E449
S6405 (LC)

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

OUR COUNTRY,

OUR COUNTRY'S CONSTITUTION AND LAWS.

DISCOURSE
DELIVERED ON THANKSGIVING DAY,
DECEMBER 12th, 1850,
IN THE
CHELSEA PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, NEW YORK,
BY
EDWARD DUNLAP SMITH, D.D.
PUBLISHED BY BEQUEST.

NEW YORK:
ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS, 285 BROADWAY.
1851.

Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1851, by
EDWARD DUNLAP SMITH,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York.

TM*

ROBERT CRAIQHKAD, PRINTER,
112 FULTON STREET.

TO THE

MEMBERS OF THE
Cjjilm ^nslitfhnint dDjjnnJj
AJfD CO9GGERATI0II
THE FOLLOWING DISCOURSE
IS MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED
BY THE AUTHOR.

DISCOURSE.

" Thou hast increased the nation, 0 Lord, thou hast increased the nation ; thou
art glorified." — Isaiah xxvi. 15.
" Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers." — Rom. xiii. 1.
On the third of August, 1492, was commenced the
most important vojage of maritime discovery recorded
in the annals of the world. The little fleet engaged in
this enterprise, consisting of three inconsiderable ves
sels, left the port of Palos, in Andalusia, at the close of
a long summer's day. A poetical, if not a logical mind,
can see a propriety in this voyage being begun at the
approach of evening, when the sun, as he sank slowly
in the west, seemed to be beckoning the adventurous
navigators towards the obscure and remote scenes of
their proposed research.*
In the course of this ever-memorable voyage, the
variation of the needle and the setting of familiar stars
seemed at once to denote a change in the laws of
nature, and an advance into a region from which all
return might be impossible.
In these novel circumstances, consternation seized
* Hume says (vol. iii., Harpers' ed.), Columbus sailed Aug. 2. Taylor's
Manual of Mod. Hist., 1850, Aug. 3d. Tyler's Gen, Hist., 1823, Aug. 3.

the minds of all the adventurers except one — the stern,
enthusiastic captain, who retained the calm assurance
of success. At length, on the 12th of October, 1492,
Columbus landed on an island, called by him San Sal
vador, lying with others of greater magnitude along
the central portion of the great western or American
continent. After visiting several other islands, among
which were Cuba and Hayti (Ty tier's Hist., p. 474),
he set sail for Europe, Jan. 4, 1493.
The Spanish discoveries were limited practically, if
not actually, to the regions lying south of the 30th
parallel of latitude.
The American continent, as distinct from the islands
on its coast, was not discovered by Columbus till his
third voyage, in 1498. Fourteen months before, and
consequently in 1497, Jno. Cabot, a Venetian by birth,
and a resident of Bristol, in England, sailing under a
patent granted by Henry VII., first saw the American
continent in a high northern latitude (56°) still lying
beyond the range of modern civilization. {Bancroft's
Hist., vol. i. p. 9.)
With John Cabot (Giovanni Gaboto — Tijtler's Hist.,
p. 474) sailed his distinguished son, Sebastian, who in
1498, first touching at Labrador, continued his voyage
to the south, passing along what is now known as the
coast of the United States, as low as the State of Mary
land. {Bancroft's Hist-., p 11.)
Through these discoveries by the Cabots, father and
son, England obtained, according to the views then and
subsequently prevalent, a title to the northern part of
the American continent.

The connexion of this country with England has
been attended with momentous results and with
unspeakable advantages. The development of conse
quences was the work of time, and of agencies which
were not foreseen in the early period of discovery.
Those results, so far as they have been exhibited, have
afforded the most cheering proofs of a kind, fostering
providence. The peculiar destiny of North America was shaped
in a signal degree by a private enterprise, begun and
prosecuted by men seeking the enjoyment of religious
liberty. In the sixteenth century, during the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, under a rigorous system of ecclesiastical
conformity, a serious division commenced in the Church
of England. This division increased in the reigns of
James I. and of Charles I. and II. Such were the
circumstances in the period mentioned, that the conclu
sions of men on the subject of religion were strongly
drawn and strongly maintained. They loved the more
the doctrines which their reason approved, and against
which their opponents, armed with governing power,
sought to array a persecuting and oppressive force.
Accordingly, a number of Englishmen, loving religious
freedom better than their English homes in which con
straint was put on their consciences, first went to
Holland, and thence to New England. In their second
and more perilous emigration, true to their pious faith
and convictions, they sought the divine blessing, as
essential both to their temporal and spiritual welfare.
Holding a fast, they said, " Let us seek of God a right

way for us and for our little ones, and for all our sub
stance." {Bancroft's Hist., vol. i. p. 306.) On leaving
Delft Haven, one of the pilgrim emigrants has informed
us, in brief and graphic phrase, of the mode in which
the English residents at Leyden separated from their
brethren about to brave the autumnal storms of the
Atlantic, in search of a western home. " Lifting up
our hands to each other," he says (Edward Winslow,
see Bancroft's Hist., p. 307), " and our hearts for each
other, to the Lord our God, we departed." They first
visited England, and then, September 6th, 1620, entered
upon their purposed voyage amidst uncertainties and
the just apprehensions of trials and dangers. They
landed at Plymouth, Dec. 11th (old style), and formed
the germ of that civil and social development to this
day prevailing in New England, and which, as lovers of
the human race, we may wish to see admired and
imitated in many distant nations of the earth.
Large accessions were made to the New England
colony as the oppressive measures against non-conform
ists, begun in the days of Elizabeth, were continued by
James I., and augmented by Charles I. About the
year 1630, when Archbishop Laud was at the height
of his power, extreme and vigorous persecution caused
many men who loved the very soil of England {Bancroft's
Hist., vol. i. p. 347), to expatriate themselves and seek a
home among their brethren, who as pioneers had
entered the western wilderness before them, and amid
privations and sickness were rejoicing in civil and
religious freedom. {Neal's Hist. Puritans, vol. i. pp.
367, 477, 534, 546.) (See Note A. Appendix.)

Among the emigrants were some men of education,
talents, and learning, as well as piety, who were amply
qualified to grace the pulpits of the Metropolis or fill
the professorial chairs of the Universities.
The names of Higginson, of Elliot the apostle to the
Indians, of John Colton, B.D., Fellow of Emanuel
College, Cambridge, John Davenport, B.D., Vicar of
Coleman Street, London, Thomas Hooker, Fellow of
Emanuel College, Cambridge, and Lecturer of Chelms
ford, Essex, Thomas Sheppard, M.A., John Norton,
Peter Bulkley, B.D., Fellow of St. John's College,
Cambridge, and Richard Mather, are recorded with
admiring eulogy by Neal {Hist., vol. i. pp. 546, 571, 573,
&c), and appear in the early colonial history. {Ban
croft's Hist., vol. i. p. 363.)
While emigrants were thus nocking to New England,
others were establishing themselves in the more south
ern latitudes. Some of the men who thus laid the
foundation of this great .Republic were adorned with
high intellectual and social endowments, as well as
imbued with the spirit of Christ. There were also
among the colonists a good proportion of industrious
practical men, who were willing to obtain a support by
regular and continued exertion. They were agricul
turists or merchants, and as such cultivating the soil and
engaging in trade, were occupied with employments
promotive of comfort and an advancing civilization.
They did not, like the Spaniards in South America,
waste their time and energies in the rabid pursuit of
gold. Being Englishmen, and sharing the English
spirit, they were fitted to found a republic capable of

