diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 11274-0.txt | 7918 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 11274-h/11274-h.htm | 9060 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/11274-h.zip | bin | 0 -> 178095 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/11274-h/11274-h.htm | 9510 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/11274.txt | 8345 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/11274.zip | bin | 0 -> 173199 bytes |
9 files changed, 34849 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/11274-0.txt b/11274-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..37fa62f --- /dev/null +++ b/11274-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,7918 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 11274 *** + +THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER Part 4 of 4 + + + + +By The American Anti-Slavery Society 1839 + + + + No. 12. Chattel Principle The Abhorrence of Jesus Christ + and the Apostles; Or No Refuge for American Slavery + in the New Testament. + + On the Condition of the Free People of Color in the + United States. + + No. 13. Can Abolitionists Vote or Take Office Under the United + States Constitution? + + Address to the Friends of Constitutional Liberty, on the + Violation by the United States House of Representatives + of the Right of Petition at the Executive Committee of + the American Anti-Slavery Society. + + + + + + +No. 12. + +ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. + +CHATTEL PRINCIPLE + +THE ABHORRENCE OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES; OR, +NO REFUGE FOR AMERICAN SLAVERY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. + +BY BERIAH GREEN. + +NEW YORK + +PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, +NO. 143 NASSAU STREET + +1839 + +This No. contains 4-1/2 sheet--Postage under 100 miles, 7 cts. over +100, 10 cts. + +Please Read and circulate. + + + +THE NEW TESTAMENT AGAINST SLAVERY. + + "THE SON OF MAN IS COME TO SEEK AND TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST." + +Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? In 1776 THOMAS +JEFFERSON, supported by a noble band of patriots and surrounded by +the American people, opened his lips in the authoritative declaration: +"We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are +created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain +inalienable rights; that among these are life, LIBERTY, and the +pursuit of happiness." And from the inmost heart of the multitudes +around, and in a strong and clear voice, broke forth the unanimous +and decisive answer: Amen--such truths we do indeed hold to be +self-evident. And animated and sustained by a declaration, so +inspiring and sublime, they rushed to arms, and as the result of +agonizing efforts and dreadful sufferings, achieved under God the +independence of their country. The great truth, whence they derived +light and strength to assert and defend their rights, they made the +foundation of their republic. And in the midst of this republic, +must we prove, that He, who was the Truth, did not contradict +"the truths" which He Himself; as their Creator, had made +self-evident to mankind? + +Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? What, according to +those laws which make it what it is, is American slavery? In the +Statute-book of South Carolina thus it is written:[1] "Slaves shall +be deemed, held, taken, reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels +personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their +executors, administrators and assigns, to all intents, construction +and purposes whatever." The very root of American slavery consists +in the assumption, that law has reduced men to chattels. But this +assumption is, and must be, a gross falsehood. Men and cattle are +separated from each other by the Creator, immutably, eternally, and +by an impassable gulf. To confound or identify men and cattle must +be to lie most wantonly, impudently, and maliciously. And must we +prove, that Jesus Christ is not in favor of palpable, monstrous +falsehood? + +[Footnote 1: Stroud's Slave Laws, p. 23.] + + +Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? How can a system, +built upon a stout and impudent denial of self-evident truth--a +system of treating men like cattle--operate? Thomas Jefferson shall +answer. Hear him. "The whole commerce between master and slave is a +perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most +unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on +the other. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the +lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller +slaves, gives loose to his worst passions, and thus nursed, educated, +and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with +odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy, who can retain his +manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances."[2] Such is the +practical operation of a system, which puts men and cattle into the +same family and treats them alike. And must we prove, that Jesus +Christ is not in favor of a school where the worst vices in their +most hateful forms are systematically and efficiently taught and +practiced? Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? What, in +1818, did the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church affirm +respecting its nature and operation? "Slavery creates a paradox in +the moral system--it exhibits rational, accountable, and immortal +beings, in such circumstances as scarcely to leave them the power of +moral action. It exhibits them as dependent on the will of others, +whether they shall receive religious instruction; whether they shall +know and worship the true God; whether they shall enjoy the +ordinances of the gospel; whether they shall perform the duties and +cherish the endearments of husbands and wives, parents and children, +neighbors and friends; whether they shall preserve their chastity +and purity, or regard the dictates of justice and humanity. Such are +some of the consequences of slavery; consequences not imaginary, but +which connect themselves with its very existence. The evils to which +the slave is _always_ exposed, _often take place_ in their very +worst degree and form; and where all of them do not take place, +still the slave is deprived of his natural rights, degraded as a +human being, and exposed to the danger of passing into the hands of +a master who may inflict upon him all the hardship and injuries +which inhumanity and avarice may suggest."[3] Must we prove, that +Jesus Christ is not in favor of such things? + +[Footnote 2: Notes on Virginia, Boston Ed. 1832, pp. 169, 170.] + +[Footnote 3: Minutes of the General assembly for 1818, p. 29.] + + +Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? It is already widely +felt and openly acknowledged at the South, that they cannot support +slavery without sustaining the opposition of universal Christendom. +And Thomas Jefferson declared, "I tremble for my country when I +reflect that God is just; that his justice can not sleep forever; +that considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a +revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is +among possible events; that it may become practicable by +supernatural influences! The Almighty has no attribute which can +take sides with us in such a contest."[4] And must we prove, that +Jesus Christ is not in favor of what universal Christendom is +impelled to abhor, denounce, and oppose; is not in favor of what +every attribute of Almighty God is armed against? + +[Footnote 4: Notes on Virginia, Boston Ed. 1832, pp. 170, 171.] + + + "YE HAVE DESPISED THE POOR." + +It is no man of straw, with whom, in making out such proof, we are +called to contend. Would to God we had no other antagonist! Would to +God that our labor of love could be regarded as a work of +supererogation! But we may well be ashamed and grieved to find it +necessary to "stop the mouths" of grave and learned ecclesiastics, +who from the heights of Zion have undertaken to defend the +institution of slavery. We speak not now of those, who amidst the +monuments of oppression are engaged in the sacred vocation; who, as +ministers of the Gospel, can "prophesy smooth things" to such as +pollute the altar of Jehovah with human sacrifices; nay, who +themselves bind the victim and kindle the sacrifice. That they +should put their Savior to the torture, to wring from his lips +something in favor of slavery, is not to be wondered at. They +consent to the murder of the children; can they respect the rights +of the Father? But what shall we say of distinguished theologians of +the north--professors of sacred literature at our oldest divinity +schools--who stand up to defend, both by argument and authority, +southern slavery! And from the Bible! Who, Balaam-like, try a +thousand expedients to force from the mouth of Jehovah a sentence +which they know the heart of Jehovah abhors! Surely we have here +something more mischievous and formidable than a man of straw. More +than two years ago, and just before the meeting of the General +Assembly of the Presbyterian church, appeared an article in the +Biblical Repertory,[5] understood to be from the pen of the +Professor of Sacred Literature at Princeton, in which an effort is +made to show, that slavery, whatever may be said of any abuses of +it, is not a violation of the precepts of the Gospel. This article, +we are informed, was industriously and extensively distributed among +the members of the General Assembly--a body of men, who by a +frightful majority seemed already too much disposed to wink at the +horrors of slavery. The effect of the Princeton Apology on the +southern mind, we have high authority for saying, has been most +decisive and injurious. It has contributed greatly to turn the +public eye off from the sin--from the inherent and necessary evils +of slavery to incidental evils, which the abuse of it might be +expected to occasion. And how few can be brought to admit, that +whatever abuses may prevail nobody knows where or how, any such +thing is chargeable upon them! Thus our Princeton prophet has done +what he could to lay the southern conscience asleep upon ingenious +perversions of the sacred volume! + +[Footnote 5: For April, 1836. The General Assembly of the +Presbyterian Church met in the following May, at Pittsburgh, where, +in pamphlet form, this article was distributed. The following +appeared upon the title page: + + PITTSBURGH: + 1836. + _For gratuitous distribution_. +] + + +About a year after this, an effort in the same direction was jointly +made by Dr. Fisk and Professor Stuart. In a letter to a Methodist +clergyman, Mr. Merrit, published in Zion's Herald, Dr. Fisk gives +utterance to such things as the following:-- + +"But that you and the public may see and feel, that you have the +ablest and those who are among the honestest men of this age, +arrayed against you, be pleased to notice the following letter from +Prof. Stuart. I wrote to him, knowing as I did his integrity of +purpose, his unflinching regard for truth, as well as his deserved +reputation as a scholar and biblical critic, proposing the following +questions:--" + +1. Does the New Testament directly or indirectly teach, that slavery +existed in the primitive church? + +2. In 1 Tim. vi. 2, And they that have believing masters, &c., what +is the relation expressed or implied between "they" (servants) and +"believing masters?" And what are your reasons for the construction +of the passage? + +3. What was the character of ancient and eastern slavery?-- +Especially what (legal) power did this relation give the master over +the slave? + + + + + +PROFESSOR STUART'S REPLY. + + + ANDOVER, 10th Apr., 1837 + + REV. AND DEAR SIR,--Yours is before me. A sickness of three + month's standing (typhus fever) in which I have just escaped death, + and which still confines me to my house, renders it impossible for me + to answer your letter at large. + + 1. The precepts of the New Testament respecting the demeanor of + slaves and of their masters, beyond all question, recognize the + existence of slavery. The masters are in part "believing masters," so + that a precept to them, how they are to behave as masters, + recognizes that the relation may still exist, _salva fide et salva + ecclesia_, ("without violating the Christian faith or the church.") + Otherwise, Paul had nothing to do but to cut the band asunder at once. + He could not lawfully and properly temporize with a _malum in se_, + ("that which is in itself sin.") + + If any one doubts, let him take the case of Paul's sending Onesimus + back to Philemon, with an apology for his running away, and sending + him back to be his servant for life. The relation did exist, may + exist. The _abuse_ of it is the essential and fundamental wrong. + Not that the theory of slavery is in itself right. No; "Love thy + neighbor as thyself," "Do unto others that which ye would that others + should do unto you," decide against this. But the relation once + constituted and continued, is not such a _malum in se_ as calls + for immediate and violent disruption at all hazards. So Paul did not + counsel. + + 2. 1 Tim. vi. 2, expresses the sentiment, that slaves, who are + Christians and have Christian masters, are not, on that account, and + because _as Christians they are brethren_, to forego the reverence + due to them as masters. That is, the relation of master and slave is + not, as a matter of course, abrogated between all Christians. Nay, + servants should in such a case, _a fortiori_, do their duty + cheerfully. This sentiment lies on the very face of the case. What + the master's duty in such a case may be in respect to _liberation_, + is another question, and one which the apostle does not here treat of. + + 3. Every one knows, who is acquainted with Greek or Latin antiquities, + that slavery among heathen nations has ever been more unqualified + and at looser ends than among Christian nations. Slaves were + _property_ in Greece and Rome. That decides all questions about + their _relation_. Their treatment depended, as it does now, on the + temper of their masters. The power of the master over the slave was, + for a long time, that of _life and death_. Horrible cruelties at + length mitigated it. In the apostle's day, it was at least as great + as among us. + + After all the spouting and vehemence on this subject, which have been + exhibited, the _good old Book_ remains the same. Paul's conduct + and advice are still safe guides. Paul knew well that Christianity + would ultimately destroy slavery, as it certainly will. He knew, + too, that it would destroy monarchy and aristocracy from the earth: + for it is fundamentally a doctrine of _true liberty and equality_. + Yet Paul did not expect slavery or anarchy to be ousted in a day; and + gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor _ad interim_. + + With sincere and paternal regard, + + Your friend and brother, + + M. STUART. + + + --This, sir, is doctrine that will stand, because it is _Bible + doctrine_. The abolitionists, then, are on a wrong course. They have + traveled out of the record; and if they would succeed, they must + take a different position, and approach the subject in a different + manner. + + Respectfully yours, + + W. FISK + + + + "SO THEY WRAP [SNARL] IT UP." + +What are we taught here? That in the ecclesiastical organizations +which grew up under the hands of the apostles, slavery was admitted +as a relation that did not violate the Christian faith; that the +relation may now in like manner exist; that "the abuse of it is the +essential and fundamental wrong;" and of course, that American +Christians may hold their own brethren in slavery without incurring +guilt or inflicting injury. Thus, according to Prof. Stuart, Jesus +Christ has not a word to say against "the peculiar institutions" of +the South. If our brethren there do not "abuse" the privilege of +enacting unpaid labor, they may multiply their slaves to their +hearts' content, without exposing themselves to the frown of the +Savior or laying their Christian character open to the least +suspicion. Could any trafficker in human flesh ask for greater +latitude! And to such doctrines, Dr. Fisk eagerly and earnestly +subscribes. He goes further. He urges it on the attention of his +brethren, as containing important truth, which they ought to embrace. +According to him, it is "_Bible doctrine_," showing, that "the +abolitionists are on a wrong course," and must, "if they would +succeed, take a different position." + +We now refer to such distinguished names, to show, that in attempting +to prove that Jesus Christ is not in favor of American slavery, we +contend with something else than a man of straw. The ungrateful task, +which a particular examination of Professor Stuart's letter lays +upon us, we hope fairly to dispose of in due season. Enough has now +been said to make it clear and certain, that American slavery has its +apologists and advocates in the northern pulpit; advocates and +apologists, who fall behind few if any of their brethren in the +reputation they have acquired, the stations they occupy, and the +general influence they are supposed to exert. + +Is it so? Did slavery exist in Judea, and among the Jews, in its +worst form, during the Savior's incarnation? If the Jews held slaves, +they must have done in open and flagrant violation of the letter and +the spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Whoever has any doubts of +this may well resolve his doubts in the light of the Argument +entitled "The Bible against Slavery." If, after a careful and +thorough examination of that article, he can believe that +slaveholding prevailed during the ministry of Jesus Christ among the +Jews and in accordance with the authority of Moses, he would do the +reading public an important service to record the grounds of his +belief--especially in a fair and full refutation of that Argument. +Till that is done, we hold ourselves excused from attempting to +prove what we now repeat, that if the Jews during our Savior's +incarnation held slaves, they must have done so in open and flagrant +violation of the letter and spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Could +Christ and the Apostles every where among their countrymen come in +contact with slaveholding, being as it was a gross violation of that +law which their office and their profession required them to honor +and enforce, without exposing and condemning it? + +In its worst forms, we are told, slavery prevailed over the whole +world, not excepting Judea. As, according to such ecclesiastics as +Stuart, Hodge and Fisk, slavery in itself is not bad at all, the term +"_worst_" could be applied only to "_abuses_" of this innocent +relation. Slavery accordingly existed among the Jews, disfigured and +disgraced by the "worst abuses" to which it is liable. These abuses +in the ancient world, Professor Stuart describes as "horrible +cruelties." And in our own country, such abuses have grown so rank, +as to lead a distinguished eye-witness--no less a philosopher and +statesman than Thomas Jefferson--to say, that they had armed against +us every attribute of the Almighty. With these things the Savior +every where came in contact, among the people to whose improvement +and salvation he devoted his living powers, and yet not a word, not +a syllable, in exposure and condemnation of such "horrible cruelties" +escaped his lips! He saw--among the "covenant people" of Jehovah he +saw, the babe plucked from the bosom of its mother; the wife torn +from the embrace of her husband; the daughter driven to the market +by the scourge of her own father;--he saw the word of God sealed up +from those who, of all men, were especially entitled to