
99
door, while she kept at home without attempting to fly.  My father
was summoned to the army, but the state of his family obliged him
to hire a substitute. Near my home, a straggler from the British
army for the purpose of pillaging a house, was shot down by the
owner, and the gun (yclep'd King's Arms) which he had, was bought
by my father, and used by me in all my boyish hunting excursions.
Often, while I had it in my hands, did I listen to the stories of those
who had been in the battles of the Revolution; and my young blood
coursed swiftly through my veins, while I heard narrations about
resistance to English oppression. For half a century have I been a
citizen of the Union; and what I ardently admired and loved in
youth, I have continued to admire and love in riper, in maturer, and
in old age.  By the favor of heaven, "I am what Iam"- a republican, a UNIONIST, from the crown of my head to the soles of my
feet.
(3) As to the warning, (which, when translated, runs thus: Cobbler, do not-go beyond your last), I bow in submission to old Horace's
authority; for there was more in him, than what any other half
dozen, of the Roman poets would make, if they were distilled and
their essence combined into one. But then, there is a difference,
you know, in the size of lasts; and Horace only says, that no one
should go beyond his own last. Perhaps I have failed, in respect to
finding out the size of mine. Still, in the discussions of Jurists, it
sometimes happens, that plain common sense, untrammelled by technics, may make a suggestion that may be useful. Far enough am
I, from assuming a place among the jurisconsults, or wishing to
invade their province. But I claim a right to utter my humble
opinion, when and where I feel a deep interest for my country's welfare. And if jurisconsults, who are warm partisans, happen to read
my remarks adunco naso, I shall neither wonder nor be offended.
Even if they are of the opinion, that I have betrayed my ignorance
of political and legal matters, still I beg them to call to mind, that a
Phidias, the immortal statuary of Athens, was criticised upon to
excellent purpose by a cobbler, who pointed out a defect in the sandals of his magnificent statue-god. If I can do no more than this,
even this is doing something.
At any rate, I write neither for fame nor for office. I am aloof
from all partisan views, and have no incense to offer with those who
cry out: Great is Diana of the Ephesians! My opinions are not
I X  X..:: *        -*  
100
formed or uttered, with a view to any office which the people can
bestow; and I have no inducements to flatter the multitude, nor any
special reasons to fear their deafening noise.  This is more, than
many a member of our national council can say with truth.   -
And when my unknown correspondent very politely suggests,
that I must remember that I am nothing more than a country parson, I have the pleasure of telling him that I wish for nothing more.
There is not a class of men on earth, to which I would rather
belong than to this one; which, however, he evidently means to
depreciate.  There is not on earth a more honorable employment
than theirs; nor is there a class of men more useful, more honorable
in the best sense of the word, more pious, or more patriotic than
they. Let my lot be with theirs, and heaven knows that I shall
deem it "a goodly heritage."
But we must, for the present, dismiss these themes, in order to
come to the most solemn and important part of all that I have to
discuss, viz., The attitude in which the radical principles of Christianity now place slavery.
I shall be very brief; for all that I wish to quote from the records
of Christianity may be written on the palm of one's hand.  I need,
and shall quote,only four texts.
Matt. 22: 39. And the second [great commandment] is: THOU SHALT LOVE
THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF.
Matt. 7: 12. WHATSOEVER YE WOULD THAT MEN SHOULD,DO TO YOU, DO
YE EVEN SO TO THEM.
Acts 17: 26. [God] HATH MADE OF ONE BLOOD ALL NATIONS OF MEN, FOR
TO DWELL ON ALL THE FACE OF THE EARTH.
Rom. 3: 29. Is HE THE GOD OF THE JEWS ONLY? IS HE NOT ALSO OF
THE GENTILES? YES, OF THE GENTILES ALSO.
To these I might add a very significant text in Eph. 2: 14: "For
he [Christ] is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken
down the middle wall of partition between us," i.e. between Jews
and Gentiles.
These then are the texts, from whidh I entreat my friends and
brethren of the South to let me deliver a short discourse in their
hearing.
Christ has declared all men to be our neighbors. We are to love
them as ourselves.  Love to ourselves is permitted, (not selfishness),
and it is taken for granted that we shall exercise it. If we do our
<..    4j,. 4
-:;,.:    i   " 
101
whole duty, we shall as sincerely desire the happiness and prosperity of our neighbor, as we do our own, and refrain from everything
that will interfere with it.
Our second text is an excellent commentary on the first, and
shows how the proper love of our neighbor will develop itself, when
reduced to practice. It is as plain as any commentary can possibly
make it, and needs not a word of explanation.
I solemnly invite now my friends and fellow citizens to ponder on
these texts. It is impossible for any man to say,.that he does as he
would be done by, in case he subjects his neighbor, a human being,
to slavery. This is not - cannot be - loving our neighbor, or
doing as we would be done by. Is there a man in all the South,
who is a voluntary holder of slaves, or trafficker in them, who can
lay his hand on his heart, and look up to heaven, and, appealing to
the God of love and justice who reigns there, say: I am doing to
others as I would be done by, when I compel my fellow beings to
labor all their lives for my ease and comfort, without any reward or
even a hope of remuneration?   Is there one, in that position, who
can sincerely say, that he loves his neighbor as himself, when he
degrades him from the rank of a human being, and places him in
the rank of goods and chattels; when he cuts off all hope of rising
to the possession of any property, or of acquiring any education, or
of sustaining:even the sacred relations of husband and wife, parent
and child, brother and sister?  There is not a man in all the South,
(that believes there is a God and a Bible of sacred authority), who
would dare to say this, in presence of that God who is no respecter
of persons.  This is enough./ This test is better than a thousand
arguments, and I solemnly and affectionately invite all men, who
expect soon to appear before the tribunal of Eternal Justice, to put
themselves to this test.