10
making for itself a name among the nations of the
earth. Here a consideration presents itself of the first
importance. The time of the emigration to America
was after the overthrow of the Papacy m England, and
the. wide diffusion of Protestant sentiments. Those
who first came to these shores came as English
Protestants, loving religion, the Bible in the vernacular
tongue, loving education and liberty. Like John Knox,
they understood the importance of " planting the parish
school close bv the kirk."
xJ
As Protestants, they admired free inquiry; as Pro
testants, they were not afraid to have the Bible in the
hands of the people for general perusal; and were pre
pared to examine principles and strike out new modes
of civil government. Instead of feeling themselves
bound down to established forms and precedents, and
dependent on hoar antiquity, they were bold enough
to consult reason and common sense, and judge of
the rights of man and trust to the ability of the people to
make and maintain a government. They could dis
pense with a King's counsel in the formation of a civil
community, and with a Pope's or Bishop's in the adjust
ment of Church order.
Let it never be forgotten that the civil freedom of
this country had its origin in the Protestant mind, and
was fostered and established by the same Protestant
influence which gave it birth.
In vain will you look over the world through a course
of ages till the last generation, to find a papistical power
giving to a civil community the form of a republic.
The freedom of England is for ever associated with

11
Protestantism. Germany has more freedom than
Austria, Italy, and Spain, because there Catholicism has
in a measure ceased to have the ascendant. In France,
the inveterate hatred of Catholic usurpations and super
stitious inventions and abuses led to the premature and
unnatural formation of a republic. A dire responsibility
rests on the Catholic Church for driving the people of
France at the close of the last century into infidelity,
and even Atheism. (Appendix B.)
The career of this nation was due to its origin under
Protestant influences. How marked the difference
between the United States and South America ! Even
intelligent men scarcely know the names of the coun
tries in the southern part of this continent, while the
flag of the United States is known as a familiar ensign
in every harbor of the globe.
In resuming the line of thought with which this dis
course commenced, it may be stated that the country of
North America, about the middle of the eighteenth cen
tury (in 1754), became of sufficient importance to form
a matter of earnest contention between England and
France. In the war thus ensuing, the English colonists
acquired considerable skill in the use of arms, and fos
tered that military spirit which was destined to manifest
its depth and power in a desperate struggle with the
mother country. This struggle was precipitated by the
cruel indiscretion of some English soldiers at Lexington.
The war from this date (1775) may be said to have
begun — a war the result of which was, in the course of
events, to give rise to the great American Republic.
The battles of Bunker Hill, of Trenton, of Princeton,

12
the surrender of Burgoyne at Saratoga, the battle of the
Cowpens, the siege of Yorktown, and the surrender of
Cornwallis, gave to this country independence and
peace. But the peace was soon to be broken. Within
thirty years the British and Americans, who ought to
have been brethren, met in hostile array on land and
sea. The battles of Q,ueenstown and Lundy's Lane
on the northern frontier, and the defence of New
Orleans, demonstrated that if military skill and courage
be the test, the descendants of Europeans in America
will bear comparison with their ancestors in their palm
iest days. But it was on the ocean that the Americans
won the most astounding victories. America dared to
meet Britannia " on the mountain wave" and along
the pathway of the deep, and the event showed that
her confidence was not misplaced. Victory succeeded
victory, fleet conquered fleet, and ship conquered ship,
with such uniformity, that the suggestion of chance as
an explanation of the occurrence, might be passed by
in contemptuous silence. The contest lasting for three
years, gave place to a settled and durable peace, which
it is hoped will ever remain unbroken. May Great
Britain and the United States move hand in hand as
brethren in the regeneration of the world !
In taking a retrospective glance now at the portion
of our history to which our attention has been directed,
several points of interest rise into view.
First, our intelligent, virtuous ancestry was an ines
timable blessing. A kind providence contemplating
great events, brought originally to these shores a people,

13
wise, learned, pious, trained to look boldly at principles,
and strike out new forms of civil government. They
loved freedom, and they determined to enjoy it, and
leave it as a legacy to their children. For this they
were willing to toil and strive in battle — and die. A
second point of interest in our review, is the escape of
this country from the mighty despotism of Britain by a
successful revolution. Such an issue must have seemed
at first impossible. How could a few colonists cope
with the indomitable might of the greatest empire of
the globe? But the United States achieved their inde
pendence, and still keep it.
A third point of interest is the success of American
arms on the ocean. The mistress of the seas was
forced; by repeated disasters, to acknowledge the acti
vity, energy, and prowess of our infant navy. In the
origin of this nation, and in the course along which it
has been conducted, we see in light as clear as that of
the sun, the proofs of a guiding, favoring Providence.
Events were shaped for our advantage by an invisible,
mighty hand. It becomes us to acknowledge distinctly
and devoutly the hand of God in our history. God has
made us a great nation.
From the year 1775 to the present, as a nation, we
have been moving forward in a steady progress towards
an unknown height of grandeur. In 1783 we assumed,
with the consent of the world, " the separate and equal
station among the powers of the earth, to which the
laws of nature and of nature's God entitled us." {De
claration of Independence.) In 1815 we stood boldly
forth among the chief nations of the earth. It was then

14
evident that we were a people destined to possess great
ness, and exert a wide-controlling influence. Since
that period we have been expanding our wide territory,
and attracting more and more of the attention of
remote empires and kingdoms.
Within a few short years our national resources and
just expectations have been presented in new manifest
ations, which have filled our own minds with astonish
ment, and drawn forth unusual admissions from foreign
statesmen. It marked an era for this country when
Sir Robert Peel, in speaking of it on the floor of
the House of Commons, described it as " that great
country, the United States." Intelligent statesmen
must have known it before, but Sir Robert Peel, with
graceful candor, publicly acknowledged it. We shall
certainly be pardoned by foreigners in distant countries,
if we feel our vanity excited, and suffer an expression of
exultation to steal over our countenances as we gaze
with patriotic pride on the sublime spectacle which the
United States now presents, bounded as they now are
on the east by the Atlantic, and on the west by the
Pacific ocean. Our fellow-citizens are now occupying
the western slope of this vast continent, as our fathers
peopled the Atlantic seaboard. Already a new State
exists on the Pacific. Several Territories are there
marked out by legislative decree, soon to be transformed
into States, and send their senators and representatives
to the Federal Capital. This condition of things will
peremptorily demand the means of speedy communica
tion between the old States on the Atlantic and in the
Mississippi Valley, and the new States lying far towards

15
the setting sun, within sound of the loud murmur pro
duced by the broad waves of the Pacific ocean as thev
roll in upon the shore, and break, at intervals, with
startling violence. At first the swift steamship will rush
to the Isthmus, and from the western side of the
Isthmus northward to the sister States of this Republic :
but ere long the steam whistle will be heard on the
prairies, and in the deep primeval forests of the national
domain. A bond of iron will unite the East with the
West. The soul kindles into strange fervency at the
contemplation of the scenes which now open upon our
view. The great highway of nations is to lie across
the territory of the United States. Intelligence and
commercial wealth destined for England and all parts
of Europe, will forsake the old route by the Cape of
Good Hope and through the Mediterranean, and be
conveyed across this continent. The British Posses
sions in the East are to receive new value through the
growth of this nation, and the changes involved in that
growth. On these prospects the eye of the statesman may
rest with increasing interest ; but there are other pros
pects which possess an equal fascination for the Chris
tian and the enlightened philanthropist. A more
frequent and closer intercourse is to be established
between Christian and pagan countries. Of this we
already have the indication in the colonization of the
Chinese in the State of California. The subjects of
the Middle Kingdom " have received on a public occa
sion portions of the Scriptures in the Chinese language
at San Francisco."