its +enlightening, quickening influence;--nay, he saw men beaten for +kneeling before the throne of heavenly mercy;--such things he saw +without a word of admonition or reproof! No sympathy with them who +suffered wrong--no indignation at them who inflicted wrong, moved +his heart! + +From the alleged silence of the Savior, when in contact with slavery +among the Jews, our divines infer, that it is quite consistent with +Christianity. And they affirm, that he saw it in its worst forms; +that is, he witnessed what Professor Stuart ventures to call +"horrible cruelties." But what right have these interpreters of the +sacred volume to regard any form of slavery which the Savior found, +as "worst," or even bad? According to their inference--which they +would thrust gag-wise into the mouths of abolitionists--his silence +should seal up their lips. They ought to hold their tongues. They +have no right to call any form of slavery bad--an abuse; much less, +horribly cruel! Their inference is broad enough to protect the most +brutal driver amidst his deadliest inflictions! + + + + "THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS; + I AM NOT COME TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFIL." + +And did the Head of the new dispensation, then, fall so far behind +the prophets of the old in a hearty and effective regard for +suffering humanity? The forms of oppression which they witnessed, +excited their compassion and aroused their indignation. In terms the +most pointed and powerful, they exposed, denounced, threatened. They +could not endure the creatures, "who used their neighbors' service +without wages, and gave him not for his work;"[6] who imposed +"heavy burdens"[7] upon their fellows, and loaded them with +"the bands of wickedness;" who, "hiding themselves from their own +flesh," disowned their own mothers' children. Professions of piety +joined with the oppression of the poor, they held up to universal +scorn and execration, as the dregs of hypocrisy. They warned the +creature of such professions, that he could escape the wrath of +Jehovah only by heart-felt repentance. And yet, according to the +ecclesiastics with whom we have to do, the Lord of these prophets +passed by in silence just such enormities as he commanded them to +expose and denounce! Every where, he came in contact with slavery in +its worst forms--"horrible cruelties" forced themselves upon his +notice; but not a word of rebuke or warning did he utter. He saw +"a boy given for a harlot, and a girl sold for wine, that they might +drink,"[8] without the slightest feeling of displeasure, or any mark +of disapprobation! To such disgusting and horrible conclusions, do +the arguings which, from the haunts of sacred literature, are +inflicted on our churches, lead us! According to them, Jesus Christ, +instead of shining as the light of the world, extinguished the +torches which his own prophets had kindled, and plunged mankind into +the palpable darkness of a starless midnight! O savior, in pity to +thy suffering people, let thy temple be no longer used as a +"den of thieves!" + +[Footnote 6: Jeremiah, xxii. 13.] + +[Footnote 7: Isaiah, lviii. 6, 7.] + +[Footnote 8: Joel, iii. 3.] + + + + "THOU THOUGHTEST THAT I WAS ALTOGETHER SUCH AN ONE AS THYSELF." + +In passing by the worst forms of slavery, with which he every where +came in contact among the Jews, the Savior must have been +inconsistent with himself. He was commissioned to preach glad +tidings to the poor; to heal the broken-hearted; to preach +deliverance to the captives; to set at liberty them that are bruised; +to preach the year of Jubilee. In accordance with this commission, +he bound himself, from the earliest date of his incarnation, to the +poor, by the strongest ties; himself "had not where to lay his head;" +he exposed himself to misrepresentation and abuse for his +affectionate intercourse with the outcasts of society; he stood up +as the advocate of the widow, denouncing and dooming the heartless +ecclesiastics, who had made her bereavement a source of gain; and in +describing the scenes of the final judgment, he selected the very +personification of poverty, disease and oppression, as the test by +which our regard for him should be determined. To the poor and +wretched; to the degraded and despised, his arms were ever open. +They had his tenderest sympathies. They had his warmest love. His +heart's blood he poured out upon the ground for the human family, +reduced to the deepest degradation, and exposed to the heaviest +inflictions, as the slaves of the grand usurper. And yet, according +to our ecclesiastics, that class of sufferers who had been reduced +immeasurably below every other shape and form of degradation and +distress; who had been most rudely thrust out of the family of Adam, +and forced to herd with swine; who, without the slightest offence, +had been made the footstool of the worst criminals; whose "tears +were their meat night and day," while, under nameless insults and +killing injuries they were continually crying, O Lord, O Lord:--this +class of sufferers, and this alone, our biblical expositors, +occupying the high places of sacred literature, would make us +believe the compassionate Savior coldly overlooked. Not an emotion +of pity; not a look of sympathy; not a word of consolation, did his +gracious heart prompt him to bestow upon them! He denounces +damnation upon the devourer of the widow's house. But the monster, +whose trade it is to make widows and devour them and their babes, he +can calmly endure! O Savior, when wilt thou stop the mouths of such +blasphemers! + + + "IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH." + +It seems that though, according to our Princeton professor, +"the subject" of slavery "is hardly alluded to by Christ in any +of his personal instructions,"[9] he had a way of "treating it." +What was that? Why, "he taught the true nature, DIGNITY, EQUALITY, +and destiny of men," and "inculcated the principles of justice and +love."[10] And according to Professor Stuart, the maxims which our +Savior furnished, "decide against" "the theory of slavery." All, then, +that these ecclesiastical apologists for slavery can make of the +Savior's alleged silence is, that he did not, in his personal +instructions, "_apply his own principles to this particular form of +wickedness_." For wicked that must be, which the maxims of the +Savior decide against, and which our Princeton professor assures +us the principles of the gospel, duly acted on, would speedily +extinguish.[11] How remarkable it is, that a teacher should +"hardly allude to a subject in any of his personal instructions," +and yet inculcate principles which have a direct and vital bearing +upon it!--should so conduct, as to justify the inference, that +"slaveholding is not a crime,"[12] and at the same time lend its +authority for its "speedy extinction!" + +[Footnote 9: Pittsburg pamphlet, (already alluded to,) p.9.] + +[Footnote 10: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.] + +[Footnote 11: The same, p. 34.] + +[Footnote 12: The same, p. 13.] + + +Higher authority than sustains _self-evident truths_ there cannot +be. As forms of reason, they are rays from the face of Jehovah. +Not only are their presence and power self-manifested, but they +also shed a strong and clear light around them. In their light, +other truths are visible. Luminaries themselves, it is their +office to enlighten. To their authority, in every department of +thought, the same mind bows promptly, gratefully, fully. And by their +authority, he explains, proves, and disposes of whatever engages his +attention and engrosses his powers as a reasonable and reasoning +creature. For what, when thus employed and when most successful, is +the utmost he can accomplish? Why, to make the conclusions which he +would establish and commend, _clear in the light of reason_;--in +other words, to evince that _they are reasonable_. He expects that +those with whom he has to do will acknowledge the authority of +principle--will see whatever is exhibited in the light of reason. If +they require him to go further, and, in order to convince them, to +do something more than show that the doctrines he maintains, and the +methods he proposes, are accordant with reason--are illustrated and +supported with "self-evident truths"--they are plainly "beside +themselves." They have lost the use of reason. They are not to be +argued with. They belong to the mad-house. + + + + "COME NOW, LET US REASON TOGETHER, SAITH THE LORD." + +Are we to honor the Bible, which Professor Stuart quaintly calls +"the good old book," by turning away from "self-evident truths" to +receive its instructions? Can these truths be contradicted or denied +there? Do we search for something there to obscure their clearness, +or break their force, or reduce their authority? Do we long to find +something there, in the form of premises or conclusions, of arguing +or of inference, in broad statement or blind hints, creed-wise or +fact-wise, which may set us free from the light and power of first +principles? And what if we were to discover what we were thus in +search of?--something directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly +prejudicial to the principles, which reason, placing us under the +authority of, makes self-evident? In what estimation, in that case, +should we be constrained to hold the Bible? Could we longer honor +it as the book of God? _The book of God opposed to the authority of_ +REASON! Why, before what tribunal do we dispose of the claims of the +sacred volume to divine authority? The tribunal of reason. _This +every one acknowledges the moment he begins to reason on the subject_. +And what must reason do with a book, which reduces the authority of +its own principles--breaks the force of self-evident truths? Is he +not, by way of eminence, the apostle of infidelity, who, as a +minister of the gospel or a professor of sacred literature, exerts +himself, with whatever arts of ingenuity or show of piety, to exalt +the Bible at the expense of reason? Let such arts succeed and such +piety prevail, and Jesus Christ is "crucified afresh and put to an +open shame." + +What saith the Princeton professor? Why, in spite of "general +principles," and "clear as we may think the arguments against +DESPOTISM, there have been thousands of ENLIGHTENED _and good men_, +who _honestly_ believe it to be of all forms of government the best +and most acceptable to God."[13] Now these "good men" must have been +thus warmly in favor of despotism, in consequence of, or in +opposition to, their being "enlightened." In other words, the light, +which in such abundance they enjoyed, conducted them to the position +in favor of despotism, where the Princeton professor so heartily +shook hands with them, or they must have forced their way there in +despite of its hallowed influence. Either in accordance with, or in +resistance to the light, they became what he found them--the +advocates of despotism. If in resistance to the light--and he says +they were "enlightened men"--what, so far as the subject with which +alone he and we are now concerned, becomes of their "honesty" and +"goodness?" Good and honest resisters of the light, which was freely +poured around them! Of such, what says Professor Stuart's "good old +Book?" Their authority, where "general principles" command the least +respect, must be small indeed. But if in accordance with the light, +they have become the advocates of despotism, then is despotism +"the best form of government and most acceptable to God." It is +sustained by the authority of reason, by the word of Jehovah, by the +will of Heaven! If this be the doctrine which prevails at certain +theological seminaries, it must be easy to account for the spirit +which they breathe, and the general influence which they exert. Why +did not the Princeton professor place this "general principle" as a +shield, heaven-wrought and reason approved, over that cherished form +of despotism which prevails among the churches of the South, and +leave the "peculiar institutions" he is so forward to defend, under +its protection? + +[Footnote 13: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 12.] + + +What is the "general principle" to which, whatever may become of +despotism, with its "honest" admirers and "enlightened" supporters, +human governments should be universally and carefully adjusted? +Clearly this--_that as capable of, man is entitled to, self +government_. And this is a specific form of a still more +general principle, which may well be pronounced self-evident--_that +every thing should be treated according to its nature_. The mind +that can doubt this, must be incapable of rational conviction. +Man, then,--it is the dictate of reason, it is the voice of +Jehovah--must be treated as _a man_. What is he? What are his +distinctive attributes? The Creator impressed his own image on him. +In this were found the grand peculiarities of his character. Here +shone his glory. Here REASON manifests its laws. Here the WILL puts +forth its volitions. Here is the crown of IMMORTALITY. Why such +endowments? Thus furnished--the image of Jehovah--is he not capable +of self-government? And is he not to be so treated? _Within the +sphere where the laws of reason place him_, may he not act according +to his choice--carry out his own volitions?--may he not enjoy life, +exult in freedom, and pursue as he will the path of blessedness? If +not, why was he so created and endowed? Why the mysterious, awful +attribute of will? To be a source, profound as the depths of hell, +of exquisite misery, of keen anguish, of insufferable torment! Was man, +formed "according to the image of Jehovah," to be crossed, thwarted, +counteracted; to be forced in upon himself; to be the sport of +endless contradictions; to be driven back and forth forever between +mutually repellant forces; and all, all "at the discretion of +another!"[14] How can man be treated according to his nature, as +endowed with reason or will, if excluded from the powers and +privileges of self-government?--if "despotism" be let loose upon +him, to "deprive him of personal liberty, oblige him to serve at the +discretion of another" and with the power of "transferring" such +"authority" over him and such claim upon him, to "another master?" +If "thousands of enlightened and good men" can so easily be found, +who are forward to support "despotism" as "of all governments the +best and most acceptable to God," we need not wonder at the +testimony of universal history, that "the whole creation groaneth +and travaileth in pain together until now." Groans and travail pangs +must continue to be the order of the day throughout "the whole +creation," till the rod of despotism be broken, and man be treated +as man--as capable of, and entitled to, self-government. + +[Footnote 14: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 12.] + + +But what is the despotism whose horrid features our smooth professor +tries to hide beneath an array of cunningly selected words and +nicely-adjusted sentences? It is the despotism of American +slavery--which crushes the very life of humanity out of its victims, +and transforms them to cattle! At its touch, they sink from men to +things! "Slaves," saith Professor Stuart, "were _property_ in Greece +and Rome. That decides all questions about their _relation_." Yes, +truly. And slaves in republican America are _property_; and as that +easily, clearly, and definitely settles "all questions about their +_relation_," why should the Princeton professor have put himself +to the trouble of weaving a definition equally ingenious and +inadequate--at once subtle and deceitful. Ah, why? Was he willing thus +to conceal the wrongs of his mother's children even from himself? If +among the figments of his brain, he could fashion slaves, and make +them something else than property, he knew full well that a very +different pattern was in use among the southern patriarchs. Why did +he not, in plain words and sober earnest, and good faith, describe +the thing as it was, instead of employing honied words and courtly +phrases, to set forth with all becoming vagueness and ambiguity, +what might possibly be supposed to exist in the regions of fancy. + + + "FOR RULERS ARE NOT A TERROR TO GOOD WORKS, BUT TO THE EVIL." + +But are we, in maintaining the principle of self-government, to +overlook the unripe, or neglected, or broken powers of any of our +fellow-men with whom we may be connected?--or the strong passions, +vicious propensities, or criminal pursuits of others? Certainly not. +But in providing for their welfare, we are to exert influences and +impose restraints suited to their character. In wielding those +prerogatives which the social of our nature authorizes us to employ +for their benefit, we are to regard them as they are in truth, not +things, not cattle, not articles of merchandize, but men, our +fellow-men--reflecting, from however battered and broken a surface, +reflecting with us the image of a common Father. And the great +principle of self-government is to be the basis, to which the whole +structure of discipline under which they may be placed, should be +adapted. From the nursery and village school on to the work-house +and state-prison, this principle is ever and in all things to be +before the eyes, present in the thoughts, warm on the heart. +Otherwise, God is insulted, while his image is despised and abused. +Yes, indeed; we remember, that in carrying out the principle of +self-government, multiplied embarrassments and obstructions grow out +of wickedness on the one hand and passion on the other. Such +difficulties and obstacles we are far enough from overlooking. But +where are they to be found? Are imbecility and wickedness, bad +hearts and bad heads, confined to the bottom of society? Alas, the +weakest of the weak, and the desperately wicked, often occupy the +high places of the earth, reducing every thing within their reach to +subserviency to the foulest purposes. Nay, the very power they have +usurped, has often been the chief instrument of turning their heads, +inflaming their passions, corrupting their hearts. All the world +knows, that the possession of arbitrary power has a strong tendency +to make men shamelessly wicked and insufferably mischievous. And +this, whether the vassals over whom they domineer, be few or many. +If you cannot trust man with himself, will you put his fellows +under his control?--and flee from the inconveniences incident to +self-government, to the horrors of despotism? + + +"THOU THAT PREACHEST A MAN SHOULD NOT STEAL, DOST THOU STEAL." + +Is the slaveholder, the most absolute and shameless of all despots, +to be entrusted with the discipline of the injured men who he +himself has reduced to cattle?--with the discipline with which they +are to be prepared to wield the powers and enjoy the privileges of +freemen? Alas, of such discipline as _he_ can furnish, in the +relation of owner to property, they have had enough. From this +sprang the very ignorance and vice, which in the view of many, lie +in the way of their immediate enfranchisement. He it is, who has +darkened their eyes and crippled their powers. And are they to look +to him for illumination and renewed vigor!--and expect "grapes from +thorns and figs from thistles!" Heaven forbid! When, according to +arrangements which had usurped the sacred name of law, he consented +to receive and use them as property, he forfeited all claims to the +esteem and confidence, not only of the helpless sufferers themselves, +but also of every philanthropist. In becoming a slaveholder, he +became the enemy of mankind. The very act was a declaration of war +upon human nature. What less can be made of the process of turning +men to cattle? It is rank absurdity--it is the height of madness, to +propose to employ _him_ to train, for the places of freemen, those +whom he has wantonly robbed of every right--whom he has stolen from +themselves. Sooner place Burke, who used to murder for the sake of +selling bodies to the dissector, at the head of a hospital. Why, +what have our slaveholders been about these two hundred years? Have +they not been constantly and earnestly engaged in the work of +education?