Will it be said, by any, that the African is not a proper man, but
an inferior species of animal between a monkey and a man, and
therefore we may enslave him, as we do the lower animals? If so,
(and this has often been said), then does our third text directly contradict this: GOD HAS MADE OF ONE BLOOD.  Besides, Paul has
elsewhere declared in the most explicit manner, that by the offence
of Adam all men were made sinners, (Rom. 5: 19); also that in
Adam all have died, (1 Cor. 15: 22). There is one God, one Mediator, one Sanctifier of all. Even if the Scriptures had not decided
9*
III             [!i;i'[' Ir'l ~ I!III;:I~1I il!' I,ill!i'fllll'l''   i,
... ~, I!, I lll!,f    "Y!'!. ll![" ~ i';[ ir'[ r'l';,. 
102
the point of homogeneous origin,- nature: speaks it out, in very interigible language.  It is an irreversible law of nature, that different
species cannot amalgamate and form a new one, to which the law of
continual propagation attaches.  But men of all classes and colors
can and do commingle and propagate.  Beyond this, facts demonstrate
the thing in question.  The Jews in Malabar are black; in China,
Tartarian; in Palestine and its neighborhood, of olive hue; in Germany and the north of Europe, they commonly have a white delicate
skin, and light har with blue eyes.  Climate changes pyramidal
skulls to elliptical ones, woolly hair to long Caucasian hair.. The
hair on the heads of the negro, is real hair, and not wool, as chemistry demonstrates.  These facts are all certain; and being so, they
prove that the difference of races is occasioned by climate and adventitious causes, and not by diversity of origin.
I take it that Pritchard, and his Reviewer-in the Edinburgh Quarterly, and Balbi, and Adelung, and Mr. Owen of the:British Museum,
have placed the question about the unity of the human rac.  as to.
origin, on a foundation never to be shaken.  I have seen, indeed,
with deep regret, an opinion of Prof. Agassiz diverse from this, as
announced at the — late literary meeting in Charleston,. S. -Carolina.
No one more highly respects his talents and skill, than myself. But
withthe Bible in my hands, and as a-believer of its teachings, it is
absolutely impossible for me'to accede to his views.  They are not
indeed like those mentioned above, in one very important- respect.
They do not degrade any portion of men below proper humanity;
and this is probably the salvo in the mind of the Professor, which
keeps him from feeling that he is arrayed against the Bible.  The
decisive manner in which he has spoken out against the transmutation
theory of the author of Vestiges of the Creation, and of the impossibility of one genus passing into another, shows that he is no atheist. Mlay I respectfully solicit, that he would investigate the Sacred
Record with as much impartiality and candor and thoroughness as
he has the Book of Nature?  If he should, I feel certain that he
would come to no - other conclusion than that stated above, and - defended by comparative anatomists of the highest rank. Most assuredly the Bible must be ignored, by any one who concludes that there
is a diversity of origin among the human race. v-...   The intellectual and moral constitution of mankind establishes a
Unity of the race beyond all reasonable question. -There is no per 
103
ceptible difference, excepting that which circumstances have brought
about, between black, and yellow, and white, and red men. Were not
such men as Origen, and Clement of Alexandria, and Cyprian, and
Athanasius, and Arius, and Jerome, and Augustine, and others like
them, Africans? Not Guinea negroes indeed, but still with hair and
skin approaching somewhat near to theirs.  And were not the Jews
of the yellow-brown hue?  Yet intellect springs up in nearly equal
measures, wherever it is cultivated and called forth. And as to all
the sympathies of father and mother, husband and wife, brother and
sister, they are everywhere the same, when equally cultivated.  But
what is the most decisive of all, is, there is the same moral sense, the
same perception of good and evil, the same conscience, the same fear
of the wrath to come, the same feeling of the necessity of forgiveness, the same hopes of eternal blessedness, the same God and
Father, the same Redeemer, and the same Sanctifier. If all these
in common do not denote a common origin and unity of the race, I
do not know how anything of this nature can be proved.  And if al
this be true, then, for one part of mankind to enslave another? stands
on the, simple ground of might prevailing over right.  Neither the
law of love, nor doing as we would be done by, permits any man to
act on such a ground, and be guiltless before God.
But we will, for a moment, look at the other unb'blical, if not antiibliieal, theory. It maintains that the Caucasian race are superior
in origin as well as talent.  Be it so, for argument's sake.  Then
where is the liberality, the generosity, the kindness of the stronger,
in oppressing and degrading the weaker?  It seems as if all these
virtues were calling upon the stronger, to treat the weaker and
degraded with all possible kindness and tenderness, and to make all
practicable effort to elevate them in the scale of civilization and
refinement.  This is what the gospel demands.  It is what Jesus
came down from heaven to accomplish; and that same divine Lord
and Master requires all his disciples to walk in his steps.