16
It will be henceforth impossible to maintain the
framework which has kept the Chinese separate from
all other nations. Commerce and Christianity will
work revolutions in the vast millions of Eastern Asia.
The Islands of the Pacific are to acquire greater
importance in the general wide-spread changes now in
progress among them. May civilization and Christi
anity diffuse among themtheir ennobling influences ! In
giving utterance to these sentiments and in venturing to
cherish them, it is assumed that a pure Christianity will
prevail over that which is false, — that truth, as God
revealed it, will subdue error as men choose to hold it.
Should truth and a pure Protestant Christianity not
prevail, confusion and misery are the sure doom of the
nations. Civil freedom will be first restrained and then
loaded with fetters. An oppressive legitimacy will bear
sway, and ecclesiastical and political despotism will
form with each other a dread league of amity. It must
now be confessed that our national firmament is not
entirely free from clouds. There are dark masses along
the horizon from which the lightning may break with
fatal violence.
Why does Papal Rome at the present moment wear
such a look of hope and exultation as we see gleaming
upon her brow 1 Why have all signs of depression
ceased, and been replaced by an expression of undis
guised joyousness ? Are there deep laid schemes, the
result of which is anticipated by Rome as a glorious
triumph 1 And is the Papacy to predominate as in the
dark ages, and lord it over the consciences and souls of
men \ Woe, woe, to the world if it be so ! Behold

17
the movement in England re-establishing the Romish
hierarchy which Henry VIII. destroyed, and connect
with this the bold statement by Bishop Hughes that
Protestantism is on the wane, and consider the still
bolder declaration of Dr. Ryder that the Jesuits are to be,
revered for their purity and usefulness. The goodnes.s
of Jesuitism provokes a smile ! (Note C, Appendix.)
According to Bishop Hughes Protestantism is only a
transient outbreak, a mere unsightly excrescence with
out inherent life, or power of self-maintenance. But
when he tells us of the decline of Protestantism in
France, surely his recollection of history failed him.
Did Protestantism die of itself in France ? Did con
sumption seize upon it and cause it to waste away ?
Did Bishop Hughes ever hear of a certain massacre in
Paris on the eve of St. Bartholomew's day 1 (August
24th, 1572.) Was not the slaughter of 30,000 Protesr.
tants in Paris and France an event which would go
_far to account for the decline of French Protestantism 1
Pope Gregory XIII. deemed it a most joyful event,
as he celebrated it in the church of Minerva by a
solemn mass, and afterwards made it the occasion of a
jubilee throughout Christendom. If the muse of history
never condescended to inform Bishop Hughes of St.
Bartholomew's day, August 24th, 1572, and the treach
erous and bloody work then perpetrated by Catholics
on Protestants, she has not failed to whisper some infor
mation of this to every intelligent Protestant in the
world. But the Protestant church in France suffered
still more deeply and dreadfully in the reign of Louis
XIV. when the Edict of Nantes was revoked (1685).

18
(Note D, Appendix.) As the grand step in a course of
inhuman oppression and butchery might not, it may be
asked without presumption, the loss of half a million
of French Protestant Christians affect in some degree
the cause of Protestantism in France 1 And yet Bishop
Hughes appeals to the history of Protestantism in
France to show that Protestantism has no inherent life,
no soul. With the same rigorous means Catholicism
or Protestantism might be hunted out of the United
States and of any country in Europe.* Suppose the
logic of sword and fagot were so unsparingly employed
in England that half a million of Romanists were slain
and exiled, would not Catholicism feel the blow, and
suffer a " decline 1" Unless statistics are grievously at
fault there would not be a single Papist left in Eng
land, from the Tweed to Land's End. If there be
new vitality now in the old trunk of the Papacy, in any
degree in proportion to the elation of feeling manifested
by Bishop Hughes and others, this state of things is due
in part to the general indifference among Protestants in
regard to their distinguishing and noble principles, and
in far greater part to the high churchism of which
many boast who belong to the Episcopal denomination
in England and the United States. The treachery of
some Protestants — especially of some Protestant minis
ters — has inspired Rome with unbounded confidence of
approaching triumphs. The proof is at hand (" Morn
ings among Jesuits at Rome") to show that the Jesuits
at Rome profess to know of a wide defection in England
* Stern, inhuman persecution, to the extremity of absolute extermination, pre
vented the spread ^of the Reformation in Italy and Spain. (Note E, Appendix.)

19
among the established clergy. If this be true, if such
defection does exist and in part only meets the public
eye, then the final resort must be had to the people, to
the laity as distinct from the clergy, thus showing the
value of that fundamental Protestant principle, the right
and duty of the people to possess the Scriptures in their
own language, and read them, and so judge of all doc-
tr'mes founded on the Word of God.
In thus referring to anti-Protestant principles and
feeling as a cloud upon the political sky which over
hangs our country, and a sign adverse to our national
prosperity, the rule of judgment has been this, — that we
can only prosper as a free people. To such prosperity
an ecclesiastical despotism cannot cordially and of choice
contribute. Romanism has ever on emergency (Guizot
on Civilization) sided with political despotism.*
But there may be a show of love for freedom (by
Roman Catholic bishops and others) in a country like
this, where democracy is deemed sacred by the mass of
the people. Through the forms of the extremest liberty
the designs against liberty can be most effectually accom
plished. When political Jesuitism speaks to our people,
therefore, you will find an advocacy of freedom to the
utmost extent. Have we not from time to time already
heard the wily priest claiming to be the apostle of
liberty If And is it possible in the nature of things that
* " But when the question of political securities came into debate between power
and liberty ; when any step was taken to establish a system of permanent insti
tutions which might effectually protect liberty from the invasions of power in
general, the Church (Catholic) always ranged itself on the side of despotism."
—Guizot, 138.
t " In times gone by Jesuitism sought to rule the world by pushing itself nearer

20
suJi sentiments and views can be uttered with sin
cerity 1 Must they not be connected with a hidden
design ? The Romish hierarchy is a despotism. The
member of the Jesuitical Society is sworn to obey the
dictum of his captain-general, and can the lover of
ecclesiastical and Jesuitical despotism love civil liberty ?
The laws of the human mind answer, No ! If it be said
that the number of Roman Catholics is comparatively
small, and hence, supposing them to be unfriendly to
political freedom, they can do no great harm in this
country ; the reply is, their number may become formi
dable in a contested election when an unprincipled poli
tical demagogue will engage to favor them on condition
that their assistance be granted him in the accomplish
ment of his ambitious designs.
But there is no wish to magnify their power of evil
and their hostile will. Let the people of this country
understand their principles, and thence reason on what
must inevitably be their infiuencev when it can be fully
exerted, and there is no danger which need appal us.
There is a danger far greater than any which has
been mentioned. The danger above described is future,
perhaps remote — this to which allusion is now made is
nigh, and well fitted to awaken immediate dread. You
can scarcely be at a loss to understand the bearing of
and nearer still to thrones; or by actually edging itself on to seats of power.
But in times to come, as we may imagine, it will seek to compass the same
design by shouldering the mob forward in every popular assault upon thrones. So
lotg as monarchies rested solidly in their plates upon the field of Europe, the
Jesuit Society wished to stand upon the same terra firma, but now that this
ground trembles beneath the foot, it will commend itself upon its own raft to the
mighty deep — the ' many waters — the people !' " — Taylor's Loyola, 371.