--training up their human cattle? And how? Thomas +Jefferson shall answer. "The whole commerce between master and slave, +is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most +unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on +the other." Is this the way to fit the unprepared for the duties and +privileges of American citizens? Will the evils of the dreadful +process be diminished by adding to its length? What, in 1818, was +the unanimous testimony of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian +Church? Why, after describing a variety of influences growing out of +slavery, most fatal to mental and moral improvement, the General +Assembly assure us, that such "consequences are not imaginary, but +connect themselves WITH THE VERY EXISTENCE[15] of slavery. The evils to +which the slave is _always_ exposed, _often_ take place in fact, and +IN THEIR VERY WORST DEGREE AND FORM; and where all of them do not +take place," "still the slave is deprived of his natural right, +degraded as a human being, and exposed to the danger of passing into +the hands of a master who may inflict upon him all the hardships and +injuries which inhumanity and avarice may suggest." Is this the +condition in which our ecclesiastics would keep the slave, at least +a little longer, to fit him to be restored to himself? + +[Footnote 15: The words here marked as emphatic, were so distinguished +by ourselves.] + + + "AND THEY STOPPED THEIR EARS." + +The methods of discipline under which, as slaveholders; the Southrons +now place their human cattle, they with one consent and in great +wrath, forbid us to examine. The statesman and the priest unite in +the assurance, that these methods are none of our business. Nay, they +give us distinctly to understand, that if we come among them to take +observations, and make inquiries, and discuss questions, they will +dispose of us as outlaws. Nothing will avail to protect us from +speedy and deadly violence! What inference does all this warrant? +Surely, not that the methods which they employ are happy and worthy +of universal application. If so, why do they not take the praise, +and give us the benefit of their wisdom, enterprise, and success? Who, +that has nothing to hide, practices concealment? "He that doeth +truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest, that they +are wrought in God." Is this the way of slaveholders? Darkness they +court--they will have darkness. Doubtless "because their deeds are +evil." Can we confide in methods for the benefit of our enslaved +brethren, which it is death for us to examine? What good ever came, +what good can we expect, from deeds of darkness? + +Did the influence of the masters contribute any thing in the West +Indies to prepare the apprentices for enfranchisement? Nay, verily. +All the world knows better. They did what in them lay, to turn back +the tide of blessings, which, through emancipation, was pouring in +upon the famishing around them. Are not the best minds and hearts in +England now thoroughly convinced, that slavery, under no modification, +can be a school for freedom? + +We say such things to the many who allege, that slaves cannot at +once be entrusted with the powers and privileges of self-government. +However this may be, they cannot be better qualified under the +_influence of slavery_. _That must be broken up_ from which their +ignorance, and viciousness, and wretchedness proceeded. That which +can only do what it has always done, pollute and degrade, must not +be employed to purify and elevate. _The lower their character and +condition, the louder, clearer, sterner, the just demand for +immediate emancipation_. The plague-smitten sufferer can derive no +benefit from breathing a little longer an infected atmosphere. + +In thus referring to elemental principles--in thus availing ourselves +of the light of self-evident truths--we bow to the authority and tread +in the foot-prints of the great Teacher. He chid those around him for +refusing to make the same use of their reason in promoting their +spiritual, as they made in promoting their temporal welfare. He gives +them distinctly to understand, that they need not go out of themselves +to form a just estimation of their position, duties, and prospects, +as standing in the presence of the Messiah. "Why, EVEN OF YOURSELVES," +he demands of them, "judge ye not what is _right_?"[16] How could +they, unless they had a clear light, and an infallible standard within +them, whereby, amidst the relations they sustained and the interests +they had to provide for, they might discriminate between truth and +falsehood, right and wrong, what they ought to attempt and what they +ought to eschew? From this pointed, significant appeal of the Savior, +it is clear and certain, that in human consciousness may be found +self-evident truths, self-manifested principles; that every man, +studying his own consciousness, is bound to recognize their presence +and authority, and in sober earnest and good faith to apply them to +the highest practical concerns of "life and godliness." It is in +obedience to the Bible, that we apply self-evident truths, and walk +in the light of general principles. When our fathers proclaimed +these truths, and at the hazard of their property, reputation, and +life, stood up in their defence, they did homage to the sacred +Scriptures--they honored the Bible. In that volume, not a syllable +can be found to justify that form of infidelity, which in the abused +name of piety, reproaches us for practising the lessons which nature +teacheth. These lessons, the Bible requires us[17] reverently to listen +to, earnestly to appropriate, and most diligently and faithfully to +act upon in every direction, and on all occasions. + +[Footnote 16: Luke, xii. 57.] + +[Footnote 17: Cor. xi. 14.] + +Why, our Savior goes so far in doing honor to reason, as to encourage +men universally to dispose of the characteristic peculiarities and +distinctive features of the Gospel in the light of its principles. +"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether +it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."[18] Natural religion--the +principles which nature reveals, and the lessons which nature teaches--he +thus makes a test of the truth and authority of revealed religion. So +far was he, as a teacher, from shrinking from the clearest and most +piercing rays of reason--from calling off the attention of those around +him from the import, bearings, and practical application of general +principles. And those who would have us escape from the pressure of +self-evident truths, by betaking ourselves to the doctrines and precepts +of Christianity, whatever airs of piety they may put on, do foul dishonor +to the Savior of mankind. + +[Footnote 18: John, vii. 17.] + +And what shall we say of the Golden Rule, which, according to the +Savior, comprehends all the precepts of the Bible? "Whatsoever ye +would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is +the law and the prophets." + +According to this maxim, in human consciousness, universally, may be +found, + + 1. The standard whereby, in all the relations and circumstances of + life, we may determine what Heaven demands and expects of us. + + 2. The just application of this standard, is practicable for, and + obligatory upon, every child of Adam. + + 3. The qualification requisite to a just application of this rule to + all the cases in which we can be concerned, is simply this--_to + regard all the members of the human family as our brethren, our + equals_. + +In other words, the Savior here teaches us, that in the principles +and laws of reason, we have an infallible guide in all the relations +and circumstances of life; that nothing can hinder our following +this guide, but the bias of _selfishness_; and that the moment, in +deciding any moral question, we place _ourselves in the room of our +brother_, before the bar of reason, we shall see what decision ought +to be pronounced. Does this, in the Savior, look like fleeing +self-evident truths!--like decrying the authority of general +principles!--like exalting himself at the expense of reason!--like +opening a refuge in the Gospel for those whose practice is at +variance with the dictates of humanity! + +What then is the just application of the Golden Rule--that +fundamental maxim of the Gospel, giving character to, and shedding +light upon, all its precepts and arrangements--to the subject of +slavery?--_that we must "do to" slaves as we would be done by_, AS +SLAVES, _the_ RELATION _itself being justified and continued_? Surely +not. A little reflection will enable us to see, that the Golden Rule +reaches farther in its demands, and strikes deeper in its influences +and operations. The _natural equality_ of mankind lies at the very +basis of this great precept. It obviously requires _every man to +acknowledge another self in every other man_. With my powers and +resources, and in my appropriate circumstances, I am to recognize in +any child of Adam who may address me, another self in his +appropriate circumstances and with his powers and resources. This is +the natural equality of mankind; and this the Golden Rule requires +us to admit, defend, and maintain. + + "WHY DO YE NOT UNDERSTAND MY SPEECH; + EVEN BECAUSE YE CANNOT HEAR MY WORD." + +They strangely misunderstand and grossly misrepresent this doctrine, +who charge upon it the absurdities and mischiefs which _any +"levelling system"_ cannot but produce. In all its bearings, +tendencies, and effects, it is directly contrary and powerfully +hostile to any such system. EQUALITY OF RIGHTS, the doctrine asserts; +and this necessarily opens the way for _variety of condition_. In +other words, every child of Adam has, from the Creator, the +inalienable right of wielding, within reasonable limits, his own +powers, and employing his own resources, according to his own +choice;--the right, while he respects his social relations, to promote +as he will his own welfare. But mark--HIS OWN powers and resources, +and NOT ANOTHER'S, are thus inalienably put under his control. The +Creator makes every man free, in whatever he may do, to exert HIMSELF, +and not another. Here no man may lawfully cripple or embarrass +another. The feeble may not hinder the strong, nor may the strong +crush the feeble. Every man may make the most of himself, in his own +proper sphere. Now, as in the constitutional endowments; and natural +opportunities, and lawful acquisitions of mankind, infinite variety +prevails, so in exerting each HIMSELF, in his own sphere, according +to his own choice, the variety of human condition can be little less +than infinite. Thus equality of rights opens the way for variety of +condition. + +But with all this variety of make, means, and condition, considered +individually, the children of Adam are bound together by strong ties +which can never be dissolved. They are mutually united by the social +of their nature. Hence mutual dependence and mutual claims. While +each is inalienably entitled to assert and enjoy his own personality +as a man, each sustains to all and all to each, various relations. +While each owns and honors the individual, all are to own and honor +the social of their nature. Now, the Golden Rule distinctly +recognizes, lays its requisitions upon, and extends its obligations +to, the whole nature of man, in his individual capacities and social +relations. What higher honor could it do to man, as _an individual_, +than to constitute him the judge, by whose decision, when fairly +rendered, all the claims of his fellows should be authoritatively +and definitely disposed of? "Whatsoever YE WOULD" have done to you, +so do ye to others. Every member of the family of Adam, placing +himself in the position here pointed out, is competent and +authorized to pass judgment on all the cases in social life in which +he may be concerned. Could higher responsibilities or greater +confidence be reposed in men individually? And then, how are their +_claims upon each other_ herein magnified! What inherent worth and +solid dignity are ascribed to the social of their nature! In every +man with whom I may have to do, I am to recognize the presence of +_another self_, whose case I am to make _my own_. And thus I am to +dispose of whatever claims he may urge upon me. + +Thus, in accordance with the Golden Rule, mankind are naturally +brought, in the voluntary use of their powers and resources, to +promote each other's welfare. As his contribution to this great +object, it is the inalienable birthright of every child of Adam, +to consecrate whatever he may possess. With exalted powers and large +resources, he has a natural claim to a correspondent field of effort. +If his "abilities" are small, his task must be easy and his burden +light. Thus the Golden Rule requires mankind mutually to serve each +other. In this service, each is to exert _himself_--employ _his own_ +powers, lay out his own resources, improve his own opportunities. A +division of labor is the natural result. One is remarkable for his +intellectual endowments and acquisitions; another, for his wealth; +and a third, for power and skill in using his muscles. Such +attributes, endlessly varied and diversified, proceed from the basis +of a _common character_, by virtue of which all men and each--one as +truly as another--are entitled, as a birthright, to "life, liberty, +and the pursuit of happiness." Each and all, one as well as another, +may choose his own modes of contributing his share to the general +welfare, in which his own is involved and identified. Under one +great law of mutual dependence and mutual responsibility, all are +placed--the strong as well as the weak, the rich as much as the poor, +the learned no less than the unlearned. All bring their wares, the +products of their enterprise, skill and industry, to the same market, +where mutual exchanges are freely effected. The fruits of muscular +exertion procure the fruits of mental effort. John serves Thomas +with his hands, and Thomas serves John with his money. Peter wields +the axe for James, and James wields the pen for Peter. Moses, Joshua, +and Caleb, employ their wisdom, courage, and experience, in the +service of the community, and the community serve Moses, Joshua, and +Caleb, in furnishing them with food and raiment, and making them +partakers of the general prosperity. And all this by mutual +understanding and voluntary arrangement. And all this according to +the Golden Rule. + +What then becomes of _slavery_--a system of arrangements in which +one man treats his fellow, not as another self, but as a thing--a +chattel--an article of merchandize, which is not to be consulted in +any disposition which may be made of it;--a system which is built on +the annihilation of the attributes of our common nature--in which +man doth to others what he would sooner die than have done to himself? +The Golden Rule and slavery are mutually subversive of each other. If +one stands, the other must fall. The one strikes at the very root of +the other. The Golden Rule aims at the abolition of THE RELATION +ITSELF, in which slavery consists. It lays its demands upon every +thing within the scope of _human action_. To "whatever MEN DO." it +extends its authority. And the relation itself, in which slavery +consists, is the work of human hands. It is what men have done to +each other--contrary to nature and most injurious to the general +welfare. This RELATION, therefore, the Golden Rule condemns. +Wherever its authority prevails, this relation must be annihilated. +Mutual service and slavery--like light and darkness, life and +death--are directly opposed to, and subversive of, each other. The +one the Golden Rule cannot endure; the other it requires, honors, +and blesses. + + + + + "LOVE WORKETH NO ILL TO HIS NEIGHBOR." + +Like unto the Golden Rule is the second great commandment--"_Thou +shalt love thy neighbor as thyself_." "A certain lawyer," who seems +to have been fond of applying the doctrine of limitation of human +obligations, once demanded of the Savior, within what limits the +meaning of the word "neighbor" ought to be confined. "And who is my +neighbor?" The parable of the good Samaritan set that matter in the +clearest light, and made it manifest and certain, that every man +whom we could reach with our sympathy and assistance, was our +neighbor, entitled to the same regard which we cherished for +ourselves. Consistently with such obligations, can _slavery, +as a_ RELATION, be maintained? Is it then a _labor of love_--such +love as we cherish for ourselves--to strip a child of Adam of all the +prerogatives and privileges which are his inalienable birthright? To +obscure his reason, crush his will, and trample on his +immortality?--To strike home to the inmost of his being, and break the +heart of his heart?--To thrust him out of the human family, and +dispose of him as a chattel--as a thing in the hands of an owner, a +beast under the lash of a driver? All this, apart from every thing +incidental and extraordinary, belongs to the RELATION, in which +slavery, as such, consists. All this--well fed or ill fed, +underwrought or overwrought, clothed or naked, caressed or kicked, +whether idle songs break from his thoughtless tongue or "tears be his +meat night and day," fondly cherished or cruelly murdered;--_all this_ +ENTERS VITALLY INTO THE RELATION ITSELF, _by which every slave_, AS A +SLAVE, _is set apart from the rest of the human family_. Is it an +exercise of love, to place our "neighbor" under the crushing +weight, the killing power, of such a relation?--to apply the +murderous steel to the very vitals of his humanity? + + "YE THEREFORE APPLAUD AND DELIGHT IN THE DEEDS OF YOUR FATHERS; + FOR THEY KILLED THEM, AND YE BUILD THEIR SEPULCHRES."[19] + +The slaveholder may eagerly and loudly deny, that any such thing is +chargeable upon him. He may confidently and earnestly allege, that +he is not responsible for the state of society in which he is placed. +Slavery was established before he began to breathe. It was his +inheritance. His slaves are his property by birth or testament. But +why will he thus deceive himself? Why will he permit the cunning and +rapacious spiders, which in the very sanctuary of ethics and +religion are laboriously weaving webs from their own bowels, to +catch him with their wretched sophistries?--and devour him, body, +soul, and substance? Let him know, as he must one day with shame and +terror own, that whoever holds slaves is himself responsible for +_the relation_, into which, whether reluctantly or willingly, he +thus enters. _The relation cannot be forced upon him_. What though +Elizabeth countenanced John Hawkins in stealing the natives of +Africa?--what though James, and Charles, and George, opened a market +for them in the English colonies?--what though modern Dracos have +"framed mischief by law," in legalizing man-stealing and +slaveholding?--what though your ancestors, in preparing to go +"to their own place," constituted you the owner of the "neighbors" +whom they had used as cattle?