No principle of Christianity can ever be violated with impunity.
Heaven has ordained that the way of transgressors should be hard.
Accordingly, the evils of slavery develop themselves in a manner
not to be mistaken.  Let us cast but a single glance upon them, and
it may suffice for our present purpose-.       -  
(1) It is a glaring contradiction of the first and fundamental
principle, not only of the Bible.which declares that all ae of one 
104
blood, but of our Declaration of Independence, which avers, that all
men are born with an inherent and inalienable right to life, liberty,
and property. The South have unanimously subscribed this, as well
as the North.
(2) As existing among us, slavery has taken its worst form; it
degrades men made in the image of their God and Redeemer, into
brute-beasts, or (which makes them still lower) converts them into
mere goods and chattels.
(3) In this form of slavery, all the sacred social relations of life
are destroyed. Husband and wife, parent and child, brother and
sister, are not known in law, nor protected nor cognized by it. In
conformity with this, these relations are every day severed by some
slave-dealers, without regard to the feelings of the wretched beings
who are torn asunder; and all their parental, conjugal, and filial sympathies are the subject of scorn if not of derision. No invasion of
human rights can be worse than this; none more directly opposed to
the will of God, inscribed upon the pages of the Scriptures, and on
the very nature of mankind.
(4) As the inevitable consequence of this, the mass of slaves must
live, and do live, in a virtual state of concubinage; which, so far
from being restrained, is often encouraged for the sake of increasing
slave-property.
(5) Ignorance profound, and nearly universal, is the inevitable
lot of the great mass of all who are held in bondage.  In some of
the States, the learning even to read is forbidden; thus contravening,
with a high hand, the command of Heaven to "search the Scriptures."  In such a case, obedience to a human law is crime; it is
treason against the Majesty of heaven and earth.
(6) The inevitable consequence of all this is, that the young
females, ignorant 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 pollution 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 slave-holding State, without seeing such
a multitude of mulattos, mestitzos, 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. I know 
105
well that this is a delicate subject. I know well also, that universal
and indiscriminate charges of this nature, extended to the whole of
the Southern masters, would be utterly false.  But I have heard:so
much testimony in relation to this subject, from  ministers of the
gospel and Christians who live and belong there, that it is impossible for me to doubt.  With my own eyes have I seen the -proofs of
what I have alleged, in regard to the different classes of mulattos
-  proofs so ample that no room was left for doubt..      -.
Besides; it is not in the nature of things, that this should be
otherwise.  Young men in the strength of passion, rendered more
intense by a warm climate, having young females at their command,
and none to protect or avenge them when seduced, cannot, in any
country be kept from licentiousness. They begin it as soon as they
are capable; and they continue it, in very many cases, even through
life-through a married life as well as a single one. Of course the
females are undone forever, as to any delicacy or sense of modesty
and shame; and Heaven  avenges the pollution of the males, by
denying them all the exquisite joys of chaste wedded life.  Retribution begns here, in this life; but 0, what will it be in the life to
come?  "Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge," Heb. 13:
4. 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 argument against slavery, this
alone would be amply sufficient to secure the reprobation of it, in the
eyes of every impartial and enlightened Christian man.
(7) Slavery in its best attitude in our country, even among
humane and Christian masters, is a degradation of a whole class of
the community, below their proper rank as men.   Even where the
colored men are free, and educated, and well behaved, they are considered as unworthy of any civil consideration.   They  cannot
become citizens, in a slave-holding State.  No civil, no patriotic sym
pathies, can be theirs. "Stand by thyself, for I am holier than
thou," is the universal answer to all aspirations after citizenship.
And this is not all.  They are degraded in their own eyes.  They
are discouraged from all attempts to rise, by a knowledge of the utter
impossibility of rising. What were the whole Greek nation, a few
years ago, when under the domination of the Turks?  Just what 
106
every people will be, who have masters over them, and who are
denied their political and civil rights.
Where now did one class of our race obtain a license to keep down
and degrade another, when "there is one and the same God of the
Jews and the Gentiles?" And how will they answer before the tribunal above, on which that God sits, who is no respecter of persons?
(8) Slavery produces an unhappy influence, on the morals, manners, and temper of the masters. Of course there are many -very
many- exceptions to this, where the masters are Christians, and of
naturally a gentle spirit. But the habit of absolute and uncontrolled
commanding, even from childhood, prepares men to become dictatorial, assuming, unyielding, impetuous, and haughty. It is inevitable. It cleaves to the very nature of such an irresponsible relation.
Even good men are sorely tempted and tried by it. Bad ones are
made into petty despots.
(9) Another crying evil is, that men grow rich without industry,
and become 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 impossible that it should be otherwise.
(10) Not only the temporal, but the eternal welfare of the slaves
is often grievously neglected.  Many masters there are at the South,
to my certain knowledge, who are noble exceptions to this remark,
and who take great pains to have their slaves instructed in the things
of religion.  But how many are there, who will never expend a
dollar for this purpose?  And when these masters appear before
Him, who has made one both Jews and Gentiles, and broken down
the wall of partition between them, and placed himself in the same
relation to all, what answer can they give to Him for neglecting the
eternal interests of those for whom he has purchased redemption by
his blood?