21
the remark just made. But that there may be no mis
apprehension, let it be fairly and openly stated that
slavery is now causing sectional divisions, and exciting
deep and bitter feelings of hostility and enmity between
the North and the South. In the length and breadth of
the North there is not in all probability an individual
who may be regarded as an advocate of slavery. It is
known to be an evil, and as such in the abstract is con
demned. Perhaps on the abstract question the South would
agree with the North. But slavery in the South is not
an abstract question ; it is something which exists ;
something palpable ; something difficult to manage and
remove. The true view to be taken of the people of the
South by us is that they are in a most unfortunate
situation. Slavery has a foothold amongst them, and
enters as a constituent element into their social and
political fabric. The present generation of men did
not originate slavery, it becomes us to remember —
they found it fastened on them by their ancestors. At
the time of its origin it was not deemed so great an evil
as it is now known to be. Religion was pleaded for
it — since the Africans were a heathen people, and if
made slaves were to be introduced into a Christian
country and be within reach of Christian influences.
(Note F, Appendix.)
The opinion of slavery in New England in the early
colonial times may be learned from two facts : first, Gov.
Winthrop mentions Indian slaves among his bequests ;
and secondly, "the articles of the early New England

22
confederacy class persons among the spoils of war."
{Bancroft, vol. i. p. 168.)
But slavery soon ceased, it may be said, perhaps, in
the Northern States. Ah ! the pure and deep benevo
lence of the North set the slaves free because they could
not endure the sight of bondage. On this subject hear
what is said by Bancroft, who may be safely trusted as
an impartial historian on the subject of slavery (vol. iii.
p. 407)." The physical constitution of the negro decided his
home in the New World : he loved the sun ; even the
climate of Virginia was too chill for him. His labor,
therefore, increased in value as he proceeded South ; and
hence the relation of master and slave came to be effectu
ally a Southern institution ; to the Southern colonies
mainly Providence intrusted the guardian shipand the
education of the colored race." ( Note G, Appendix.)
So writes the historian of New England. Accord
ingly, self interest at the North abolished slavery — self
interest and not pure benevolence. It becomes the peo
ple at the North then, in candor towards the facts of
history, to remember that slavery ceased in this region
because it was unprofitable. Had it been profitable, and
hence had it become an essential part of our political
system, it is likely it would have remained to this day.
{Bancroft, vol. ii. p. 171.)
The same historian (vol. iii. p. 408) thus describes the
improvement of the African in a state of slavery in this
country : " The concurrent testimony of tradition
represents the negroes at their arrival to have been gross
and stupid, having memory and physical strength, but

23
undisciplined in the exercise of reason and imagination.
Their organization seemed analogous to their barbarism.
But at the end of a generation all observers affirmed the
marked progress of the Negro American. In the
midst of the horrors of slavery and the slave trade, the
masters had at least performed the office of .advancing
and civilizing the negro."
Having thus seen the representation given by Mr.
Bancroft concerning the connexion of slavery with
Southern institutions, we may turn to behold for a mo
ment the views expressed concerning slavery in 1787
by members of the Convention which formed the pre
sent Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Sherman of Connecticut (Wed. Aug. 22d,
1787, Madison Papers, vol. iii. p. 1390) said, " He disap
proved of the slave trade ; yet as the States were now
possessed of the right to import slaves, as the public
good did not require it to be taken from them, and as it
was expedient to have as few objections as possible to
the proposed scheme of government, he thought it best
to leave the matter as we find it. He observed the
abolition of slavery to be going on in the United States,
and that the good sense of the several states would pro
bably by degrees complete it." Mr. Sherman was fol
lowed by Col. Mason of Virginia, who used in debate
this strong language — the more valuable now as showing
the complexion of Southern feeling in 1787 — "This
infernal traffic," said Col. Mason, " (slave trade) origin
ated in the avarice of British merchants. {Bancroft,
vol. iii. pp. 232, 402,412,414.) The British Government
constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop

24
to it. Maryland and Virginia," he said, "had already
prohibited the importation of slaves expressly." He
thus described the pernicious effects of slavery. " Sla
very discourages arts and manufactures. The poor
despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent
the emigration of whites, who really enrich and
strengthen a country. They produce the most perni
cious effects on manners. Every master of slaves is
born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of
heaven on a country : as nations cannot be rewarded or
punished in the next world, they must be in this. By
an inevitable chain of causes and effects Providence
punishes national sins by national calamities. He
lamented that some of our Eastern brethren had, from
a lust of gain, embarked in this nefarious traffic. Pie
held it essential in every point of view, that the General
Government should have the power to prevent the
increase of Slavery." Mr. Ellsworth of Connecticut
said, " Let us not intermeddle. As population increases
poor laborers will be so plenty as to render slavery use
less." Mr. Pinckney and General Pinckney of South
Carolina contended for the right of importing slaves.
Mr. Gerry of Massachusetts thought, "we had nothing
to do with the conduct of States, but ought to be careful
not to give any sanction to it." Mr. Gouverneur Morris
of Pa. wished the whole subject to be committed, includ
ing the clauses relating to taxes on exports and to a
navigation act. " These things may form a bargain
among the Northern and Southern States." " Mr. Sher
man said it was better to let the Southern States import
slaves than to part with them (the States), if they made

25
it a sine qua. non. He was opposed to a tax on slaves
imported as making the matter worse, because it implied
they were property!' {Mad. Papers, vol. iii. p. 1396.)
From the sketch of the debate now given, we
may learn the tone of feeling in 1787 on the subject
of slavery at the North and at the South. The views
of gentlemen at the North and at the South resemble
those which now prevail in the same sections of our
country ; but this difference is discernible — the absence
of bitter feeling on the part of Northern men towards
their brethren of the South who claimed the right of
upholding slavery.
Several suggestions now arise on a review of the
debate just presented. First : Moral considerations
had some weight with the members of the Convention
from the North — in their judgment of slavery ; but there
were other considerations less worthy. Secondly :
Several Southern States wished the continuance of the
slave trade from its utility rather than from any view
of it as right and good. Thirdly: Even Southern men
contempla'ted it as an evil which was in time to be
removed. Fourthly : The Constitution was adopted
by men who saw slavery in all its bearings, its effects,
and demerits, and hence was adopted on a principle of
compromise. The North did not trample on the South,
and the South did not prevail against the North. If
slavery was important to some of the States, the feeling-
was that it might exist, rather than prevent the compre
hension of all the people of the States into one great
nation. Fifthly : The Constitution was formed amid
difficulties, and jarring and conflicting sectional interests.