--what of all this, and as much more like +this, as can be drawn from the history of that dreadful process by +which men are "deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be +_chattels personal_?" Can all this force you to put the cap upon the +climax--to clinch the nail by doing that, without which nothing in +the work of slave-making would be attempted? _The slaveholder is the +soul of the whole system_. Without him, the chattel principle is a +lifeless abstraction. Without him, charters, and markets, and laws, +and testaments, are empty names. And does _he_ think to escape +responsibility? Why, kidnappers, and soul-drivers, and law-makers, +are nothing but his _agents_. He is the guilty _principal_. Let him +look to it. + +[Footnote 19: You join with them in their bloody work. They murder, +and you bury the victims.] + + +But what can he do? Do? Keep his hands off his "neighbor's" throat. +Let him refuse to finish and ratify the process by which the chattel +principle is carried into effect. Let him refuse, in the face of +derision, and reproach, and opposition. Though poverty should fasten +its bony hand upon him, and persecution shoot forth its forked tongue; +whatever may betide him--scorn, flight, flames--let him promptly and +steadfastly refuse. Better the spite and hate of men than the wrath +of Heaven! "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it +from thee; for it is profitable for thee, that one of thy members +should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." + +Professor Stewart admits, that the Golden Rule and the second great +commandment "decide against the theory of slavery, as being in +itself right." What, then, is their relation to the particular +precepts, institutions, and usages, which are authorized and +enjoined in the New Testament? Of all these, they are the summary +expression--the comprehensive description. No precept in the Bible, +enforcing our mutual obligations, can be more or less than _the +application of these injunctions to specific relations or particular +occasions and conditions_. Neither in the Old Testament nor the New, +do prophets teach or laws enjoin, any thing which the Golden Rule +and the second great command do not contain. Whatever they forbid, +no other precept can require; and whatever they require, no other +precept can forbid. What, then, does he attempt, who turns over the +sacred pages to find something in the way of permission or command, +which may set him free from the obligations of the Golden Rule? What +must his objects, methods, spirit be, to force him to enter upon +such inquiries?--to compel him to search the Bible for such a purpose? +Can he have good intentions, or be well employed? Is his frame of +mind adapted to the study of the Bible?--to make its meaning plain +and welcome? What must he think of God, to search his word in quest +of gross inconsistencies, and grave contradictions! Inconsistent +legislation in Jehovah! Contradictory commands! Permissions at war +with prohibitions! General requirements at variance with particular +arrangements! + +What must be the moral character of any institution which the Golden +Rule decides against?--which the second great command condemns? +_It cannot but be wicked_, whether newly established or long +maintained. However it may be shaped, turned, colored--under every +modification and at all times--_wickedness must be its proper +character. It must be_, IN ITSELF, _apart from its circumstances_, +IN ITS ESSENCE, _apart from its incidents_, SINFUL. + + + "THINK NOT TO SAY WITHIN YOURSELVES, + WE HAVE ABRAHAM FOR OUR FATHER." + +In disposing of those precepts and exhortations which have a +specific bearing upon the subject of slavery, it is greatly important, +nay, absolutely essential, that we look forth upon the objects +around us from the right post of observation. Our stand we must take +at some central point, amidst the general maxims and fundamental +precepts, the known circumstances and characteristic arrangements, +of primitive Christianity. Otherwise, wrong views and false +conclusions will be the result of our studies. We cannot, therefore, +be too earnest in trying to catch the general features and prevalent +spirit of the New Testament institutions and arrangements. For to +what conclusions must we come, if we unwittingly pursue our +inquiries under the bias of the prejudice, that the general maxims +of social life which now prevail in this country, were current, on +the authority of the Savior, among the primitive Christians! That, +for instance, wealth, station, talents, are the standard by which our +claims upon, and our regard for, others, should be modified?--That +those who are pinched by poverty, worn by disease, tasked in +menial labors, or marked by features offensive to the taste of the +artificial and capricious, are to be excluded from those refreshing +and elevating influences which intelligence and refinement may be +expected to exert; that thus they are to constitute a class by +themselves, and to be made to know and keep their place at the very +bottom of society? Or, what if we should think and speak of the +primitive Christians, as if they had the same pecuniary resources as +Heaven has lavished upon the American churches?--as if they were as +remarkable for affluence, elegance, and splendor? Or, as if they had +as high a position and as extensive an influence in politics and +literature?--having directly or indirectly, the control over the +high places of learning and of power? + +If we should pursue our studies and arrange our arguments--if we +should explain words and interpret language--under such a bias, what +must inevitably be the results? What would be the worth of our +conclusions? What confidence could be reposed in any instruction we +might undertake to furnish? And is not this the way in which the +advocates and apologists of slavery dispose of the bearing which +primitive Christianity has upon it? They first ascribe, unwittingly, +perhaps, to the primitive churches; the character, relations, and +condition of American Christianity, and amidst the deep darkness and +strange confusion thus produced, set about interpreting the language +and explaining the usages of the New Testament! + + + + "SO THAT YE ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE." + +Among the lessons of instruction which our Savior imparted, having a +general bearing on the subject of slavery, that in which he sets up +the _true standard of greatness_, deserves particular attention. In +repressing the ambition of his disciples, he held up before them the +methods by which alone healthful aspirations for eminence could be +gratified, and thus set the elements of true greatness in the +clearest light. "Ye know, that they which are accounted to rule over +the Gentiles, exercise lordship over them; and their great ones +exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you; but +whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister; _and +whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all_." In +other words, through the selfishness and pride of mankind, the maxim +widely prevails in the world, that it is the privilege, prerogative, +and mark of greatness, TO EXACT SERVICE; that our superiority to +others, while it authorizes us to relax the exertion of our own +powers, gives us a fair title to the use of theirs; that "might," +while it exempts us from serving, "gives the right" to be served. +The instructions of the Savior open the way to greatness for us in +the opposite direction. Superiority to others, in whatever it may +consist, gives us a claim to a wider field of exertion, and demands +of us a larger amount of service. We can be great only as we _are +useful_. And "might gives right" to bless our fellow men, by +improving every opportunity and employing every faculty, +affectionately, earnestly, and unweariedly, in their service. Thus +the greater the man, the more active, faithful, and useful the +servant. + +The Savior has himself taught us how this doctrine must be applied. +He bids us improve every opportunity and employ every power, even +through the most menial services, in blessing the human family. And +to make this lesson shine upon our understandings and move our hearts, +he embodied in it a most instructive and attractive example. On a +memorable occasion, and just before his crucifixion, he discharged +for his disciples the most menial of all offices--taking, _in +washing their feet_, the place of the lowest servant. He took great +pains to make them understand, that only by imitating this example +could they honor their relations to him as their Master; that thus +only would they find themselves blessed. By what possibility could +slavery exist under the influence of such a lesson, set home by such +an example? _Was it while washing the disciples' feet, that our +Savior authorized one man to make a chattel of another_? + +To refuse to provide for ourselves by useful labor, the apostle Paul +teaches us to regard as a grave offence. After reminding the +Thessalonian Christians, that in addition to all his official +exertions he had with his own muscles earned his own bread, he calls +their attention to an arrangement which was supported by apostolical +authority, "that if any would not work, neither should he eat." In +the most earnest and solemn manner, and as a minister of the Lord +Jesus Christ, he commanded and exhorted those who neglected useful +labor, "_with quietness to work and eat their own bread_." What must +be the bearing of all this upon slavery? Could slavery be maintained +where every man eat the bread which himself had earned?--where +idleness was esteemed so great a crime, as to be reckoned worthy of +starvation as a punishment? How could unrequited labor be exacted, +or used, or needed? Must not every one in such a community +contribute his share to the general welfare?--and mutual service and +mutual support be the natural result? + +The same apostle, in writing to another church, describes the true +source whence the means of liberality ought to be derived. "Let him +that stole steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his +hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that +needeth." Let this lesson, as from the lips of Jehovah, be proclaimed +throughout the length and breadth of South Carolina. Let it be +universally welcomed and reduced to practice. Let thieves give up +what they had stolen to the lawful proprietors, cease stealing, and +begin at once to "labor, working with their hands," for necessary +and charitable purposes. Could slavery, in such a case, continue to +exist? Surely not! Instead of exacting unpaid services from others, +every man would be busy, exerting himself not only to provide for +his own wants, but also to accumulate funds, "that he might have to +give to" the needy. Slavery must disappear, root and branch, at once +and forever. + +In describing the source whence his ministers should expect their +support, the Savior furnished a general principle, which has an +obvious and powerful bearing on the subject of slavery. He would +have them remember, while exerting themselves for the benefit of +their fellow men, that "the laborer is worthy of his hire." He has +thus united wages with work. Whoever renders the one is entitled to +the other. And this manifestly according to a mutual understanding +and a voluntary arrangement. For the doctrine that I may force you +to work for me for whatever consideration I may please to fix upon, +fairly opens the way for the doctrine, that you, in turn, may force +me to render you whatever wages you may choose to exact for any +services you may see fit to render. Thus slavery, even as +involuntary servitude, is cut up by the root. Even the Princeton +professor seems to regard it as a violation of the principle which +unites work with wages. + +The apostle James applies this principle to the claims of manual +laborers--of those who hold the plough and thrust in the sickle. He +calls the rich lordlings who exacted sweat and withheld wages, to +"weeping and howling," assuring them that the complaints of +the injured laborer had entered into the ear of the Lord of Hosts, +and that, as a result of their oppression, their riches were +corrupted, and their garments moth-eaten; their gold and silver were +cankered; that the rust of them should be a witness against them, +and should eat their flesh as it were fire; that, in one word, they +had heaped treasures together for the last days, when "miseries were +coming upon them," the prospect of which might well drench them in +tears and fill them with terror. If these admonitions and warnings +were heeded there, would not "the South" break forth into "weeping +and wailing, and gnashing of teeth?" What else are its rich men about, +but withholding by a system of fraud, his wages from the laborer, +who is wearing himself out under the impulse of fear, in cultivating +their fields and producing their luxuries! Encouragement and support +do they derive from James, in maintaining the "peculiar institution" +which they call patriarchal, and boast of as the "corner-stone" of +the republic? + +In the New Testament, we have, moreover, the general injunction, +"_Honor all men_." Under this broad precept, every form of humanity +may justly claim protection and respect. The invasion of any human +right must do dishonor to humanity, and be a transgression of this +command. How then, in the light of such obligations, must slavery be +regarded? Are those men honored, who are rudely excluded from a +place in the human family, and shut up to the deep degradation and +nameless horrors of chattelship? _Can they be held as slaves, and at +the same time be honored as men_? + +How far, in obeying this command, we are to go, we may infer from +the admonitions and instructions which James applies to the +arrangements and usages of religious assemblies. Into these he can +not allow "respect of persons" to enter. "My brethren," he exclaims, +"have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, +with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a +man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel; and there come in also +a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth +the gay clothing, and say unto him, sit thou here in a good place; +and say to the poor, stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool; +are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil +thoughts?" _If ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are +convinced of the law as transgressors_. On this general principle, +then, religious assemblies ought to be regulated--that every man is +to be estimated, not according to his _circumstances_--not according +to anything incidental to his _condition_; but according to his _moral +worth_--according to the essential features and vital elements of his +_character_. Gold rings and gay clothing, as they qualify no man for, +can entitle no man to, a "good place" in the church. Nor can the +"vile raiment of the poor man," fairly exclude him from any sphere, +however exalted, which his heart and head may fit him to fill. To +deny this, in theory or practice, is to degrade a man below a thing; +for what are gold rings, or gay clothing, or vile raiment, but things, +"which perish with the using?" And this must be "to commit sin, and +be convinced of the law as transgressor." + +In slavery, we have "respect of persons," strongly marked, and +reduced to system. Here men are despised not merely for "the vile +raiment," which may cover their scarred bodies. This is bad enough. +But the deepest contempt of humanity here grows out of birth or +complexion. Vile raiment may be, often is, the result of indolence, +or improvidence, or extravagance. It may be, often is, an index of +character. But how can I be responsible for the incidents of my +birth?--how for my complexion? To despise or honor me for these, is to +be guilty of "respect of persons" in its grossest form, and with its +worst effects. It is to reward or punish me for what I had nothing +to do with; for which, therefore, I cannot, without the greatest +injustice, be held responsible. It is to poison the very fountains +of justice, by confounding all moral distinctions. What, then, so +far as the authority of the New Testament is concerned, becomes of +slavery, which cannot be maintained under any form nor for a single +moment, without "respect of persons" the most aggravated and +unendurable? And what would become of that most pitiful, silly, and +wicked arrangement in so many of our churches, in which worshippers +of a dark complexion are to be sent up to the negro pew?[20] + +[Footnote 20: In Carlyle's Review of the Memoirs of Mirabeau, we +have the following anecdote illustrative of the character of a +"grandmother" of the Count. "Fancy the dame Mirabeau sailing stately +towards the church font; another dame striking in to take precedence +of her; the dame Mirabeau despatching this latter with a box on the +ear, and these words, '_Here, as in the army_, THE BAGGAGE _goes +last_!'" Let those who justify the negro-pew arrangement, throw +a stone at this proud woman--if they dare.] + +Nor are we permitted to confine this principle to religious +assemblies. It is to pervade social life everywhere. Even where +plenty, intelligence and refinement, diffuse their brightest rays, +the poor are to be welcomed with especial favor. "Then said he to +him that bade him, when thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not +thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich +neighbors, lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made +thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor and the maimed, +the lame and the blind, and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot +recompense thee, but thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection +of the just." + +In the high places of social life then--in the parlor, the +drawing-room, the saloon--special reference should be had, in every +arrangement, to the comfort and improvement of those who are least +able to provide for the cheapest rites of hospitality. For these, +ample accommodations must be made, whatever may become of our +kinsmen and rich neighbors. And for this good reason, that while +such occasions signify little to the latter, to the former they are +pregnant with good--raising their drooping spirits, cheering their +desponding hearts, inspiring them with life, and hope, and joy. The +rich and the poor thus meeting joyfully together, cannot but +mutually contribute to each other's benefit; the rich will be led to +moderation, sobriety, and circumspection, and the poor to industry, +providence, and contentment. The recompense must be great and sure. + +A most beautiful and instructive commentary on the text in which +these things are taught, the Savior furnished in his own conduct. He +freely mingled with those who were reduced to the very bottom of +society. At the tables of the outcasts of society he did not +hesitate to be a cheerful guest, surrounded by publicans and sinners. +And when flouted and reproached by smooth and lofty ecclesiastics, +as an ultraist and leveler, he explained and justified himself by +observing, that he had only done what his office demanded. It was +his to seek the lost, to heal the sick, to pity the wretched;--in a +word, to bestow just such benefits as the various necessities of +mankind made appropriate and welcome. In his great heart, there was +room enough for those who had been excluded from the sympathy of +little souls. In its spirit and design, the gospel overlooked +none--least of all, the outcasts of a selfish world. + +Can slavery, however modified, be consistent with such a gospel?