But enough, and more than enough, on this painful- this revolting subject. When a true hearted Christian runs his eye over such
an assemblage of evils, which of necessity stand connected with our
present system of slavery, is it possible that he can have a doubt as
to what Christianity demands? Can he doubt whether all this is
loving our neighbor as ourselves, or doing as we would be done by?
No    no -  it is not possible.  He that runneth may read the will
of Heaven, in regard to this matter. 
107
For myself, my childish aspirations, in the very dawn of my life,
were all in favor of universal freedom. I have never changed them;
I never can. In childhood I read with thrilling delight the lines of
that heaven-born bard, who, in singing the Sofa, rose speedily to
higher themes. I cannot refrain from quoting some of his thoughts:
"There is no flesh in man's obdurate heart;
He finds his fellow guilty of a skin
Not colored like his own; and having power
T' enforce the wrong, for such a worthy cause
Dooms and devotes him as his lawful prey."
Then after speaking of war and bloodshed for the purposes of
ambition and avarice, he thus proceeds:
"Thus man devotes his brother and destroys;
And worse than all, and most to be deplored,
As human nature's broadest, foulest blot,
Chains him and tasks him, and exacts his sweat
With stripes, that Mercy'with a bleeding heart
Weeps when she sees inflicted on a beast.
*       *'*        *        *        *
I would not have a slave to till my ground,
To carry me, to fan me while I sleep,
And tremble when I wake, for all the wealth
That sinews bought and sold have ever earned."
Thus feel and think, also, the New Englanders.   How many
thousand times have I repeated these lines, and dwelt on the heavenborn spirit which they breathe! And yet, I have seen and conversed with many a kind-hearted, well-instructed, moral, highminded Southerner, who wore the appearance of never having once
had such sentiments pass through his mind; and to whom such a
passage in Cowper would be quite revolting. What a difference do
our early training, habits, and circumstances make in our views! I
could, however, look on these friends with a feeling of sincere friendship and attachment, on account of the virtues which they possessed
and exhibited. I looked on their state as, in very many cases, not a
voluntary one, but the result of circumstances over which they had
had little or no control.
At present, such is the excitement at the South, roused up by the 
108
violence -of Abolitionists at the North, that I can hardly expect
clm and patient- listening to my short discourse:on Slayer.  B
and by, when the tempest is past, they may perhaps consent to.listpatiently for a few minutes, if nothing more.  I do not wonder tha
they are excited.  To  be called men-stealers, murderers, tyrete
villains, and every other reproachful name which the rich vocabular
of Abolitionism affords, is enough to awake the dead to life.  I vie,
the Abolition proceedings just in the light that I should the followin.
case, which I put for the sake of illustration: I see some fault in m.
neighbor, who, by the way, has also a great many excellencies oi
character. But my mind begins to wax warm about his faults, an.
my conscience greatly presses me to take some measures with bin'
Well, I hasten to him and say: Neighbor, I wish to have a serio..
conference with you, on a matter of great importance.  When wil
you hear me? This evening, he says, at 7 o'clock. I go accord
ingly, and after the usual salutations are past, I say to him: Sir,
have come on a grave errand, that presses my conscience very much
What is it? says he, speak out.  Why, say I, it is, that in the fir
place I expect to prove to you that you are a fool; and in the sec
ond place, that you are a rascal. And when I speak this last word
I lay a strong emphasis upon it, and shake my fist in. his face
How many ears, now, will this neighbor open, to listen to my rc
buke? If he does me common justice, instead of listening to me, h.
will open his door and say: Sir, please to walk out! When  yocome to me with proper respect and in a good temper of mind,
will patiently hear you; but never until then.
- Is my neighbor now altogether a bad man because he is indignant e
such treatment?  I trow not.  Yet this is the very method in whic-1
Abolitionists have assailed the South; and they would be more o
less'than men, if they were not indignant.
Yet Mr. Webster has been more or less maligned, because he hn
found fault with such conduct on the part of Northerners. I hav.
not a doubt, that the sentence of his, (in which he expressed h;
opinion, that Abolitionists had helped to rivet the chains of th.;
slave, and make his bondage the more severe and certain), ha;
roused up more ire in that class of men than all the rest of h.;
Speech.  Such men cannot bear to be told the truth, to be told tha
all this noise and confusion and perpetual vituperation and con
tumely, are much ado about nothing.  With them it is the great 
109
the only, the all-important business.  And all this-  is itin conformity with Paul, in my motto?  Not quite —not quite, gentlemen.
To me nothing is more palpable than the truth:-of: Mr. Webster's
remarks on this topic. I cannot have a doubt, that the liberation of
the slaves is put back at least half a century, by this ill-timed,
violent, and most injudicious: movement.  -I am aware that I shall
of course incur their displeasure.'a I cannot help it.  I think it to be
a call of duty, calmly and fea'lessly to tell them what I fully believeis  the simple truth.           -
As to Mr. Webster, I imagine he will still continue his repose
undnerihbis Oak, notwithstanding all the buzzing around him.  If he
has not"hing more serious than this to disturb his repose, I conjecture
that he may enjoy quite a tolerable requiem.  At any rate, I hope
this will be the case.