26
A happy illustration of this may be found in the speech
made by Franklin before the Convention in expressing
his views in favor of the Constitution which had been
deliberately adopted. {Mad. Papers, vol. iii. p. 1596.)
He said, " there were some parts of the Constitution
of which he did not approve, but agreed to the Consti
tution with all its faults, if they were such, because he
thought a General Government to be necessary." He
added, " I doubt, too, whether any other Convention ice
can obtain, will be able to make a better Constitution.
He continued, " Much of the strength and efficiency of
any Government in procuring and securing happiness
to the people depends on opinion, — on the general
opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as
the wisdom and integrity of its governors. I hope,
therefore, for our own sakes as a part of the people, and
for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unani
mously in recommending this Constitution (if approved
by Congress, and confirmed by the Conventions), wher
ever our influence may extend, and turn our future
thought and endeavors to the means of having it well
administered." So spake Benjamin Franklin, whose
last public act was to sign a memorial to Congress as
President of an Abolition Society.
That the members of the Convention of 1787 felt a
solemn responsibility resting upon them, must be appar
ent to all acquainted with the history of our country.
Slavery was acknowledged and felt to be an evil that
ought to be removed, and which, according to their
expectations, would be removed in the progress of time.
Northern men, feeling the impotence of such a confede-

27
ration among the States as had existed, and the
necessity of a Constitutional Union and a controlling
General Government, did not deem themselves war
ranted to separate from the South on the question of
Slavery, and, therefore, they gave their consent to the
Constitution as it now stands. That Constitution may
not be perfect, as was said by Franklin, but it was pro
bably the best, which, all things considered, could be
formed. Such as it was,, its formation tasked the wis
dom of the Fathers, of the Republic then living. At
one period Benjamin Franklin, under the pressure of
extreme difficulties, exclaimed, that God governed in the
affairs of men, and, therefore, moved that prayer should
daily be offered in the Convention for his aid and
direction, before proceeding to the business demanding
its attention. {Mad. Papers, vol. iii. pp. 984, 5.) This
motion was not sustained, but its being made is proof
to us of the exigency in which one of the wisest of our
country's sons judged the Convention to be placed.
(Note H, Appendix.)
Comparing the present with the past, we find slavery
as a cause of division between the North and the South
vastly augmented. The prevailing fear among certain
members of the Convention was that the Constitution
contained elements tending to monarchy. In this fear
Benjamin Franklin participated. {Mad. Papers, vol. ii.
p. 790.) George Mason and Edmund Randolph of Vir
ginia feared that the power of Congress was excessive,
and would grow into a despotism.
But did George Washington feel no scruples in
regard to the Constitution, or did he give to it his full

28
consent ? George Washington, the President of the
Convention, spoke once only with a view to direct the
action of the body over which he presided, and on that
one occasion expressed his wish that there might be a
representative for every 30,000 of the population,
instead of one to every 40,000, but said not a word on
the subject of slavery. {Mad. Papers, vol. iii. p. 1599.)
The amendment proposed was made by a unanimous
vote. The Constitution thus formed with much labor and
wisdom, and by men of distinguished ability, moral worth,
and zeal for civil liberty, has directed our national
affairs for more than sixty years, and will any one say,
the nation has not enjoyed prosperity and liberty under
our General Government? Imperfection in some legisla
tive acts and measures there may have been, and so
there are spots in the sun. But the fears of Franklin
and others about a despotism have thus far proved
groundless. Our republican institutions will probably
remain as they are unless divisions, factions, and civil
war should exalt a successful soldier to a dangerous
height, and give him the power of holding and wield
ing an iron sceptre.
The mention of divisions, factions, and civil war
excites doubtless, in the minds of us all, the recollection
of recent events during the late session of Congress,
and the subsequent agitation in regard to slavery in
certain portions of the church and in several of the
States. That Christian men, professing to fear God and
revere his ordinances, should have pursued the course

29
adopted by them is cause of humiliation and profound
regret. It is feared they cannot escape the charge of
expressing a seditious spirit, and abetting sedition,
which, once in action, may proceed to lengths which
would stain the land with blood. May that God who,
as Franklin, on a memorable occasion, said, " governs
in the affairs of men," maintain peace and order
throughout our borders !
The opponents of slavery profess a devoted zeal for
the cause of humanity, and an ardent desire for the
welfare of the colored race. They consider the slaves
at the South as an oppressed and suffering people, and
hence they are led to seek their emancipation, and
through their emancipation, their true interest and wel
fare. As has already been stated in this discourse,
there are no advocates of slavery at the North. We all
desire men to be free.
But some require the immediate liberation of all the
slaves in the country, and others think the liberation
should be gradual, allowing preparation to be made by
the slaves themselves for their self-support in a state of
freedom. The latter class think that many of the
slaves, destitute of forethought, and accustomed to only
one kind of labor, would fail to obtain a livelihood
when thrown on their own resources; and, therefore,
ought not, out of regard to their true welfare, to be at
once set free. These men would be satisfied if they
could see measures for prospective freedom in the
Southern States. Such measures Thos. Jefferson con
sidered in the highest degree important, as we may
judge from the fact, that in an enumeration of acts per-

30
formed by him, tending to benefit his fellow-citizens
and posterity, he named the part he had taken against
the perpetuity of slavery in Virginia. (Compare Note
G, p. 143, vol. i., with page 40 Jefferson's Works.)
The political question to which slavery gives rise is
one of great difficulty. If the subject were viewed
in thesi, the South would agree with the North in stating
the doctrine of freedom as it is found in our Declaration
of Independence — "We hold these truths to be self-
evident : that all men are created equal — that they are
endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights — that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi
ness." But slavery in this country is politically compli
cated and interwoven with a variety of interests. Such
as it is, it is the joint work of the North and the South.
In Jefferson's remarks on the proceedings of Congress
in regard to the original draught of the Declaration of
Independence {Jeff. Works, vol. i. pp. J 5 and 19), he
states that the clause relating to the slave trade "was
stricken out in complaisance to S. Carolinaand Georgia,"
but adds, " Our Northern brethren also, I believe, felt a
little tender on these censures, for though their people had
very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty con
siderable carriers of them to others'.' The clause above
mentioned, and which was struck out of the declaration,
was as follows : — " He (the king of Great Britain) has
waged a cruel war against human nature itself, violating
its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons
of a distant people who never offended him, captivating
and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere,
or to incur miserable death in their transportation

31
thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of
Infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of
Great Britain. Determined to keep open market where
men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his
negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to pro
hibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that
this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distin
guished dye, he is now exciting those very people to rise
in arms against us, and to purchase that liberty of which
he has deprived them by murdering the people on whom
he also obtruded them ; thus paying off former crimes
committed against the liberties of one people with
crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives
of another." Such just and noble sentiments as these
were held by Jefferson, and many others of those who
composed the Congress of 1776.
To the extract given above, it is proper to subjoin
another. {Jeff. Works, vol. i. pp. 39, 40.) " The bill on
the subject of slaves (Assembly of Va.) was a mere
digest of the existing laws respecting them, without any
intimation of a plan for a future and general emancipa
tion. It was thought better that this should be kept
back, and attempted only by way of amendment, when
ever the bill should be brought on. The principles of
the amendment, however, were agreed on, that is to
say the freedom of all born after a certain day, and
deportation at a proper age. But it was found that
the public mind would not yet bear the proposition, nor
will it bear it even at this day (1821) ; and yet the day
is not distant when it must bear and adopt it, or worse
will follow. Nothing is more certainly written in the