--a +gospel which requires us, even amidst the highest forms of social +life, to exert ourselves to raise the depressed by giving our +warmest sympathies to those who have the smallest share in the favor +of the world? + +Those who are in "bonds" are set before us as deserving an especial +remembrance. Their claims upon us are described as a modification of +the Golden Rule--as one of the many forms to which its obligations +are reducible. To them we are to extend the same affectionate regard +as we would covet for ourselves, if the chains upon their limbs were +fastened upon ours. To the benefits of this precept, the enslaved +have a natural claim of the greatest strength. The wrongs they +suffer spring from a persecution which can hardly be surpassed in +malignancy. Their birth and complexion are the occasion of the +insults and injuries which they can neither endure nor escape. It is +for _the work of God_, and not their own deserts, that they are +loaded with chains. _This is persecution_. + +Can I regard the slave as another self--can I put myself in his +place--and be indifferent to his wrongs? Especially, can I, thus +affected, take sides with the oppressor? Could I, in such a state of +mind as the gospel requires me to cherish, reduce him to slavery or +keep him in bonds? Is not the precept under hand naturally +subversive of every system and every form of slavery? + +The general descriptions of the church, which are found here and +there in the New Testament, are highly instructive in their bearing +on the subject of slavery. In one connection, the following words +meet the eye: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond +nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in +Christ Jesus."[21] Here we have-- + + 1. A clear and strong description of the doctrine of _human + equality_. "Ye are all ONE;"--so much alike, so truly placed on + common ground, all wielding each his own powers with such freedom, + _that one is the same as another_. + + 2. This doctrine, self-evident in the light of reason, is affirmed on + divine authority. "IN CHRIST JESUS, _ye are all one_." The natural + equality of the human family is a part of the gospel. For-- + + 3. All the human family are included in this description. Whether + men or women, whether bond or free, whether Jews or Gentiles, all + are alike entitled to the benefit of this doctrine. Whether + Christianity prevails, the _artificial_ distinctions which grow out + of birth, condition, sex, are done away. _Natural_ distinctions are + not destroyed. _They_ are recognized, hallowed, confirmed. The + gospel does not abolish the sexes, forbid a division of labor, or + extinguish patriotism. It takes woman from beneath the feet, and + places her by the side of man; delivers the manual laborer from + "the yoke," and gives him wages for his work; and brings the Jew and + the Gentile to embrace each other with fraternal love and confidence. + Thus it raises all to a common level, gives to each the free use of + his own powers and resources, binds all together in one dear and + loving brotherhood. Such, according to the description of the apostle, + was the influence, and such the effect of primitive Christianity. + "Behold the picture!" Is it like American slavery, which, in all its + tendencies and effects, is destructive of all oneness among brethren? + +[Footnote 21: Gal. iii. 28.] + + +"Where the spirit of the Lord is," exclaims the same apostle, with +his eye upon the condition and relations of the church, "_where the +spirit of the Lord is_, THERE IS LIBERTY." Where, then, may we +reverently recognize the presence, and bow before the manifested +power, of this spirit? _There_, where the laborer may not choose how +he shall be employed!--in what way his wants shall be supplied!--with +whom he shall associate!--who shall have the fruit of his exertions! +_There_, where he is not free to enjoy his wife and children! +_There_, where his body and his soul, his very "destiny,"[22] +are placed altogether beyond his control! _There_, where every +power is crippled, every energy blasted, every hope crushed! _There_, +where in all the relations and concerns of life, he is legally +treated as if he had nothing to do with the laws of reason, the +light of immortality, or the exercise of will! Is the spirit of the +Lord _there_, where liberty is decried and denounced, mocked at and +spit upon, betrayed and crucified! In the midst of a church which +justified slavery, which derived its support from slavery, which +carried on its enterprises by means of slavery, would the apostle +have found the fruits of the Spirit of the Lord! Let that Spirit +exert his influences, and assert his authority, and wield his power, +and slavery must vanish at once and for ever. + +[Footnote 22: "The legislature (of South Carolina) from time to time, +has passed many restricted and penal acts, with a view to bring +under direct control and subjection the DESTINY of the black +population." See the Remonstrance of James S. Pope and 352 others +against home missionary efforts for the benefit of the enslaved--a +most instructive paper.] + + +In more than one connection, the apostle James describes Christianity +as "_the law of liberty_." It is, in other words, the law under +which liberty cannot but live and flourish--the law in which liberty +is clearly defined, strongly asserted, and well protected. As the law +of liberty, how can it be consistent with the law of slavery? The +presence and the power of this law are felt wherever the light of +reason shines. They are felt in the uneasiness and conscious +degradation of the slave, and in the shame and remorse which the +master betrays in his reluctant and desperate efforts to defend +himself. This law it is which has armed human nature against the +oppressor. Wherever it is obeyed, "every yoke is broken." + +In these references to the New Testament we have a _general +description_ of the primitive church, and the _principles_ on which +it was founded and fashioned. These principles bear the same +relation to Christian _history_ as to Christian _character_, since +the former is occupied with the development of the latter. What then +is Christian character but Christian principle _realized_, acted out, +bodied forth, and animated? Christian principle is the soul, of +which Christian character is the expression--the manifestation. It +comprehends in itself, as a living seed, such Christian character, +under every form, modification, and complexion. The former is, +therefore, the test and interpreter of the latter. In the light of +Christian principle, and in that light only we can judge of and +explain Christian character. Christian history is occupied with the +forms, modifications, and various aspects of Christian character. +The facts which are there recorded serve to show, how Christian +principle has fared in this world--how it has appeared, what it has +done, how it has been treated. In these facts we have the various +institutions, usages, designs, doings, and sufferings of the church +of Christ. And all these have of necessity, the closest relation to +Christian principle. They are the production of its power. Through +them, it is revealed and manifested. In its light, they are to be +studied, explained, and understood. Without it they must be as +unintelligible and insignificant as the letters of a book scattered +on the wind. + +In the principles of Christianity, then, we have a comprehensive and +faithful account of its objects, institutions, and usages--of how it +must behave, and act, and suffer, in a world of sin and misery. For +between the principles which God reveals, on the one hand, and the +precepts he enjoins, the institutions he establishes, and the usages +he approves, on the other, there must be consistency and harmony. +Otherwise we impute to God what we must abhor in man--practice at war +with principle. Does the Savior, then, lay down the _principle_ that +our standing in the church must depend upon the habits formed within +us, of readily and heartily subserving the welfare of others; and +permit us _in practice_ to invade the rights and trample on the +happiness of our fellows, by reducing them to slavery. Does he, +_in principle_ and by example, require us to go all lengths in +rendering mutual service, or comprehending offices that most menial, +as well as the most honorable; and permit us _in practice_ to EXACT +service of our brethren, as if they were nothing better than +"articles of merchandize!" Does he require us _in principle_ +"to work with quietness and eat our own bread;" and permit us +_in practice_ to wrest from our brethren the fruits of their +unrequited toil? Does he _in principle_ require us, abstaining from +every form of theft, to employ our powers in useful labor, not only +to provide for ourselves but also to relieve the indigence of others; +and permit us _in practice_, abstaining from every form of labor, to +enrich and aggrandize ourselves with the fruits of man-stealing? +Does he require us _in principle_ to regard "the laborer as worthy +of his hire"; and permit us _in practice_ to defraud him of his wages? +Does he require us _in principle_ to honor ALL men; and permit us +_in practice_ to treat multitudes like cattle? Does he _in +principle_ prohibit "respect of persons;" and permit us _in practice_ +to place the feet of the rich upon the necks of the poor? Does he +_in principle_ require us to sympathize with the bondman as +another self; and permit us _in practice_ to leave him unpitied and +unhelped in the hands of the oppressor? _In principle_, "where the +Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;" _in practice_, is _slavery_ +the fruit of the Spirit? _In principle_, Christianity is the law of +liberty; _in practice_, it is the law of slavery? Bring practice in +these various respects into harmony with principle, and what becomes +of slavery? And if, where the divine government is concerned, +practice is the expression of principle, and principle the standard +and interpreter of practice, such harmony cannot but be maintained +and must be asserted. In studying, therefore, fragments of history +and sketches of biography--in disposing of references to institutions, +usages, and facts in the New Testament, this necessary harmony +between principle and practice in the government _of God_, should be +continually present to the thoughts of the interpreter. Principles +assert what practice must be. Whatever principle condemns, God +condemns. It belongs to those weeds of the dung-hill which, planted +by "an enemy," his hand will assuredly "root up." It is most certain +then, that if slavery prevailed in the first ages of Christianity, +it could nowhere have prevailed under its influence and with its +sanction. + + * * * * * + +The condition in which in its efforts to bless mankind, the +primitive church was placed, must have greatly assisted the early +Christians in understanding and applying the principles of the gospel. +Their _Master_ was born in great obscurity, lived in the deepest +poverty, and died the most ignominious death. The place of his +residence, his familiarity with the outcasts of society, his +welcoming assistance and support from female hands, his casting his +beloved mother, when he hung upon the cross, upon the charity of a +disciple--such things evince the depth of his poverty, and show to +what derision and contempt he must have been exposed. Could such an +one, "despised and rejected of men--a man of sorrows and acquainted +with grief," play the oppressor, or smile on those who made +merchandize of the poor! + +And what was the history of the _apostles_, but an illustration of +the doctrine, that "it is enough for the disciple, that he be as his +Master?" Were they lordly ecclesiastics, abounding with wealth, +shining with splendor, bloated with luxury! Were they ambitious of +distinction, fleecing, and trampling, and devouring "the flocks," +that they themselves might "have the pre-eminence!" Were they +slaveholding bishops! Or did they derive their support from the +wages of iniquity and the price of blood! Can such inferences be +drawn from the account of their condition, which the most gifted and +enterprising of their number has put upon record? "Even unto this +present hour, we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and _are +buffetted_, and have _no certain dwelling place, and labor working +with our own hands_. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we +suffer it; being defamed, we entreat; we are made as _the filth of +the world_, and are THE OFFSCOURING OF ALL THINGS unto this day."[23] +Are these the men who practised or countenanced slavery? _With +such a temper, they_ WOULD NOT; _in such circumstances, they_ COULD +NOT. Exposed to "tribulation, distress, and persecution;" subject to +famine and nakedness, to peril and the sword; "killed all the day +long; accounted as sheep for the slaughter,"[24] they would have made +but a sorry figure at the _great-house_ or slave-market. + +[Footnote 23: 1 Cor. iv. 11-13.] + +[Footnote 24: Rom. viii. 35, 36.] + + +Nor was the condition of the brethren, generally, better than that of +the apostles. The position of the apostles doubtless entitled them to +the strongest opposition, the heaviest reproaches, the fiercest +persecution. But derision and contempt must have been the lot of +Christians generally. Surely we cannot think so ill of primitive +Christianity as to suppose that believers, generally, refused to +share in the trials and sufferings of their leaders; as to suppose +that while the leaders submitted to manual labor, to buffeting, to be +reckoned the filth of the world, to be accounted as sheep for the +slaughter, his brethren lived in affluence, ease, and honor! +despising manual labor and living upon the sweat of unrequited toil! +But on this point we are not left to mere inference and conjecture. +The apostle Paul in the plainest language explains the ordination of +Heaven. "But _God hath_ CHOSEN the foolish things of the world to +confound the wise; and God hath CHOSEN the weak things of the world +to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, +and things which are despised hath God CHOSEN, yea, and THINGS WHICH +ARE NOT, to bring to nought things that are."[25] Here we may well +notice, + + 1. That it was not by _accident_, that the primitive churches were + made up of such elements, but the result of the DIVINE CHOICE--an + arrangement of His wise and gracious Providence. The inference is + natural, that this ordination was co-extensive with the triumphs of + Christianity. It was nothing new or strange, that Jehovah had + concealed his glory "from the wise and prudent, and had revealed it + unto babes," or that "the common people heard him gladly," while + "not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, + had been called." + + 2. The description of character, which the apostle records, could be + adapted only to what are reckoned the _very dregs of humanity_. The + foolish and the weak, the base and the contemptible, in the + estimation of worldly pride and wisdom--these were they whose broken + hearts were reached, and moulded, and refreshed by the gospel; these + were they whom the apostle took to his bosom as his own brethren. + +[Footnote 25: 1 Cor. i. 27, 28.] + + +That _slaves_ abounded at Corinth, may easily be admitted. _They_ +have a place in the enumeration of elements of which, according to +the apostle, the church there was composed. The most remarkable +class found there, consisted of "THINGS WHICH ARE NOT"--mere nobodies, +not admitted to the privileges of men, but degraded to a level with +"goods and chattels;" of whom _no account_ was made in such +arrangements of society as subserved the improvement, and dignity, +and happiness of MANKIND. How accurately the description applies to +those who are crushed under the chattel principle! + +The reference which the apostle makes to the "deep poverty of the +churches of Macedonia,"[26] and this to stir up the sluggish +liberality of his Corinthian brethren, naturally leaves the +impression, that the latter were by no means inferior to the former +in the gifts of Providence. But, pressed with want and pinched by +poverty as were the believers in "Macedonia and Achaia, it pleased +them to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which were +at Jerusalem."[27] Thus it appears, that Christians everywhere were +familiar with contempt and indigence, so much so, that the apostle +would dissuade such as had no families from assuming the +responsibilities of the conjugal relation![28] + +[Footnote 26: 2 Cor. viii. 2.] + +[Footnote 27: Rom. xviii. 18-25.] + +[Footnote 28: Cor. vii. 26, 27.] + +Now, how did these good people treat each other? Did the few among +them, who were esteemed wise, mighty, or noble, exert their +influence and employ their power in oppressing the weak, in disposing +of the "things that are not," as marketable commodities!--kneeling +with them in prayer in the evening, and putting them up at auction +the next morning! Did the church sell any of the members to swell +the "certain contribution for the poor saints at Jerusalem!" Far +other wise--as far as possible! In those Christian communities where +the influence of the apostles was most powerful, and where the +arrangements drew forth their highest commendations, believers +treated each other as _brethren_, in the strongest sense of that +sweet word. So warm was their mutual love, so strong the public +spirit, so open-handed and abundant the general liberality, that +they are set forth as "_having all things common_."[29] Slaves and +their holders here? Neither the one nor the other could, in that +relation to each other, have breathed such an atmosphere. The appeal +of the kneeling bondman, "Am I not a man and a brother," must here +have met with a prompt and powerful response. + +[Footnote 29: Acts, iv. 32.] + + +The _tests_ by which our Savior tries the character of his professed +disciples, shed a strong light upon the genius of the gospel. In one +connection,[30] an inquirer demands of the Savior, "What good thing +shall I do that I may have eternal life?" After being reminded of the +obligations which his social nature imposed upon him, he ventured, +while claiming to be free from guilt in his relations to mankind, to +demand, "what lack I yet?" The radical deficiency under which his +character labored, the Savior was not long or obscure in pointing out. +"If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the +poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me." +On this passage it is natural to suggest-- + + 1. That we have here a _test of universal application_. The + rectitude and benevolence of our Savior's character forbid us to + suppose, that he would subject this inquirer, especially as he was + highly amiable, to a trial, where eternal life was at stake, + _peculiarly_ severe. Indeed, the test seems to have been only a fair + exposition of the second great command, and of course it must be + applicable to all who are placed under the obligations of that + precept. Those who cannot stand this test, as their character is + radically imperfect and unsound, must, with the inquirer to whom + our Lord applied it, be pronounced unfit for the kingdom of heaven. + + 2. The least that our Savior can in that passage be understood to + demand is, that we disinterestedly and heartily devote ourselves to + the welfare of mankind, "the poor" especially. We are to put + ourselves on a level with _them_, as we must do "in selling that we + have" for their benefit--in other words, in employing our powers and + resources to elevate their character, condition, and prospects. This + our Savior did; and if we refuse to enter into sympathy and + co-operation with him, how can we be his _followers_? Apply this + test to the slaveholder. Instead of "selling that he hath" for the + benefit of the poor, he BUYS THE POOR, and exacts their sweat with + stripes, to enable him to "clothe himself in purple and fine linen, + and fare sumptuously every day;" or, HE SELLS THE POOR to support + the gospel and convert the heathen! + +[Footnote 30: Luke, xviii. 