It is time to hasten to a close, although -a multitude of questions
press upon my mind, in -which -'I feel a deep in'terest,: "But it is not
for me to discuss'everything, a-and above all the intricate questions
that jnirists and Civilians may raise.  But I should be doing injustice tomy own  views of duty, if I did not say a few words on two
or three very important topics.
I first address the Northerners, and specially my fellow citizens
of Massachusetts. In looking back on the history of slavery in our
country, whence do we  find it to have originated?  From  Great
Britain; and from her alone.  All the Colonies fought pitched batties against it;'but the king and Parliament of Great Britain defeated' them.  North and South were united on  this question -
united before the Declaration of Independence, and united for a
long time after it.  I can have room to produce but one specimen
of protest; and this is from the pen of Mr. Jefferson, who originally
inserted it in our Declaration of Independence which he drew up.
It was omitted afterwards merely from  delicacy: of feeling toward
some gentlemen of the South (S. Carolina and'Georgia), and also,
As Mr. Jefferson intimates (3 Madison-Papers), from the same fieliig toward some of the delegates from the North, who were engaged in the Guinea-trade.  Here it is as it came from the hand
of Mr. Jefferson.  He is speaking of the king of England:
"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred
lights of ife and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended
10 
110
him; capturing and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or ]
incur a miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfar..
the opprobrium of infide Powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Gref
Britain.  Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought an
sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt tprohibit or restrain this execrable commerce."
The like to this was expressed by most of the Southern States
in one form and another. The general feeling on the subject ot
slavery at that time, is fully disclosed in the Declaration of Indc
pendence at the outset; see p. 57 above. This Declaration has th;broad basis of loving our neighbor as ourselves, and of doing as
we would be done by - a truly Christian and gospel principle. I-'
is the unquestionable index of all but universal American feeling
in 1776.
The Hon. Mr. Chase, in a historical development of slavery m
the early part of the United States' career, has exhibited, in his recent, courteous, valuable, and able speech, documents which show
that there never was a vote by any Southern State, in favor of
slavery, until after the famous Territorial Ordinance of 1787.
Indeed, I have repeatedly heard it from the lips of some of the
Framers and Signers of the Constitution of the United States, that
it was then universally understood among all the States who formed
it, that slavery was to be got rid of, just as soon as it could be done
peaceably and with safety. All the public documents of that period
do in fact testify to this. What has made the astounding change?
I do not feel myself to be sufficiently cognizant of facts and occurrences at the South, to decide this question; but one thing, I believe
may be safely said, viz. that no enlightened Christian people would
ever admit or foster slavery, unless they were tempted to it by
great prospects of gain. There could be no other efficient inducement.
But there slavery now is, spread over almost one half of thStates in number, although not in point of population. THREE
MILLIONS OF SLAVES!  Who are accountable for this?  On whom
does the guilt fall? for in the sight of God there must be guilt somewhere, if the declarations or commands of the New Test. are to be
our rule of moral appreciation and judgment.
Do not we of the North, often speak on the subject of Southern
slavery, just as if the present owners of slaves there, were impli 
111
cated in the guilt of bringing them there, and placing them in their
present condition?  Nothing is more common than such declarations. But are they just? Surely they are not. Few indeed in
those States have been concerned in foreign importation; and what
has been done in that way by smuggling slaves in, has been done
more by New England Vessels than by any other. So it was in
the Colonial times. Several towns in New England were built up,
as every one knows, by the Guinea trade.  I doubt not, that there are
vessels now employed in carrying slaves to Brazil and to Cuba,
whose real owners are New England men. A sham sale and a
foreign flag protects them.
In the South only a few have been directly concerned in that
iniquitous traffic. What then has the South. of the present day
done, to increase the number of their Slaves?  Nothing, if we
speak of the mass, nothing but omitting to free them, and of course
they have multiplied by natural increase.  If we then of the North
are to tax them with sin, as to this matter, we ought, in all fairness,
to place the matter on its true basis.  Thousands of slave-owners
have pever trafficked in them; and I apprehend, that the mass of
respectable men in the South regard this traffic with abhorrence.
Most of the Southern States have prohibited by law the introduction of slaves from other States, although such laws are often
evaded. If we tax our Southern brethren with sin, (and I think
we have good reason for so doing, provided we speak to them kindly
and respectfully), it must be on this specifil  point, viz. that they
have neglected to carry out the design of the framers of our Constitution; neglected to fulfil their implied pledges to the North, in
regard to this subject; and neglected to make any provision for the
future abolition of slavery.   Nay many of their statesmen have
recently declared that slavery is an important, if not a necessary,
ingredient in the Constitution and prosperity of a republic. Of
course, everything remains in statu quo, excepting that the State
laws of late have become far more rigorous than before.
May I, with all due kindness and respect, speak a word here in
their hearing? Are not the principles of the Gospel, in regard to
loving our neighbor as ourselves, and doing as we would be done by,
of high and sacred obligation, universal, irrepealable?  I believe
every impartial Christian on earth must think and say so.  Will it
be a satisfactory plea, in the High Court of Equity in heaven, 
:112
for disobedience to these requisitions,. —that this disobedience-was
profitable to your worldly. interests?   O. never, never!  Will-.it
satisfy that Court, when you offer the plea of great.inconvewe
and much perplexity in accomplishing the. desired liberation?  I —do
not think a Christian conscience can be quieted with this.  It ought
not to be.  There is something to be actually done, and done without delay, if you desire to wash off the stain which slavery now
attaches to our nation. 