32
book of fate, than that these people are to be free; nor
' is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot
live under the same government. Nature, habit, opi
nion, have drawn indelible lines of distinction between
them. It is still in our power to direct the process of
emancipation and deportation peaceably, and in such
slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly,
and their place be pari passu filled up by free white
laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on,
human nature must shudder at the prospect held up.
We should in vain look for an example in the Spanish
deportation or deletion of the Moors. This precedent
would fall far short of our case." Language of this
tenor is extremely rare now, if indeed it exists at all
among Southern statesmen. Statesmen and private
citizens there are who might use it and would, if they
were to give utterance to their reflections and convic
tions, but they feel in the present emergency compelled
to silence. As they are reduced to silence, so they are
almost prevented from exerting any active influence to
diminish and ultimately remove the evil of slavery.
The state of restraint here mentioned is the result of
declarations and movements by zealous aud extreme
abolitionists who denounce the South, and pour forth
curses on the slaveholder.
These men, in their mad proceedings (to say the
least), violate all the rules and principles of rhetorical
philosophy. With defamation for argument, with slan
der and abuse for persuasion, and ribaldry and scorn
and curses for pathos, how can they ever hope to gain
the ear and sway the judgment of the South 1 South-

33
ern men must be more slavish than their own slaves to
yield meekly to the favorite appeals of abolitionists. It
is not in human nature to do it. On the contrary, they
will be exasperated, and repay scorn with scorn, and
add to the restrictions which already bind the slaves,
¦and make broad declarations about rendering slavery
perpetual. Were Jefferson alive at this day to witness
what is familiar to us, instead of writing as he did, and
assuming an attitude in opposition to slavery, it is more
than probable that he would take part with the South
against the rage, and abuse, and slander of Northern
abolitionists. In the ranks of abolition are to be found unquestion
ably some benevolent, pure minded men, who love God,
and love all that is humane and generous,— but there
are others, destitute of all reverence for Gods revealed
word. If it suits their purpose, they will quote the
Bible ; and if the Bible is against them, they will scorn
its authority. On the subject of slavery they will take
a passage from Deuteronomy, and treat it as laying
down the law for all nations and ages; but on the
subject of capital punishment the same men will say
that " they can judge for themselves without the aid of
any book (allusion is made to the Bible) whatever."
Some of them will not scruple to deny the inspiration
of the Scriptures, and thus transform Christianity into
a refined Deism.
But the Bible is quoted against the Fugitive Slave
Bill passed at the last session of Congress, by students
of the Scriptures, by ministers and Christians, by good,
well meaning persons who seek the welfare of mankind.
3

34
The passage which has become celebrated for the fre
quent appeals to it, is found in Deut. xxiii. 15 and 16, and
is in these words : " Thou shaft 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 which it liketh him best, thou shalt not oppress
him." This passage is often quoted by extreme aboli
tionists, as if it were as simple as a drop of rain, and
as decisive in their favor as a sign from heaven. Now
to form a just estimate of this passage as respects its
weight and worth in the present controversy carried on
in our country, the proper course is to refer to interpret
ations of a previous date, and by persons under no bias,
to distort the truth. Such interpretations are easily
obtained from a variety of sources. The five now to
be mentioned are taken from Pool's synopsis {Synopsis*
criticorum, &;c.) : — 1, " Thou shalt not deliver to his
master a servant to be unjustly molested, until his anger
abates, when the master seeks to kill or mutilate him ;"
" Thou shalt not deliver a slave to his master on his
bare demand without evidence of the justness of his
Claim." 2. " A price shall publicly be given to the
master for the servant." 3. " Perhaps in this manner
God manifests his displeasure against slavery, as the
laws of Moses favor liberty, Ex. xxj." 4. "It treats of
a foreign (heathen master), and thus the land of Israel
was an asylum, where slaves embracing the true religion
might find security. This is said to be justified on the
ground that the Canaanites were devoted to destruction,
and all that they had was given to the Israelites. The

35
ancients say further (with great probability of truth,
Pool thinks), that a Canaanitish slave escaping from his
Jewish master, while living out of Judea, was not to
be restored to him." 5. "The 15th verse can be
rendered, — ' Thou shalt not hide, or secure a slave
from his master, but shalt keep him that he may be
delivered up when a demand to that effect is made.' "
"The 16th verse (He shall dwell with thee, &c.) seems
to favor the fourth interpretation (a slave escaping from
a heathen master, or a Jew living in a heathen country),
but may be expounded to mean (1st interpretation),
that a slave should be protected against the cruel wrath
of his master."
Bishop Patrick, in his Commentary, makes these
remarks—" The Hebrew doctors understand this of a
servant of another nation who was become a Jew j
whom his master, if he went to dwell out of Ju<lea,
might not carry along with him against his will i and if
he fled from him when he had carried him, he might not
be delivered to him, but suffered to dwell in the land of
Israel. Which they understood also of a servant that
fled from his master out of any of the countries of the'
Gentiles into the land of Israel, which was to be a safe
refuge for him." (His authority is Selden, lib, vi.
De Jure Nat. et Gent., juxta cliseip* Hebr.,. cap. viii. p.
711.) Scott, the commentator, thus speaks on this passage :
— " We cannot suppose that this law required the
Israelites to entertain slaves who had robbed their mas*
ters or left their masters without cause, but such only
as were cruelly treated, and fled to them for protection

36
especially from the neighboring nations. To such they
were commanded to afford shelter and show great
kindness, both in order to recommend their religion,
and to give them an opportunity of learning it." (No
authority quoted.)
Jahn, in his Archaeology (sec. 173, p. 183), says —
" A slave who had fled from another nation, and sought
a refuge among the Hebrews, was to be received and
treated with kindness, and not to be forcibly returned
back again."
Let the question now be asked, whether these con
flicting interpretations do not conclusively show that
this celebrated, oft-quoted passage, Deut. xxiii. 15, 16, is
appealed to with too much confidence by the opponents
of the Fugitive Slave bill, as applicable to the circum
stances in which ice find ourselves in this country I
From their manner of appealing to it, you might sup
pose the Mosaic polity sought to abolish slavery ; but
so far from doing it, it merely legislated in regard to it
with a humane view to diminish the evils of slavery.
JNative Israelites, Hebrews of the Hebrews, might be
slaves for six years, and even by consent, for life.
They might become slaves in payment of debt, 2 Kings
iv. 1. As regards men of Gentile origin in general,
. they could be held in perpetual bondage.
Does the Mosaic polity favor the abolitionists who
pron-Osuace slavery in all circumstances a sin in itself?
How cam those men approve of the laws of Moses ?
how can they avoid censuring them ? But the Mosaic
polity was theocratic, and hence the censure passed on
that touches the divine Legislator. Will they accuse