18-25.] + + +What, in describing the scenes of the final judgment, does our Savior +teach us? _By what standard_ must our character be estimated, and the +retributions of eternity be awarded? A standard, which both the +righteous and the wicked will be surprised to see erected. From the +"offscouring of all things," the meanest specimen of humanity will +be selected--a "stranger" in the hands of the oppressor, naked, +hungry, sickly; and this stranger, placed in the midst of the +assembled universe, by the side of the sovereign Judge, will be +openly acknowledged as his representative. "Glory, honor, and +immortality," will be the reward of those who had recognized and +cheered their Lord through his outraged poor. And tribulation, +anguish, and despair, will seize on "every soul of man" who had +neglected or despised them. But whom, within the limits of our +country, are we to regard especially as the representatives of our +final Judge? Every feature of the Savior's picture finds its +appropriate original in our enslaved countrymen. + + + 1. They are the LEAST of his brethren. + + 2. They are subject to thirst and hunger, unable to command a cup + of water or a crumb of bread. + + 3. They are exposed to wasting sickness, without the ability to + procure a nurse or employ a physician. + + 4. They are emphatically "in prison," restrained by chains, goaded + with whips, tasked, and under keepers. Not a wretch groans in any + cell of the prisons of our country, who is exposed to a confinement + so vigorous and heartbreaking as the law allows theirs to be + continually and permanently. + + 5. And then they are emphatically, and peculiarly, and exclusively, + STRANGERS--_strangers_ in the land which gave them birth. Whom + else do we constrain to remain aliens in the midst of our free + institutions? The Welch, the Swiss, the Irish? The Jews even? + Alas, it is the _negro_ only, who may not strike his roots into + our soil. Every where we have conspired to treat him as a + stranger--every where he is forced to feel himself a stranger. In + the stage and steamboat, in the parlor and at our tables, in the + scenes of business and in the scenes of amusement--even in the + church of God and at the communion table, he is regarded as a + stranger. The intelligent and religious are generally disgusted + and horror-struck at the thought of his becoming identified with + the citizens of our republic--so much so, that thousands of them + have entered into a conspiracy to send him off "out of sight," to + find a home on a foreign shore!--and justify themselves by openly + alleging, that a "single drop" of his blood, in the veins of any + human creature, must make him hateful to his fellow + citizens!--That nothing but banishment from "our coasts," can + redeem him from the scorn and contempt to which his "stranger" + blood has reduced him among his own mother's children! + +Who, then, in this land "of milk and honey," is "hungry and athirst," +but the man from whom the law takes away the last crumb of bread and +the smallest drop of water? + +Who "naked," but the man whom the law strips of the last rag of +clothing? + +Who "sick," but the man whom the law deprives of the power of +procuring medicine or sending for a physician? + +Who "in prison," but the man who, all his life, is under the control +of merciless masters and cruel keepers! + +Who a "stranger," but the man who is scornfully denied the cheapest +courtesies of life--who is treated as an alien in his native country? + +There is one point in this awful description which deserves +particular attention. Those who are doomed to the left hand of the +Judge, are not charged with inflicting _positive_ injuries on their +helpless, needy, and oppressed brother. Theirs was what is often +called _negative_ character. What they _had done_ is not described +in the indictment. Their _neglect_ of duty, what they _had_ NOT +_done_, was the ground of their "everlasting punishment." The +representative of their Judge, they had seen a hungered and they +gave him no meat, thirsty and they gave him no drink, a stranger and +they took him not in, naked and they clothed him not, sick and in +prison and they visited him not. In as much as they did NOT yield to +the claims of suffering humanity--did NOT exert themselves to bless +the meanest of the human family, they were driven away in their +wickedness. But what if the indictment had run thus: I was a +hungered and ye snatched away the crust which might have saved me +from starvation; I was thirsty and ye dashed to the ground the +"cup of cold water," which might have moistened my parched lips; I +was a stranger and ye drove me from the hovel which might have +sheltered me from the piercing wind; I was sick and ye scourged me +to my task; in prison and you sold me for my jail-fees--to what +depths of hell must not those who were convicted under such charges +be consigned! And what is the history of American slavery but one +long indictment, describing under ever-varying forms and hues just +such injuries! + +Nor should it be forgotten, that those who incurred the displeasure +of their Judge, took far other views than he, of their own past +history. The charges which he brought against them, they heard with +great surprise. They were sure that they had never thus turned away +from his necessities. Indeed, when had they seen him thus subject to +poverty, insult, and oppression? Never. And as to that poor +friendless creature, whom they left unpitied and unhelped in the +hands of the oppressor, and whom their Judge now presented as his +own representative, they never once supposed, that _he_ had any +claims on their compassion and assistance. Had they known, that he +was destined to so prominent a place at the final judgment, they +would have treated him as a human being, in despite of any social, +pecuniary, or political considerations. But neither their _negative +virtue_ nor their _voluntary ignorance_ could shield them from the +penal fire which their selfishness had kindled. + +Now amidst the general maxims, the leading principles, the "great +commandments" of the gospel; amidst its comprehensive descriptions +and authorized tests of Christian character, we should take our +position in disposing of any particular allusions to such forms and +usages of the primitive churches as are supported by divine authority. +The latter must be interpreted and understood in the light of the +former. But how do the apologists and defenders of slavery proceed? +Placing themselves amidst the arrangements and usages which grew out +of the _corruptions_ of Christianity, they make these the standard +by which the gospel is to be explained and understood! Some Recorder +or Justice. without the light of inquiry or the aid of a jury, +consigns the negro whom the kidnapper has dragged into his presence +to the horrors of slavery. As the poor wretch shrieks and faints, +Humanity shudders and demands why such atrocities are endured. Some +"priest" or "Levite," "passing by on the other side," quite +self-possessed and all complacent, reads in reply from his broad +phylactery, _Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon_! Yes, echoes the +negro-hating mob, made up of "gentlemen of property and standing" +together with equally gentle-men reeking from the gutter; _Yes--Paul +sent back Onesimus to Philemon_! And Humanity, brow-beaten, stunned +with noise and tumult, is pushed aside by the crowd! A fair specimen +this of the manner in which modern usages are made to interpret the +sacred Scriptures? + +Of the particular passages in the New Testament on which the +apologists for slavery especially rely, the epistle to Philemon +first demands our attention. + + 1. This letter was written by the apostle Paul while a "prisoner of + Jesus Christ" at Rome. + + 2. Philemon was a benevolent and trustworthy member of the church at + Colosse, at whose house the disciples of Christ held their assemblies, + and who owed his conversion, under God, directly or indirectly to + the ministry of Paul. + + 3. Onesimus was the servant of Philemon; under a relation which it + is difficult with accuracy and certainty to define. His condition, + though servile, could not have been like that of an American slave; + as, in that case, however he might have "wronged" Philemon, he could + not also have "owed him ought."[31] The American slave is, according + to law, as much the property of his master as any other chattel; and + can no more "owe" his master than can a sheep or a horse. The basis + of all pecuniary obligations lies in some "value received." How can + "an article of merchandise" stand on this basis and sustain + commercial relations to its owner? There is no _person_ to offer or + promise. _Personality is swallowed up in American slavery_! + + 4. How Onesimus found his way to Rome it is not easy to determine. + He and Philemon appear to have parted from each other on ill terms. + The general character of Onesimus, certainly, in his relation to + Philemon, had been far from attractive, and he seems to have left + him without repairing the wrongs he had done him or paying the debts + which he owed him. At Rome, by the blessing of God upon the + exertions of the apostle, he was brought to reflection and repentance. + + 5. In reviewing his history in the light of Christian truth, he + became painfully aware of the injuries he had inflicted on Philemon. + He longed for an opportunity for frank confession and full + restitution. Having, however, parted with Philemon on ill terms, he + knew not how to appear in his presence. Under such embarrassments, + he naturally sought sympathy and advice of Paul. _His_ influence + upon Philemon, Onesimus knew must be powerful, especially as an + apostle. + + 6. A letter in behalf of Onesimus was therefore written by the + apostle to Philemon. After such salutations, benedictions, and + thanksgiving as the good character and useful life of Philemon + naturally drew from the heart of Paul, he proceeds to the object of + the letter. He admits that Onesimus had behaved ill in the service + of Philemon; not in running away, for how they had parted with each + other is not explained; but in being unprofitable and in refusing to + pay the debts[32] which he had contracted. But his character had + undergone a radical change. Thenceforward fidelity and usefulness + would be his aim and mark his course. And as to any pecuniary + obligations which he had violated, the apostle authorized Philemon + to put them on his account.[33] Thus a way was fairly opened to the + heart of Philemon. And now what does the apostles ask? + + 7. He asks that Philemon would receive Onesimus, How? "Not as a + _servant_, but above a _servant_."[34] How much above? Philemon was + to receive him as "a son" of the apostle--"as a brother + beloved"--nay, if he counted Paul a partner, an equal, he was to + receive Onesimus as he would receive _the apostle himself_.[35] _So + much_ above a servant was he to receive him! + + 8. But was not this request to be so interpreted and complied with + as to put Onesimus in the hands of Philemon as "an article of + merchandise," CARNALLY, while it raised him to the dignity of a + "brother beloved," SPIRITUALLY? In other words, might not Philemon + consistently with the request of Paul have reduced Onesimus to a + chattel, as A MAN, while he admitted him fraternally to his bosom, + as a CHRISTIAN? Such gibberish in an apostolic epistle! Never. As if, + however to guard against such folly, the natural product of mist and + moonshine, the apostle would have Onesimus raised above a servant to + the dignity of a brother beloved, "BOTH IN THE FLESH AND IN THE + LORD;"[36] as a man and Christian, in all the relations, + circumstances, and responsibilities of life. + +[Footnote 31: Philemon, 18.] + +[Footnote 32: Verse 11, 18.] + +[Footnote 33: Verse 18.] + +[Footnote 34: Verse 16.] + +[Footnote 35: Verse 10, 16, 17.] + +[Footnote 36: Verse 16.] + +It is easy now with definiteness and certainty to determine in what +sense the apostle in such connections uses the word "_brother_". It +describes a relation inconsistent with and opposite to the _servile_. +It is "NOT" the relation of a "SERVANT." It elevates its subject +"above" the servile condition. It raises him to full equality with +the master, to the same equality, on which Paul and Philemon stood +side by side as brothers; and this, not in some vague, undefined, +spiritual sense, affecting the soul and leaving the body in bonds, +but in every way, "both in the FLESH and in the Lord." This matter +deserves particular and earnest attention. It sheds a strong light +on other lessons of apostolic instruction. + + 9. It is greatly to our purpose, moreover, to observe that the + apostle clearly defines the _moral character_ of his request. It was + fit, proper, right, suited to the nature and relation of things--a + thing which _ought_ to be done.[37] On this account, he might have + urged it upon Philemon in the form of an _injunction_, on apostolic + authority and with great boldness.[38] _The very nature_ of the + request made it obligatory on Philemon. He was sacredly bound, out + of regard to the fitness of things, to admit Onesimus to full + equality with himself--to treat him as a brother both in the Lord + and as having flesh--as a fellow man. Thus were the inalienable + rights and birthright privileges of Onesimus, as a member of the + human family, defined and protected by apostolic authority. + + 10. The apostle preferred a request instead of imposing a command, + on the ground of CHARITY.[39] He would give Philemon an opportunity + of discharging his obligations under the impulse of love. To this + impulse, he was confident Philemon would promptly and fully yield. + How could he do otherwise? The thing itself was right. The request + respecting it came from a benefactor, to whom, under God, he was + under the highest obligations.[40] That benefactor, now an old man, + and in the hands of persecutors, manifested a deep and tender + interest in the matter and had the strongest persuasion that + Philemon was more ready to grant than himself to entreat. The result, + as he was soon to visit Collosse, and had commissioned Philemon to + prepare a lodging for him, must come under the eye of the apostle. + The request was so manifestly reasonable and obligatory, that the + apostle, after all, described a compliance with it, by the strong + word "_obedience_."[41] + +[Footnote 37: Verse 8. To [Greek: anaekon]. See Robinson's New +Testament Lexicon; "_it is fit, proper, becoming, it ought_." In +what sense King James' translators used the word "convenient" any +one may see who will read Rom. i. 28 and Eph. v. 3, 4.] + +[Footnote 38: Verse 8.] + +[Footnote 39: Verse 9--[Greek: dia taen agapaen]] + +[Footnote 40: Verse 19.] + +[Footnote 41: Verse 21.] + + +Now, how must all this have been understood by the church at Colosse? +--a church, doubtless, made up of such materials as the church at +Corinth, that is, of members chiefly from the humblest walks of life. +Many of them had probably felt the degradation and tasted the +bitterness of the servile condition. Would they have been likely to +interpret the apostle's letter under the bias of feelings friendly to +slavery!--And put the slaveholder's construction on its contents! +Would their past experience or present sufferings--for doubtless +some of them were still "under the yoke"--have suggested to their +thoughts such glosses as some of our theological professors venture +to put upon the words of the apostle! Far otherwise. The Spirit of +the Lord was there, and the epistle was read in the light of +"_liberty_." It contained the principles of holy freedom, faithfully +and affectionately applied. This must have made it precious in the +eyes of such men "of low degree" as were most of the believers, and +welcome to a place in the sacred canon. There let it remain as a +luminous and powerful defence of the cause of emancipation! + +But what saith Professor Stuart? "If any one doubts, let him take +the case of Paul's sending Onesimus back to Philemon, with an apology +for his running away, and sending him back to be his servant for +life."[42] + +[Footnote 42: See his letter to Dr. Fisk, supra pp. 7, 8] + + +"Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon." By what process? Did the +apostle, a prisoner at Rome, seize upon the fugitive, and drag him +before some heartless and perfidious "Judge," for authority to send +him back to Colosse? Did he hurry his victim away from the presence +of the fat and supple magistrate, to be driven under chains and the +lash to the field of unrequited toil, whence he had escaped? Had the +apostle been like some teachers in the American churches, he might, +as a professor of sacred literature in one of our seminaries, or a +preacher of the gospel to the rich in some of our cities, have consented +thus to subserve the "peculiar" interests of a dear slaveholding brother. +But the venerable champion of truth and freedom was himself under +bonds in the imperial city, waiting for the crown of martyrdom. He +wrote a letter to the church a Colosse, which was accustomed to meet +at the house of Philemon, and another letter to that magnanimous +disciple, and sent them by the hand of Onesimus. So much for _the way_ +in which Onesimus was sent back to his master. + + +A slave escapes from a patriarch in Georgia, and seeks a refuge in +the parish of the Connecticut doctor of Divinity, who once gave +public notice that he saw no reason for caring for the servitude of +his fellow men.[43] Under his influence, Caesar becomes a Christian +convert. Burning with love for the son whom he hath begotten in the +gospel, our doctor resolves to send him back to his master. +Accordingly, he writes a letter, gives it to Caesar, and bids him +return, staff in hand, to the "corner-stone of our republican +institutions." Now, what would my Caesar do, who had ever felt a +link of slavery's chain? As he left his _spiritual father_, should +we be surprised to hear him say to himself, What, return of my own +accord to the man who, with the hand of a robber, plucked me from my +mother's bosom!--for whom I have been so often drenched in the sweat +of unrequited toil!--whose violence so often cut my flesh and +scarred my limbs!--who shut out every ray of light from my mind!--who +laid claim to those honors to which my Creator and Redeemer only +are entitled! And for what am I to return? To be cursed, and +smitten, and sold! To be tempted, and torn, and destroyed! I cannot +thus throw myself away--thus rush upon my own destruction. + +[Footnote 43: "Why should I care?"] + + +Who ever heard of the voluntary return of a fugitive from American +oppression? Do you think that the doctor and his friends could +persuade one to carry a letter to the patriarch from whom he had +escaped? And must we believe this of Onesimus? + +"Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon." On what occasion?