What then shall we do? you ask.  It is a fair question, and'l
would God I could answer it, to my own or to your satisfaction.
It is immeasurably the most difficult problem ever before this great
nation. Universal and immediate emancipation would be little short
of insanity.  The blacks themselves would be the first and most
miserable victims.  Stealing, robbery, rapine, and other evils, would
inevitably follow in the train of liberation, and thousands of ignorant
and starving men would seek their sustenance. in preyaing upon their
former masters and upon the community.  They could not all be
hired, at the prices which they would demand. The ruin of the
planters would be inevitable, if high wages for labor must be given.
Does not Jamaica tell that tale in deplorable accents? - Many an
estate has been abandoned.   Others, worth ~30,000 or ~40,000,
before the liberation, will now fetch no more than ~3,000 or ~4,000.
Indeed, sales can be made only at prices ruinous to the propertyholder.  And then, when our slave-holders are thus impoverished,
who is to pay the enormous rates necessary to the maintenance
of paupers?  Plainly, the thing in this shape is an impossible measure.
What then is to be done?  EXamine, I: would say, and weigh
well, the plan of gradual abolition, recommended by that great orator
and statesman, Mr. Canning, when he was  prime minister.  Had his
advice been followed, I doubt not that Jamaica would now be in a
flourishing condition.  Begin the great work on some such ground
as his.  Educate the young blacks, and let them acquire a moral
sense, and become enlightened as to the ways and means of industry.
This would be doing something, yea very -m-uch.  MXake the prospect of eventual emancipation certain.  Then your consciences will:
be at peace, and the nations abroad and the North at home,will cease
to reproach you.                                        -    
II3
, EIi Wte meantime, let the rising AfiJan Republi  beenlarged,
until it lines the whole coast of Africa, and thus puts a final end to:
the increase of-slaves by- importation.  I am astonished beyond Dsasure,-when I hear Abolitionists decrying the CGolonization Soeie.
In what other way is- the slave trade to- be stopped, and Africa,
Christianized?  All the ships in the British-!and American navies
could not stop the slave trade; and nothing but the Chrstian possession of the maritime coasts of Africa can ever achieve the desired
end.
The great wrong of our Southern brethren I think is this, that
they have not taken, and do not seem disposed to take, even initiative measures to get rid of slavery, but legislate in order to establish
and perpetuate it.  But it is too late to accomplish this.  The spirit
of freedom is waking the world to new life.  A new order of things
must be near.  Shall American Republicans be the last to yield to
their fellow men the inalienable rights which- their God and Redeemer has bestowed upon them? —.May -Heavenforbid!  
I am, I think, pretty fully aware of the great difficultiesthat..-.in'
the way.  Suppose the black population are made free; -then what
is to be done with them after this, specially in those States, or parts
of States, where they are more numerous than the whites; how are
they going to live an, prosper?  They haveno money to buyland;
and if they could buy it, or have it given to them, most of them are
too ignorant, and shiftless, and averse-to labor, to manage land: with
any success.  Few of them are artificers; and' but few such could
find eemployment.  What then I ask the Abolitionists, (and I insist
on some plain and direct answer) — what is to be done with  such a
population?  If you say:'Let their masters pay them  for past
labor, and furnish them with the means of living;' I ask again:
How long would these wages (more or less) last them?  As a body,
they would never do any more work, until this sum was expended.
Then what next:-?  Their masters have been, in the- case supposed,
already impoverished by dividing among them their property. These
cannot, with their habits, carry on plantations at the expense of hired
labor.  It would reduce them  speedily to absolute poverty.  And
then,; what is the next step, either. for them or for the free blacks?
I misist- -upon — it, now,- that: the -Abolitionists-: shal-.gve a. o.be
?ationa, "tieat answer t these-: questions. -Th-is would, be.orth
t   thoutsand tis           than all their outcries tabout   ~the.-oiu:.of
10* 
11'4
bondage, and their demands of immediate and universal emancipa
tion.
In such a great movement, where the very frame-work of the go
ernment and the State is to be taken to pieces and receive a new shape
there must be foresight, and caution, and prudence. One would b.
apt to think'when he hears the clamor for the negroes on all sides
that the rights and interest of the white population are matters o
little or no consideration or importance. But this must not so bc
At all events, if this movement should be successful, and the black.
be all liberated at once, it would not be long before the fair province
of the South would be a desolate waste; and the blacks would b
by far the greatest sufferers.   Gradual freedom is the only possibl.
practical measure.  Three millions of people cannot be disposed *and provided for, by an Abolition diatribe and decree on paper. 
a northern closet, we can sit down, and coolly legislate for the South
on matters that must tear in pieces the very frame-work of their sc
ciety.  We are not affected by any of the proposed measures, an —
then we coolly wonder why they are so concerned about them. T:
this prudence, is it justice, is it kindness, is it loving our neighbor -
ourselves?