37
God of indifference towards human rights and human
freedom ?
Those men who take the position, as tnany at the
present day in oul- country boldly do, that a civil con
stitution which allows slavery to exist is unfit to stand,
is so contrary to the divine laws as to deserve in any
way to be frustrated and destroyed, have a delicate and
difficult task to perform. They declare the Mosaic
institutions unworthy of a place in the world. They
affix to those institutions the stigma of dishonor. But
as they feel bound to set themselves in array against a
civil constitution that authorizes slavery, do they not
virtually blame Jesus Christ and the apostles for want
of lofty principle and sublime moral daring in not con
demning slavery in the most open and public manner,
and declaring its sanction by any man proof against
his piety ? It is not easy to see how the extreme
abolitionists of this day can call Christ master, or be
willing to follow the teachings of apostles and inspired
men. Did Jesus Christ excite sedition against the
Jewish or Roman government on account of the exist
ence of slavery ? Did Paul say, that Christian men,
men of high and pure moral principle, owed to the
Roman government no allegiance, and were authorized
to treat its laws as a nullity, because that government
allowed a most galling and oppressive slavery {Ban
croft, vol. i. p. 161). Hear his language on the duty of
Christians in the Roman Empire to that Empire — for he
has spoken distinctly upon this very subject, Rom. xiii.
1 : — " Let every soul (man) be subject unto the higher
powers. For there is no power but of God : the

38
powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever
therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of
God." It gives significance to this language to know
who sat on the imperial throne at the time the epistle
to the Romans was written. Who was then the
Roman Emperor? Nero, the cruel, bloody Nero, the
man who first enacted laws against the church of
Christ. And yet Paul says, that the civil government
of Rome, administered by such a man as Nero, was
entitled to obedience.
But the teaching addressed by abolitionists to the
slaves themselves is very different from that which
formed part of Paul's inspired apostolic ministry. The
abolitionists say that a slave should strive for his free
dom, and is authorized in doing so to slay his master
if necessary. Hear the teaching of Paul, 1 Tim. vi. },
2 : — "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. 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." Wliitby (an
English, not a prejudiced American, divine) thus para
phrases the passage quoted : — " Let as many servants
as are under the yoke {of bondage to the heathen) count
their own masters as worthy of all {due) honor, that
the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed
{or evil spoken of, as tending to dissolve those civil obli
gations, but rather honored in all estates of men, as
tending to make them better in their several relations ;

39
Titus ii. 10 : and more subject even to hard andfroward
masters ;" 1 Pet. ii. 18). Does not the Bible then
favor slavery ? No. The Old Testament diminished
the evils connected with it, though it allowed it to
stand just as it allowed polygamy to stand ; and the
New Testament, by its clear teaching on the law of
kindness, and in regard to things which are just and
equal, and its exhibition of man's immortality and
supreme accountability to God, set in motion mighty
influences promotive of universal freedom.
The difference between the doctrine of the abolition
ists and the doctrine of the Bible is this — that while the
abolitionists would destroy civil government in order to
effect their object, the Bible upholds civil government,
while it publishes truth and employs persuasion, tending
conservatively and happily to produce emancipation
and moral goodness. Let the Bible infuse its spirit
into all men, and the world would rejoice in liberty
and purity. This the inhabitants of the Southern
States should know, and of this they are to be told.
This, too, and more, they will hear, if they are properly
approached and addressed, and hearing this, will regard
it. Leave the South to its own view of right and duty
— leave it to act generously, and soon, it is believed,
they would begin to move as the God of the Bible, and
as the civilized world urges them, in the adoption of
measures for the emancipation of the African race, and
their removal to their own sunny and fertile land.
Africa must be regarded as the proper home of Africans.
There must they be free : there must they be enlight
ened ; there possess power, there be happy. In the

40
present state of our country, African colonization
becomes unspeakably important, demanding (if the
South consent) national attention and national legisla
tion and effort. Oh ! when shall we pay back our
debt to Africa in sending to her her long lost sons,
transformed into a civilized Christian race, that may
be to her as life from the dead !
Agreeably to what has now been said, it appears tha^
a civil government entitled to obedience may stand,
while there is not embodied in it the entire moral sys
tem of the Bible. Did not the theocracy by Moses
allow polygamy, and hence fail to establish the true
doctrine of marriage ? How much true Scriptural
moral principle and truth were embodied in the impe
rial government of Rome when Nero reigned I
But God adjusted the theocracy, and gave his sanc
tion through Paul, Rom. xiii. 1, to the government of
Rome so far as to prohibit sedition.
If, now, we assume that the Constitution of the
United States does not embody the moral code of the
Bible, shall we destroy that Constitution ? A momen
tous, yet, in the present crisis, a practical question. Is
the Constitution less worthy of support and permanence
than the government of Ancient Rome ? Does it favor
liberty less, and the church or religion less ? These
questions deserve consideration by those who profess to
be guided by safe principle and by the Bible. Did not
the civil code of Moses provide for slavery from one
end of the promised land to the other — from Anti-
Libanus to Idumea ? Did not that code tolerate poly
gamy ? And did not imperial Rome persecute the

41
church; enact laws against it, and strive to crush it ?
But with direct reference to that government Paul said,
" Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the'
ordinance of God." — Rom. xiii. 2.
If it be said the doctrine here laid down makes pas
sive obedience (in all circumstances) a duty, and con
demns the Revolution of 1776, the answer is not — it
does not, but it does forbid sedition. Against what do
many extravagant, reckless men lift their sacrilegious
hands when they seek to rend in pieces our national
charter? Against the noblest Constitution the world
has ever seen — a Constitution consulting to the greatest
extent the rights and liberties of men — allowing the
utmost freedom in preaching the Gospel, and granting
all required protection to the Church of Christ. And
shall such a Constitution be overthrown together with
the government of which it is the basis ? Shall both
perish ? This U?iion was formed with extreme diffi
culty, — so many and so great were the conflicting senti
ments and interests of the thirteen original States. —
{Mad. Papers, 1593, 1594, 1600, 1602.)
The Union was judged to be desirable and necessary,
after experience had taught the insufficiency of the old
Confederation. — {Jeff. Works, vol. i. 63 ; Federalist, 9,
14, 18, 21, &c.)
The prosperity of this country in the last seventy
years has shown the importance of the Union and the
wisdom of the Constitution. With profound sadness,
therefore, do we hear of the Union being in danger.
It is in danger, — no man can doubt it. And there are
men who war against the Union, and think they do

42
God service. Does God delight in strife and blood
shed ? Does God desire to see brother arrayed against
brother in civil conflict ? That the States of this Union
can peaceably separate from each other is scarcely
within the compass of possibility. No ! Such separa
tion being .made, a long border stretching from the
Atlantic, and losing itself in the west, would be the
line of strife and bloody commotion. Courageous and
exasperated men on the north and south of that line
would soon meet on the battle-field. Imagination cow
ers and trembles to view the dire spectacle. Would
God rejoice at it ? Would angels hurry from remote
spheres to find delight in the mutual butchery of bro
thers ? No ! Misguided men ! God would behold
such deadly strife with retributive anger, and angels
would hasten from it, or weep as they linger to gaze on
it. Infernal spirits might rejoice ; the demons of
monarchy and legitimacy might hold a jubilee ; and all
the leagued adversaries of freedom in Europe, from
Russia to the point of Italy, would join in a shout and
chorus of triumph. A blow would be struck at Repub
licanism which might prove fatal for ages to the liber
ties of mankind. — (See Note I. Appendix.)
Are we (of this day) only possessed of the wisdom
to know the rights of men, or of the virtue to state
and uphold them ? Are political wisdom and virtue
confined to the advocates of abolition and the men
who raise the cry — "Perish the Constitution of the
United States, it is unfit to exist ? " Shall we then go
to the graves of such men as Benjamin Franklin, Ru-
fus King, and of George Washington, to call down