--"If," +writes the apostle, "he hath wronged thee, or oweth the aught, put +that on my account." Alive to the claims of duty, Onesimus would +"restore" whatever he "had taken away." He would honestly pay his +debts. This resolution the apostle warmly approved. He was ready, at +whatever expense, to help his young disciple in carrying it into +full effect. Of this he assured Philemon, in language the most +explicit and emphatic. Here we find one reason for the conduct of +Paul in sending Onesimus to Philemon. + +If a fugitive slave of the Rev. Dr. Smylie, of Mississippi, should +return to him with a letter from a doctor of divinity in New York, +containing such an assurance, how would the reverend slaveholder +dispose of it? What, he exclaims, have we here? "If Cato has not +been upright in his pecuniary intercourse with you--if he owes you +any thing--put that on my account." What ignorance of southern +institutions! What mockery, to talk of pecuniary intercourse between +a slave and his master! _The slave himself, with all he is and has, +is an article of merchandise_. What can _he_ owe his master? A +rustic may lay a wager with his mule, and give the creature the peck +of oats which he has permitted it to win. But who, in sober earnest, +would call this a pecuniary transaction? + +"TO BE HIS SERVANT FOR LIFE!" From what part of the epistle could +the expositor have evolved a thought so soothing to tyrants--so +revolting to every man who loves his own nature? From this? +"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldst +receive him for ever." Receive him how? _As a servant_, exclaims our +commentator. But what wrote the apostle? "NOT _now as a servant, but +above a servant_, a brother beloved, especially to me, but how much +more unto thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord." Who authorized +the professor to bereave the word "_not_" of its negative influence? +According to Paul, Philemon was to receive Onesimus "_not_ as a +servant;"--according to Stuart, he was to receive him "_as a +servant_!" If the professor will apply the same rules of exposition +to the writings of the abolitionists, all difference between him and +them must in his view presently vanish away. The harmonizing process +would be equally simple and effectual. He has only to understand +them as affirming what they deny, and as denying what they affirm. + +Suppose that Professor Stuart had a son residing, at the South. His +slave, having stolen money of his master, effected his escape. He +fled to Andover, to find a refuge among the "sons of the prophets." +There he finds his way to Professor Stuart's house, and offers to +render any service which the professor, dangerously ill "of a typhus +fever," might require. He is soon found to be a most active, skilful, +faithful nurse. He spares no pains, night and day, to make himself +useful to the venerable sufferer. He anticipates every want. In the +most delicate and tender manner, he tries to sooth every pain. He +fastens himself strongly on the heart of the reverend object of his +care. Touched with the heavenly spirit, the meek demeanor, the +submissive frame, which the sick bed exhibits, Archy becomes a +Christian. A new bond now ties him and his convalescent teacher +together. As soon as he is able to write, the professor sends Archy +with the following letter to the South, to Isaac Stuart, Esq.:-- + +"MY DEAR SON,--With a hand enfeebled by a distressing and dangerous +illness, from which I am slowly recovering, I address you on a +subject which lies very near my heart. I have a request to urge, +which our mutual relation to each other, and your strong obligations +to me, will, I cannot doubt, make you eager fully to grant. I say a +request, though the thing I ask is, in its very nature and on the +principles of the gospel, obligatory upon you. I might, therefore, +boldly demand, what I earnestly entreat. But I know how generous, +magnanimous, and Christ-like you are, and how readily you will 'do +even more than I say'--I, your own father, an old man, almost +exhausted with multiplied exertions for the benefit of my family and +my country and now just rising, emaciated and broken, from the brink +of the grave. I write in behalf of Archy, whom I regard with the +affection of a father, and whom, indeed, 'I have forgotten in my +sickness.' Gladly would I have retained him, to be _an Isaac_ to me; +for how often did not his soothing voice, and skilful hand, and +unwearied attention to my wants remind me of you! But I chose to +give you an opportunity of manifesting, voluntarily, the goodness of +your heart; as, if I had retained him with me, you might seem to +have been forced to grant what you will gratefully bestow. His +temporary absence from you may have opened the way for his permanent +continuance with you. Not now as a slave. Heaven forbid! But +superior to a slave. Superior, did I say? Take him to your bosom, as +a beloved brother; for I own him as a son, and regard him as such, +in all the relations of life, both as a man and a Christian. +'Receive him as myself.' And that nothing may hinder you from +complying with my request at once, I hereby promise, without +adverting to your many and great obligations to me, to pay you every +cent which he took from your drawer. Any preparation which my +comfort with you may require, you will make without much delay, when +you learn, that I intend, as soon as I shall be able 'to perform the +journey,' to make you a visit." + +And what if Dr. Baxter, in giving an account of this letter should +publicly declare that Professor Stuart, of Andover regarded +slaveholding as lawful; for that "he had sent Archy back to his son +Isaac, with an apology for his running away" to be held in perpetual +slavery? With what propriety might not the professor exclaim: False, +every syllable false. I sent him back, NOT TO BE HELD AS A SLAVE, +_but recognized as a dear brother, in all respects, under every +relation, civil and ecclesiastical_. I bade my son receive _Archy as +myself_. If this was not equivalent to a requisition to set him +fully and most honorably free, and that, too, on the ground of +natural obligation and Christian principle, then I know not how to +frame such a requisition. + +I am well aware that my supposition is by no means strong enough +fully to illustrate the case to which it is applied. Professor Stuart +lacks apostolical authority. Isaac Stuart is not a leading member of +a church consisting, as the early churches chiefly consisted, of +what the world regard as the dregs of society--"the offscouring of +all things." Nor was slavery at Colosse, it seems, supported by such +barbarous usages, such horrid laws as disgrace the South. + +But it is time to turn to another passage which, in its bearing on +the subject in hand, is, in our view, as well as in the view of +Dr. Fisk. and Prof. Stuart, in the highest degree authoritative and +instructive. "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their +own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his +doctrines 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." [44] + +[Footnote 44: 1 Tim. vi. 1. 2. The following exposition of this +passage is from the pen of ELIZUR WRIGHT, JR.:-- + + "This word [Greek: antilambanesthai] in our humble opinion, has been + so unfairly used by the commentators, that we feel constrained to + take its part. Our excellent translators, in rendering the clause + 'partakers of the benefit,' evidently lost sight of the component + preposition, which expresses the _opposition of reciprocity_, rather + than the _connection of participation_. They have given it exactly + the sense of [Greek: metalambanein], (2 Tim. ii. 6.) Had the apostle + intended such a sense, he would have used the latter verb, or one of + the more common words, [Greek: metochoi, koinonomtes, &c.] (See Heb. + iii. 1, and 1 Tim. v. 22, where the latter word is used in the clause, + 'neither be partaker of other men's sins.' Had the verb in our text + been used, it might have been rendered, 'neither be the _part-taker_ + of other men's sins.') The primary sense of [Greek: antilambans] is + _to take in return_--_to take instead of, &c._ Hence, in the middle + with the genitive, it signifies _assist_, or _do one's part towards_ + the person or thing expressed by that genitive. In this sense only + is the word used in the New Testament,--(See Luke i. 54, and Acts, xx. + 35.) If this be true, the word [Greek: emsgesai] cannot signify the + benefit conferred by the gospel, as our common version would make it, + but the _well doing_ of the servants, who should continue to serve + their believing masters, while they were no longer under the _yoke_ + of compulsion. This word is used elsewhere in the New Testament but + once (Acts. iv. 3.) in relation to the '_good deed_' done to the + impotent man. The plain import of the clause, unmystified by the + commentators, is, that believing masters would not fail to do + their part towards, or encourage by suitable returns, the free + service of those who had once been under the yoke."] + + + 1. The apostle addresses himself here to two classes of servants, + with instructions to each respectively appropriate. Both the one + class and the other, in Professor Stuart's eye, were slaves. This + he assumes, and thus begs the very question in dispute. The term + servant is generic, as used by the sacred writers. It comprehends + all the various offices which men discharge for the benefit of each + other, however honorable, or however menial; from that of an + apostle[45] opening the path to heaven, to that of washing "one + another's feet."[46] A general term it is, comprehending every + office which belongs to human relations and Christian character.[47] + + [Footnote 45: Cor. iv. 5.] + + [Footnote 46: John, xiii, 14.] + + [Footnote 47: Mat, xx, 26-28.] + + + A leading signification gives us the manual laborer, to whom, in + the division of labor, muscular exertion was allotted. As in his + exertions the bodily powers are especially employed--such powers as + belong to man in common with mere animals--his sphere has generally + been considered low and humble. And as intellectual power is + superior to bodily, the manual laborer has always been exposed in + very numerous ways and in various degrees to oppression. Cunning, + intrigue, the oily tongue, have, through extended and powerful + conspiracies, brought the resources of society under the control of + the few, who stood aloof from his homely toil. Hence his dependence + upon them. Hence the multiplied injuries which have fallen so + heavily upon him. Hence the reduction of his wages from one degree + to another, till at length, in the case of millions, fraud and + violence strip him of his all, blot his name from the record of + _mankind_, and, putting a yoke upon his neck, drive him away + to toil among the cattle. _Here you find the slave_. To reduce + the servant to his condition, requires abuses altogether + monstrous--injuries reaching the very vitals of man--stabs upon the + very heart of humanity. Now, what right has Professor Stuart to make + the word "_servants_," comprehending, even as manual laborers, so + many and such various meanings, signify "_slaves_," especially where + different classes are concerned? Such a right he could never have + derived from humanity, or philosophy, or hermeneutics. It is his by + sympathy with the oppressor? + + Yes, different classes. This is implied in the term "as many,"[48] + which sets apart the class now to be addressed. From these he + proceeds to others, who are introduced by a particle,[49] whose + natural meaning indicates the presence of another and a different + subject. + + [Footnote 48: [Greek: Ochli] See Passow's Schneider.] + + [Footnote 49: [Greek: Dd.] See Passow.] + + 2. The first class are described as "_under the yoke_"--a yoke from + which they were, according to the apostle, to make their escape if + possible.[50] If not, they must in every way regard the master with + respect--bowing to his authority, working his will, subserving his + interests so far as might be consistent with Christian + character.[51] And this, to prevent blasphemy--to prevent the pagan + master from heaping profane reproaches upon the name of God and the + doctrines of the gospel. They should beware of rousing his passions, + which, as his helpless victims, they might be unable to allay or + withstand. + + [Footnote 50: See 1 Cor. vii, 21--[Greek: All' ei kai dunasai + eleuphoros genesthai].] + + [Footnote 51: See 1 Cor. vii, 23--[Greek: Mae ginesthe doulos + anthroton].] + + + But all the servants whom the apostle addressed were not "_under the + yoke_"[52]--an instrument appropriate to cattle and to slaves. These + he distinguishes from another class, who instead of a "yoke"--the + badge of a slave--had "_believing masters_." _To have a "believing + master," then, was equivalent to freedom from "the yoke_." These + servants were exhorted not _to despise_ their masters. What need of + such an exhortation, if their masters had been slaveholders, holding + them as property, wielding them as mere instruments, disposing of + them as "articles of merchandise." But this was not consistent with + believing. Faith, "breaking every yoke," united master and servants + in the bonds of brotherhood. Brethren they were, joined in a + relation which, excluding the yoke,[53] placed them side by side on + the ground of equality, where, each in his appropriate sphere, they + might exert themselves freely and usefully, to the mutual benefit of + each other. Here, servants might need to be cautioned against getting + above their appropriate business, putting on airs, despising their + masters, and thus declining or neglecting their service. [54] + Instead of this, they should be, as emancipated slaves often + have been, [55] models of enterprise, fidelity, activity, and + usefulness--especially as their masters were "worthy of their + confidence and love," their helpers in this well-doing. + +[Footnote 52: See Lev. xxvi. 13; Isa lviii. 6, 9.] + +[Footnote 53: Supra p. 44.] + +[Footnote 54: See Mat. vi. 24.] + +[Footnote 55: Those, for instance, set free by that "believing master" +James G. Birney.] + + +Such, then, is the relation between those who, in the view of +Professor Stuart, were Christian masters and Christian slaves +[56]--the relation of "brethren," which, excluding "the yoke," and of +course conferring freedom, placed them side by side on the common +ground of mutual service, both retaining, for convenience sake, the +one while giving and the other while receiving employment, the +correlative name, _as is usual in such cases_, under which they had +been known. Such was the instruction which Timothy was required, as +a Christian minister, to give. Was it friendly to slaveholding? + +[Footnote 56: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra, p. 7.] + + +And on what ground, according to the Princeton professor, did these +masters and these servants stand in their relation to each other? On +that _of a "perfect religious equality."_[57] In all the relations, +duties, and privileges--in all the objects, interests, and prospects, +which belong to the province of Christianity, servants were as free +as their master. The powers of the one, were allowed as wide a range +and as free an exercise, with as warm encouragements, as active aids, +and as high results, as the other. Here, the relation of a servant +to his master imposed no restrictions, involved no embarrassments, +occasioned no injury. All this, clearly and certainly, is implied in +"_perfect religious equality_," which the Princeton professor +accords to servants in relation to their master. Might the _master_, +then, in order more fully to attain the great ends for which he was +created and redeemed, freely exert himself to increase his +acquaintance with his own powers, and relations, and resources--with +his prospects, opportunities, and advantages? So might his _servants_. +Was _he_ at liberty to "study to approve himself to God," to submit +to his will and bow to his authority, as the sole standard of +affection and exertion? So were _they_. Was _he_ at liberty to +sanctify the Sabbath, and frequent the "solemn assembly?" So were +_they_. Was _he_ at liberty so to honor the filial, conjugal, and +paternal relations, as to find in them that spring of activity and +that source of enjoyment, which they are capable of yielding? So +were _they_. In every department of interest and exertion, they +might use their capacities, and wield their powers, and improve +their opportunities, and employ their resources, as freely as he, in +glorifying God, in blessing mankind, and in laying up imperishable +treasures for themselves! Give perfect religious equality to the +American slave, and the most eager abolitionist must be satisfied. +Such equality would, like the breath of the Almighty, dissolve the +last link of the chain of servitude. Dare those who, for the benefit +of slavery, have given so wide and active a circulation to the +Pittsburg pamphlet, make the experiment? + +[Footnote 57: Pittsburg Pamphlet, p. 9.] + + +In the epistle to the Colossians, the following passage deserves +earnest attention:--"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: and whatsoever ye do, do it +heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing, that of the +Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance; for ye serve +the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong +which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.--Masters, +give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that +ye have a Master in heaven."[58] + +[Footnote 58: Col. iii. 22 to iv. 1.] + + +Here it is natural to remark-- + + 1. That in maintaining the relation, which mutually united them, + both masters and servants were to act in conformity with the + principles of the divine government. Whatever _they_ did, servants + were to do in hearty obedience to the Lord, by whose authority they + were to be controlled and by whose hand they were to be rewarded. To + the same Lord, and according to the same law, was the _master_ to + hold himself responsible. _Both the one and the other were of course + equally at liberty and alike required to study and apply the standard, + by which they were to be governed and judged_. + + 2. The basis of the government under which they thus were placed, + was _righteousness_--strict, stern, impartial. Nothing here of bias + or antipathy. Birth, wealth, station,--the dust of the balance not + so light! Both master and servants were hastening to a tribunal, + where nothing of "respect of persons" could be feared or hoped for. + There the wrong-doer, whoever he might be, and whether from the top + or bottom of society, must be dealt with according to his deservings. + + 3. Under this government, servants were to be universally and + heartily obedient; and both in the presence and absence of the master, + faithfully to discharge their obligations. The master on his part, + in his relations to the servants, was to make JUSTICE AND EQUALITY + the _standard of his conduct_. Under the authority of such + instructions, slavery falls discountenanced, condemned, abhorred. It + is flagrantly at war with the government of God, consists in + "respect of persons" the most shameless and outrageous, treads + justice and equality under foot, and in its natural tendency and + practical effects is nothing else than a system of wrong-doing. What + have _they_ to do with the just and the equal who in their "respect + of persons" proceed to such a pitch as to treat one brother as a + thing because he is a servant, and place him, without the least + regard to his welfare here, or his prospects hereafter, absolutely + at the disposal of another brother, under the name of master, in + the relation of owner to property? Justice and equality on the one + hand, and the chattel principle on the other, are naturally + subversive of each other--proof clear and decisive that the + correlates, masters and servants, cannot here be rendered slaves + and owners, without the grossest absurdity and the greatest + violence. + + + "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; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the + servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good + will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that + whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the + Lord, whether _he be_ bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same + things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master + also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with + him."