But I must stop, and leave the plan for remedying the evils
question to wiser heads than mine.  It is plain enough, that Colon'
zation, unless sustained by the United States Government at the rati
of at least $2,000,000 in a year, can be nothing more than a litf.
canal to empty out the Atlantic Ocean.  This work must go on wit'
great power and efficiency, to do anything adequate to our necessities
A noble work has the Society begun; and may heaven grant the
the whole country may sustain it and carry it rapidly on. Why nc
appropriate two millions a year to such a humane, laudable, Christiapurpose?  It would be but a drop in the bucket.  The sale of oinew lands would more than furnish the requisite sum.  Can an,
patriotic and humane man object to such an appropriation?
The Abolitionists are continually bringing before us the nobl.
example of Great Britain, as to freeing slaves.  It is well.  But le
us have the whole of it. She gave to the masters one hundred mi!
lions of dollars, to buy off some 700,000 slaves.  At this rate, o-a.
slaves would cost the United States $400,000,000.  Do the Aboli
:tionists ever say a word about this part of England's example?  I
have never heard one.  No; they flout at the idea of any compen 
115
sation. What! say they, are we to hire men to do what is just and
equitable? But Great Britain said no such thing. She said:' These
owners of slaves came into the possession of property by ways and
means sanctioned by the laws of their country. They have, therem
fore, in the eyes of civil government, a just and lawful property.
They have committed no misdemeanor, as judged by the laws of the
realm, in acquiring it; and we cannot demand that they shall give
it up without some compensation, a compensation which is as large
as the nation are able to make it.' When Abolitionists begin to insist on this part of British example, then we will begin to listen
with an attentive ear.
The last thing I have to say, is, to ask the question, (which I leave
to wiser men than I am to answer), whether it would not be a feasible thing, and the best thing we can do, to colonize the blacks, as we
have the Indians? Let them have a Territory and a government
of their own, we being merely watchful guardians over their welfare
and safety, and for a while reserving the ultimate control of important measures, until they attain to a state in which they will be
competent to take care of themselves. Thenceforth we may be their
friends and allies, and do them all the good in our power. We have
land enough and more than enough to do this; and when done, let
us by fair agreement with masters and owners, and proper compensation, stock the Colony until we get rid of the pressure now upon
us.  It must be a work of time; and it may be such an one.  The
measure cannot be at once completed.  A hearty co-operation of the
South would easily effect it; and by its being made gradual, they
could gradually accommodate themselves to their circumstances.  If
any one can suggest a better plan, let him as speedily as may be
produce it; and let the measure be under discussion.
I have done with my discussions, and now come to my closing
part,
First of all, I ask Christians and all who bow to the authority of
God's word, be they in the North or the South, whether any proper
regard is paid to the precept: "FOLLOW AFTER THE THINGS THAT
MAKE  FOR PEACE?" Rom. 14: 19.  Let every such man retire to
his closet, and open his Bible, after humble and fervent supplication
for divine light, and then read, and ponder well, the following texts:
"Recompense to no man evil for evil," Rom. 12: 19.  "When he
[Christ] was reviled, he reviled not again,"' 1 Pet. 2: 23.  "Being 
1.6
reviled, we;bless,"' —  Cor. 4: 12.  "No reviler shal inherit the kingdom of Ot," 1 Cor. 6.- 10.  " TnE SERVANT OF THE:LORD MUST;
NOT - STRIVE,- BUT- BE   GENTLE  TO:ALL- MEN;. - X.-., —PATIENT.;IN;
MEEKNESS-INSTRUCTING- T-HOSE  THAT-  OPPOS F TEMSELYES-:
2- -::2: 24, 25.';;SPEAK EVIL- OF NO MAN; BE -NO -BRAWL-:;
E'RS; BUT GENTLE, SHOWING  ALL- MEEKNESS UNTO. ALL MEN,"
Tit. 3: 2.  
Who now can read what issues every day from the press, in jour,nals and pamphlets, or hearw hat is said in the H.alls of our National:
Council,: without a:deep feeling of conviction, that no more regard
is paid to these solemn iajunctions, than would be had they never
existed?  The servant of the Lord must not strive,:but begentle.-  Is
this so?  What then is to become of -him, who from the pulpit,jor
the" press,- and in- every pssible-way, rouses up and urges on to strife,
and-reviles all men who will not gowith:him?.  It is indeed afearful
thing to fall into'the hands of Him, "who6 is-our:lpeAE, a-an.:&who,
came to send PEAC,E, on earth, and promote good will- amog men,.
after our having violated commands so plain, so pratical, so- funda
mentally importantas these.   ^
Let us consider, for a moment, the nature and -aspect of- the greatconitest now- going on.  Here are statesmen, ministers of the- goshpel, lawyers, respected; and: honored citizens, men of talents, -of:
integrity, of fair character in all respects, who ax  oposed  toea
other from hearty conviction on both, sides.,The contest ixt
warmer and warmer.  The Union is threatened and in per-; for.
even if it is'not formally dissolved, it will be virtually dissolved,
in a little time, by alienation and bitter hatred. -How is -such a
contest to be stopped?   Can either party: expect to- stop it by
insisting on all which he would have,  ad-n  which: he demands?
How- perfectly idle, -and even absurd, is such:'.an expectation!