43
imprecations upon their mouldering remains, while we
proclaim them traitors to the cause of freedom and ene
mies to human happiness ? There is error, — there must
be error, if not guilt, — on the part of some who now
seek to convulse this country with agitation, endanger
ing both peace and freedom. Once let the storm of
civil war break over this land, and who can tell what
portion of liberty would remain 1
The country wants rest. The cause of. religion
wants it. Divided Churches in a state of repose might
reunite, and join as formerly, in the same acts of wor
ship. If agitation must continue on the principle of
abolition, the South has no security against continual
encroachment. Ye professed lovers of truth and god
liness, if you must make war against the political Con
stitution of the United States, tell us what would be
your course as missionaries in a heathen country ?
Would you first stir up sedition there against a govern
ment that favored idolatry I So did not the Apostles
of Jesus Christ. They opposed idolatry with the
utmost forCe of reason, and with an undying zeal for
the glory of Jehovah, but they never cast about them
"firebrands, arrows, and death" {Prov. xxvi. 18) ; never
maligned the civil authority ; never strove to clothe the
imperial magistracy of Rome with curses and revilings.
As the cruel grinding despotism of the Caesars suffered
them to preach the Gospel, they thankfully availed them
selves of the privilege, and, in return for the favor they
enjoyed, they taught explicitly — and who dare say
insincerely ? — the duty of submission to the government.
Such was the example of the Apostles, and unquestion-

44
ably their example was by the design of our Lord Jesus
Christ to guide us and others in all subsequent times.
That example is to guide us now, if we are to abide
by the " higher law " of the Scriptures. The enact
ment of the Fugitive Slave Bill does not demonstrate
the Government of this land to be worse than the iron
despotism of Rome, and so much worse that we are
forbidden to reverence or regard it by all that is noble
in manhood and sacred in moral principle. If avowed
and notorious infidels had represented the Bible as
teaching the bloody sedition with which we are strange
ly made familiar as the doctrine of Christian ministers,
we should have been sure that their design was to sap
the foundations of religion, and to stir up against the
Church the strong embittered feeling of partisan and
political rancor. And. when Christian ministers take
ground, such as infidels only can consistently occupy,
they are doing irreparable injury to the cause of Christ
which they profess to love and promote.
That wonderful book, the Bible, contains instruction
suited to the present emergency in our country, and so
exactly fitted to the times that we feel as if the prophe
tic eye of inspiration has looked through the vista of
ages to the present hour, and across the world to this
remote land. Listen ! We are told by men that the
Fugitive Slave Bill is iniquitous, base ; that it exposes
the Government to scorn ; that it is to be treated as a
nullity, and even to be resisted by force of arms at the
risk and sacrifice of life ; and that death in such a
struggle is a blessed and glorious martyrdom. This
doctrine is the " higher law " possessing such extreme

45
sanctity as to nullify the acts of any government which
ventures to violate it !
Let the question now be distinctly put, whether an
inspired man, an Apostle, ever felt himself bound to
restore a slave to his master ? Did this ever occur ?
It did, and the fact is indisputable.
A slave whose name was Onesimus, fled from his
master Philemon, living at Colosse, and coming to
Rome, there met with the Apostle Paul, and was con
verted under his ministry. After his conversion he was
for a season detained by Paul at Rome, for the sake of
certain services of which he was capable, and which
were deemed of great importance.
This man, this fugitive slave Onesimus, the Apostle
Paul sent back to his master Philemon, with an apology
for not having sent him sooner. {Epist. to Phil. v. 10,
&c.) " I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, which in
time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable
to thee and to me, whom I have sent again ; thou
therefore receive him : whom I would have retained
with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto
me in the bonds of the Gospel ; but without thy mind
would I do nothing."
This fact is on record in the Bible ; this fact is part
of Apostolic Church-history; this fact is part of scrip
tural teaching ; is one mode in which God has chosen
to teach us our duty under the Constitution which
forms the several sovereign States of this Republic into
one great nation The fact, as has been said, is indis
putable. Its import cannot be annulled by saying Paul
did not appreciate the advantages of freedom. (1 Cor.

vii. 21.) "Art th^pu called being a servant (slave) care
not "for it ; but if thou mayest be made free, use it
rather ; " nor by saying that the fact stands alone in
the Bible, having no analogous teaching connected with
it. {Eph. vi. 5, 6.) " Servants (including slaves), be
obedient to them that are your masters according to the
flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your
heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-
pleasers ; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will
of God from the heart." {Titus ii. 9.) "Exhort ser
vants to^be obedient unto their own masters, and to
please them well in all things." Now the " higher law,"
of which we hear so much, assumes to be the law of
the Bible, but you see it is not the Bible, and that it
finds no support in the Bible ; nay that the Bible con
demns it. What then ? These boastful teachers of a
sublimated morality are " higher " than the Scriptures,
and, in being so, are higher and purer than God himself.
They object not only to a human enactment but to
divine legislation. They are, therefore, holding up the
Scriptures before the eyes of men, and denouncing them
as defective, behind the times, below the morality of this
day. They profess (we know) to love the Scriptures
and to love Christ. " Judas, betrayest thou the son of
man with a kiss ? "
But, as has been said, the Bible favors liberty, and
seeks to give men freedom, purity, happiness, and will
•do it, the most surely and the most effectually, according
to the methods which God himself has described and
established. Conclusion. We have taken on this occasion a

47
hasty glance at the history of our country from its first
settlement until now, and have seen abundant proofs of
the divine care and goodness. Surely our hearts should,
in view of God's great mercies, rejoice with tfranksgiv-
ing. A little more than two centuries ago, the pioneers
of the South were starving in Virginia {see Bancroft's
Hist., vol. i. 340), and the first settlers of the North
were shivering, encased in ice on the seaboard of Mas
sachusetts. After wars with the Indians, the French,
the British, we took our place in the front rafik of
nations. Institutions of religion, learning, and bene^
volence adorn our country. The spires of churches
in every city, town, and village, pointing towards hea
ven, give their solemn, silent admonition to us to pre
pare to meet God. Our national ensign is known and
respected on every sea and in every harbor. " Our com
mercial enterprise penetrates every avenue leading to
the different nations of the globe. With commerce tfre
Protestant religion goes forth on its embassy of#peace
and mercy. And is our prosperity to be disturbed, to
cease ? Shall the ship of state, after outriding two fear-"
ful tempests raised by the demon of war, now sink and
perish amid the crested billows of an angry sea ? Shall
the temple of our liberty, the noblest structure ever
reared by the hands of man, and which seemed to
be destined to perpetuity, now be shaken, and fall on
its foundations a heap of ruins ? Shall the flag of the
Union which has waved " in the battle and the breeze,"
which has waved over a happy people, be torn in pieces,
and cast upon the^ winds ? Forbid it, Almighty God !
Let not the strife of words proceed to the strife of deeds !

48

Let not brothers meet in armed array to shed each
other's blood !
True patriotism summons us to preserve the Union ;
religion aids patriotism. The States can never sepa
rate except in wrath, involving war. May they never
separate ! May the Temple of the Union stand till
it slowly arrays itself in the hoary mantle of anti
quity ! May it stand century after century till the
Archangel's trumpet sounds the knell of the world and
iof time !