Yet Abolitionists say:'We must and will have the Wilmot Pro viso-;"  heated partizans of the South say:'- e willl ave all, new
States open to slavery; and if not, we will break- up the -Unibmn''
Hlow are we to remain together, without giving up   mething on each'-side "  And yet, I do not ask that either party shall — give up-.
any thiag essentia-or very important.- As -to the  ilmot Proviso,
we- have -een tit it of course is!:m lated the momanta Terito
bc6omes a State.  It is not, therefore, worth- one hour of -eontenti,
"L~st5 go here with-our worthy Chief Magistrate.- As-to new-Stats 
117
fromTexas, (O  the,dredfl deed — of taing-Texas ad:brmging.-a
Mexican war-upon us'!), there is now-no remedy. The-solemn-compact is made; and thereforeit must- be kept. - There was not a'ma
in our country more strongly opposed to-making it, thau; Mr. W.e
ster; -he fought manfully against it;. but now his crime i, -that-he
has declared that solemn compacts must be observed.:
I ask now all my Northern brethren, whethers inletting-Provisos
alone, they sanction — slavery, or come under any. responsibility what-.
ever for it? - Not in the- least.  If the question was, whether they.
conceding to them the- power and the rkiqh  to dictate concerning
slave,. should vote in its favor, then comes a case which:is;to- the
point and — fundamental. - No! No! I say; I would hold, out. my
right hand to have it cutoff, sooner than lift it up for such a- vote   1
would not- have upon my conscience the guilt of turning God's image,
(redeemed by the blood of his Son, and made free by the Lord Jesus
Christ himself), into goods and chattels.- I would not bring on my
soul that guilt, for ten thousand:  worlds- And I, am- quite certain that
Mr. -Webster has the same feeling, in its fullest extent.
Nothing -else is wanting in the present state of things, but to follow the counsels of Paul, as exhibited above. The North can never
lift her hand, -to extend the- domain of slavery a single inch, But
the North must keep solemn compacts and take care never again to
send such men to Congress as will betray her.  All the Texas, trouble
comes from this; for it was two northern Senators that ber0Ugt defet
on those,: who were opposing the Texan Resolutions.
But if heated enthusiasts on both sides, will listen to no caution,
andbrook no delay of their measures, then let them take the awful
responsibility on themselves.  I wash my hands of the guilt of my
country's blood.  And when they have carried. -their measures, on
either side, what is the next - step-?  A war-. a war ompared with
which, the horrorsof —St. Dom'mingo are but a faint image.m-And when
the South, by- united forces of enemies without and.within,,is turned
to a desolate -wilderness,:where is the UNwioN, the once blessed -and
prosperous and- gl-orious UNION? -.The North, have.-prevailed; the
slaves are free; -but how many of-them are left, to-enjoy their free
dom'?  And where are -our-.white Southern brethren and fellow citizens?- Buried beneat  the ruins of.houses- and towns, set o, —i
and attacked-by ragin enemies.... -:?.c 
. Th:-is e of d'dr   scen-es brings to my mind the i.,o 
118
eastern Caliph in Bagdad.  He  had a factious Absalom for a soHe sent him, in order to get rid of his intrigues at Court, into th.
province of Aderbijan, as governor.  He soon heard that he w-.
making efforts, to excite that large and fertile province to revolt. Th.
next news was, that he was in the field, with allied Turcomans
his assistants.  The Vizier, who received this intelligence, immcr.
diately went and told the Caliph. Call, said he, the commander i.
chief of my troops.  Speedily he came.' Go,' said the enrage.
monarch,' and gather all the forces of the empire that you can mu.
ter with speed, and march instantly to Aderbijan, and kill eve-.
man, woman, and child there; burn every house, and cut down everfruit tree.' The Vizier dared not interpose for the moment, for hI'.
Master's face was black with rage. The commander in chief of th.
army dared not to interpose.  But after a little time, the Viziereturned, and prostrating himself on the earth before the Caliph, h.
said: Will my Lord suffer me to ask one question? Yes, said th.
monarch, if it does not interfere with my will and my orders. J
shall interfere with neither, said the Vizier. My question is this
When your Majesty has laid your fairest province utterly wast.
and made it desolate, what domain will your Highness have ovr
Aderbijan?  The Caliph dismissed him, slept upon the matter, an=
the next morning countermanded his orders.
I put now that solemn question to all who are urging the natioon to disruption and a war of desolation: Where will be the doma;of the United States, when nearly one half of them is in smokin
ruins?
One word more concerning Mr. Webster, and then I hav.
done.
Suppose the violence of the present time succeeds in withdrawin,
the public confidence from him; and he retires from office and fropublic life.  Suppose even the worst his enemies can wish hishould come upon him, and he should go into the shades of retire
ment, and live and die there, unnoticed (if this be possible) and -
it were unknown. The contest goes on, the country is involved i.
bitter and bloody war, and still his counsel is rejected and despised
But he soon leaves this earthly stage of action and of contest, an,
is gathered to his fathers, it may be without a monument or a eulogy
to preserve his name. If all this can be supposed, and should actu
ally take place; what then? Can the memory of such a man per 
119
ish? No; posterity, divested of partisan feeling and prejudice, will
erect to him a lofty monument, which will be inscribed, on one faade, with these most significant words:
Justum et tenacem propositi virum,
Non civium ardor prava jubentium,
Non vultus instantis tyranni,
Mente quatit solida.
On another facade, under his simple name, will be carved in high
relief:
O NOSTRUM ET DECUS ET COLUMEN!
0