[59] + + [Footnote 59: Ephesians, vi. 5-9.] + +Without repeating here what has already been offered in exposition +of kindred passages, it may be sufficient to say:-- + + 1. That the relation of the servants here addressed, to their master, + was adapted to make him the object of their heart-felt attachment. + Otherwise they could not have been required to render him an + affectionate service. + + 2. This relation demanded a perfect reciprocity of benefits. It had + its soul in _good-will_, mutually cherished and properly expressed. + Hence "THE SAME THINGS," the same in principle, the same in + substance, the same in their mutual bearing upon the welfare of + the master and the servants, was to be rendered back and forth + by the one and the other. It was clearly the relation of mutual + service. Do we here find the chattel principle? + + 3. Of course, the servants might not be slack, time-serving, + unfaithful. Of course, the master must "FORBEAR THREATENING." + Slavery without threatening! Impossible. Wherever maintained, it is + of necessity a _system of threatening_, injecting into the bosom of + the slave such terrors, as never cease for a moment to haunt and + torment him. Take from the chattel principle the support, which it + derives from "threatening," and you annihilate it at once and + forever. + + 4. This relation was to be maintained in accordance with the + principles of the divine government, where "RESPECT OF PERSONS" + could not be admitted. It was, therefore, totally inconsistent with, + and submissive of, the chattel principle, which in American slavery + is developed in a system of "respect of persons," equally gross and + hurtful. No Abolitionist, however eager and determined in his + opposition to slavery, could ask for more than these precepts, once + obeyed, would be sure to confer. + +"The relation of slavery," according to Professor Stuart, is +recognized in "the precepts of the New Testament," as one which "may +still exist without violating the Christian faith or the church."[60] +Slavery and the chattel principle! So our professor thinks; +otherwise his reference has nothing to do with the subject--with the +slavery which the abolitionist, whom he derides, stands opposed to. +How gross and hurtful is the mistake into which he allows himself to +fall. The relation recognized in the precepts of the New Testament +had its basis and support in "justice and equality;" the very +opposite of the chattel principle; a relation which may exist as +long as justice and equality remain, and thus escape the destruction +to which, in the view of Professor Stuart, slavery is doomed. The +description of Paul obliterates every feature of American slavery, +raising the servant to equality with his master, and placing his +rights under the protection of justice; yet the eye of Professor +Stuart can see nothing in his master and servant but a slave and his +owner. With this relation he is so thoroughly possessed, that, like +an evil angel, it haunts him even when he enters the temple of +justice! + +[Footnote 60: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra p. 7.] + + +"It is remarkable," saith the Princeton professor, "that there is +not even an exhortation" in the writings of the apostles "to masters +to liberate their slaves, much less is it urged as an imperative and +immediate duty."[61] It would be remarkable, indeed, if they were +chargeable with a defect so great and glaring. And so they have +nothing to say upon the subject? _That_ not even the Princeton +professor has the assurance to affirm. He admits that KINDNESS, MERCY, +AND JUSTICE, were enjoined with a _distinct reference to the +government of God_.[62] "Without respect of persons," they were to be +God-like in doing justice. They were to act the part of kind and +merciful "brethren." And whither would this lead them? Could they +stop short of restoring to every man his natural, inalienable +rights?--of doing what they could to redress the wrongs, sooth the +sorrows, improve the character, and raise the condition of the +degraded and oppressed? Especially, if oppressed and degraded by any +agency of theirs. Could it be kind, merciful, or just to keep the +chains of slavery on their helpless, unoffending brother? Would this +be to honor the Golden Rule, or obey the second great command of +"their Master in Heaven?" Could the apostles have subserved the cause +of freedom more directly, intelligibly, and effectually, than _to +enjoin the principles, and sentiments, and habits, in which +freedom consists--constituting its living root and fruitful germ_! + +[Footnote 61: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.] + +[Footnote 62: The same, p. 10.] + + +The Princeton professor himself, in the very paper which the South +has so warmly welcomed and so loudly applauded as a scriptural +defence of "the peculiar institution," maintains, that the "GENERAL +PRINCIPLES OF THE GOSPEL _have_ DESTROYED SLAVERY _throughout the +greater part of Christendom_"[63]--"THAT CHRISTIANITY HAS ABOLISHED +BOTH POLITICAL AND DOMESTIC BONDAGE WHEREVER IT HAS HAD FREE +SCOPE--_that it_ ENJOINS _a fair compensation for labor; insists on +the mental and intellectual improvement of_ ALL _classes of men; +condemns_ ALL _infractions of marital or parental rights; requires, in +short, not only that_ FREE SCOPE _should be allowed to human +improvement, but that_ ALL SUITABLE MEANS _should be employed for the +attainment of that end_."[64] It is indeed "remarkable," that while +neither Christ nor his apostles ever gave "an exhortation to masters +to liberate their slaves," they enjoined such "general principles as +have destroyed domestic slavery throughout the greater part of +Christendom;" that while Christianity forbears "to urge" +emancipation "as an imperative and immediate duty," it throws a +barrier, heaven high, around every domestic circle; protects all the +rights of the husband and the father; gives every laborer a fair +compensation; and makes the moral and intellectual improvement of +all classes, with free scope and all suitable means, the object +of its tender solicitude and high authority. This is not only +"remarkable," but inexplicable. Yes and no--hot and cold, in one and +the same breath! And yet these things stand prominent in what is +reckoned an acute, ingenious, effective defence of slavery! + +[Footnote 63: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 18, 19.] + +[Footnote 64: The same, p. 31.] + + +In his letter to the Corinthian church, the apostle Paul furnishes +another lesson of instruction, expressive of his views and feelings +on the subject of slavery. "Let every man abide in the same calling +wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for +it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 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. Ye are +bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." [65] + +[Footnote 65: 1 Cor. vii. 20-23.] + + +In explaining and applying this passage, it is proper to suggest: + + 1. That it _could_ not have been the object of the apostle to bind + the Corinthian converts to the stations and employments in which the + gospel found them. For he exhorts some of them to escape, if possible, + from their present condition. In the servile state, "under the yoke," + they ought not to remain unless impelled by stern necessity. + "If thou canst be free, use it rather." If they ought to prefer + freedom to bondage and to exert themselves to escape from the latter + for the sake of the former, could their master consistently with the + claims and spirit of the gospel have hindered or discouraged them in + so doing? Their "brother" could _he_ be, who kept "the yoke" upon + their neck, which the apostle would have them shake off if possible? + And had such masters been members of the Corinthian church, what + inferences must they have drawn from this exhortation to their + servants? That the apostle regarded slavery as a Christian + institution?--or could look complacently on any efforts to introduce + or maintain it in the church? Could they have expected less from him + than a stern rebuke, if they refused to exert themselves in the + cause of freedom? + + 2. But while they were to use their freedom, if they could obtain it, + they should not, even on such a subject, give themselves up to + ceaseless anxiety. "The Lord was no respecter of persons." They need + not fear, that the "low estate," to which they had been wickedly + reduced, would prevent them from enjoying the gifts of his hand or + the light of his countenance. _He_ would respect their rights, sooth + their sorrows, and pour upon their hearts, and cherish there, the + spirit of liberty. "For he that is called in the Lord, being a + servant, is the Lord's freeman." In _him_, therefore, should they + cheerfully confide. + + 3. The apostle, however, forbids them so to acquiesce in the servile + relation, as to act inconsistently with their Christian obligations. + To their Savior they belonged. By his blood they had been purchased. + It should be their great object, therefore, to render _Him_ a hearty + and effective service. They should permit no man, whoever he might be, + to thrust in himself between them and their Redeemer. "_Ye are + bought with a price_; BE NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN." + +With his eye upon the passage just quoted and explained, the +Princeton professor asserts that "Paul represents this relation"--the +relation of slavery--"as of comparatively little account."[66] +And this he applies--otherwise it is nothing to his purpose--to +_American_ slavery. Does he then regard it as a small matter, a +mere trifle, to be thrown under the slave-laws of this republic, +grimly and fiercely excluding their victim from almost every means +of improvement, and field of usefulness, and source of comfort; and +making him, body and substance, with his wife and babes, "the +servant of men?" Could such a relation be acquiesced in consistently +with the instructions of the apostle? + +[Footnote 66: Pittsburg pamphlet, p.10.] + +To the Princeton professor we commend a practical trial of the +bearing of the passage in hand upon American slavery. His regard for +the unity and prosperity of the ecclesiastical organizations, which +in various forms and under different names, unite the southern with +the northern churches, will make the experiment grateful to his +feelings. Let him, then, as soon as his convenience will permit, +proceed to Georgia. No religious teacher [67] from any free State, can +be likely to receive so general and so warm a welcome there. To +allay the heat, which the doctrines and movements of the +abolitionists have occasioned in the southern mind, let him with as +much despatch as possible, collect, as he goes from place to place, +masters and their slaves. Now let all men, whom it may concern, see +and own that slavery is a Christian institution! With his Bible in his +hand and his eye upon the passage in question, he addresses himself +to the task of instructing the slaves around him. Let not your hearts, +my brethren, be overcharged with sorrow, or eaten up with anxiety. Your +servile condition cannot deprive you of the fatherly regards of Him +"who is no respecter of persons." Freedom you ought, indeed, to +prefer. If you can escape from "the yoke," throw it off. In the mean +time rejoice that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;" +that the gospel places slaves "on a perfect religious equality" with +their master; so that every Christian is "the Lord's freeman." And, +for your encouragement, remember that "Christianity has abolished +both political and domestic servitude wherever it has had free scope. +It enjoins a fair compensation for labor; it insists on the moral and +intellectual improvement of all classes of men; it condemns all +infractions of marital or parental rights; in short it requires not +only that free scope be allowed to human improvement, but that all +suitable means should be employed for the attainment of that end." +[68] Let your lives, then, be honorable to your relations to your +Savior. He bought you with his own blood; and is entitled to your +warmest love and most effective service. "Be not ye the servants of +men." Let no human arrangements prevent you, as citizens of the +kingdom of heaven, from making the most of your powers and +opportunities. Would such an effort, generally and heartily made, +allay excitement at the South, and quench the flames of discord, +every day rising higher and waxing hotter, in almost every part of +the republic, and cement "the Union?" + +[Footnote 67: Rev. Mr. Savage, of Utica, New York, had, not very +long ago, a free conversation with a gentleman of high standing in +the literary and religious world from a slaveholding State, where +the "peculiar institution" is cherished with great warmth and +maintained with iron rigor. By him, Mr. Savage was assured, that the +Princeton professor had, through the Pittsburg pamphlet, contributed +most powerfully and effectually to bring the "whole South" under the +persuasion, _that slaveholding is in itself right_--a system _to +which the Bible gives countenance and support_. + +In an extract from an article in the Southern Christian Sentinel, a +new Presbyterian paper established in Charleston, South Carolina, +and inserted in the Christian Journal for March 21, 1839, we find +the following paragraphs from the pen of Rev. C.W. Howard, and, +according to Mr. Chester, ably and freely endorsed by the editor. +"There is scarcely any diversity of sentiment at the North upon this +subject. The great mass of the people, believing slavery to be sinful, +are clearly of the opinion that, as a system, it should be abolished +throughout this land and throughout the world. They differ as to the +time and mode of abolition. The abolitionists consistently argue, +that whatever is sinful should be instantly abandoned. The others, +_by a strange sort of reasoning for Christian men_, contend that +though slavery is sinful, _yet it may be allowed to exist until it +shall he expedient to abolish it_; or, if, in many cases, this +reasoning might be translated into plain English, the sense would be, +both in Church and State, _slavery, though sinful, may be allowed to +exist until our interest will suffer us to say that it must be +abolished_. This is not slander; it is simply a plain way of stating +a plain truth. It does seem the evident duty of every man to become +an abolitionist, who believes slavery to be sinful, for the Bible +allows no tampering with sin. + +"To these remarks, there are some noble exceptions, to be found in +both parties in the church. _The South owes a debt of gratitude to +the Biblical Repertory, for the fearless argument in behalf of the +position, that slavery is not forbidden by the Bible_. The writer of +that article is said, without contradiction, to be _Professor Hodge, +of Princeton_--HIS NAME OUGHT TO BE KNOWN AND REVERED AMONG YOU, +_my brethren, for in a land of anti-slavery men, he is the_ ONLY +ONE _who has dared to vindicate your character from the serious +charge of living in the habitual transgression of God's holy law_."] + +[Footnote 68: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 31.] + + +"It is," affirms the Princeton professor, "on all hands acknowledged, +that, at the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, slavery in its +worst forms prevailed over the whole world. _The Savior found it +around him_ IN JUDEA."[69] To say that he found it _in Judea_, is to +speak ambiguously. Many things were to be found "_in_ Judea," which +neither belonged to, nor were characteristic of _the Jews_. It is +not denied that _the Gentiles_, who resided among them, might have +had slaves; _but of the Jews this is denied_. How could the +professor take that as granted, the proof of which entered vitally +into the argument and was essential to the soundness of the +conclusions to which he would conduct us? How could he take +advantage of an ambiguous expression to conduct his confiding +readers on to a position which, if his own eyes were open, he must +have known they could not hold in the light of open day! + +[Footnote 69: The same, p. 9] + + +We do not charge the Savior with any want of wisdom, goodness, or +courage,[70] for refusing to "break down the wall of partition between +Jews and Gentiles" "before the time appointed." While this barrier +stood, he could not, consistently with the plan of redemption, +impart instruction freely to the Gentiles. To some extent, and on +extraordinary occasions, he might have done so. But his business +then was with "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [71] The +propriety of this arrangement is not the matter of dispute between +the Princeton professor and ourselves. + +[Footnote 70: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 10.] + +[Footnote 71: Matt. xv. 24.] + + +In disposing of the question whether the Jews held slaves during our +Savior's incarnation among them, the following points deserve earnest +attention:-- + + 1. Slaveholding is inconsistent with the Mosaic economy. For the + proof of this, we would refer our readers, among other arguments more + or less appropriate and powerful, to the tract already alluded + to.[72] In all the external relations and visible arrangements of + life, the Jews, during our Savior's ministry among them, seem to + have been scrupulously observant of the institutions and usages of + the "Old Dispensation." They stood far aloof from whatever was + characteristic of Samaritans and Gentiles. From idolatry and + slaveholding--those twin-vices which had always so greatly prevailed + among the heathen--they seem at length, as the result of a most + painful discipline, to have been effectually divorced. + + [Footnote 72: "The Bible against Slavery."] + + + 2. While, therefore, John the Baptist; with marked fidelity and + great power, acted among the Jews the part of a _reprover_, he found + no occasion to repeat and apply the language of his + predecessors,[73] in exposing and rebuking idolatry and + slaveholding. Could he, the greatest of the prophets, have been + less effectually aroused by the presence of "the yoke," than was + Isaiah?--or less intrepid and decisive in exposing and denouncing + the sin of oppression under its most hateful and injurious forms? + + [Footnote 73: Psalm lxxxii; Isa. lviii. 1-12 Jer. xxii. 13-16.] + + + 3. The Savior was not backward in applying his own principles plainly + and pointedly to such forms of oppression as appeared among the Jews. + These principles, whenever they have been freely acted on, the + Princeton professor admits, have abolished domestic bondage. Had + this prevailed within the sphere of our Savior's ministry, he could + not, consistently with his general character, have failed to expose + and condemn it. The oppression of the people by lordly ecclesiastics, + of parents by their selfish children, of widows by their ghostly + counsellors, drew from his lips scorching rebukes and terrible + denunciations.[74] How, then, must he have felt and spoke in the + presence of such tyranny, if _such tyranny had been within his + official sphere_, as should _have made widows_, by driving their + husbands to some flesh-market, and their children not orphans, + _but cattle_? + + [Footnote 74: Matt. xxiii; Mark, vii. 1-13.] + + + 4. Domestic slavery was manifestly inconsistent with the _industry_, + which, _in the form of manual labor_, so generally prevailed among + the Jews. In one connection, in the Acts of the Apostles, we are + informed, that, coming from Athens to Corinth, Paul "found a certain + Jew, named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his + wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to + depart from Rome;) and came unto them. And because he was of the + same craft, he abode with them and wrought: (for by their occupation + they were tent-makers.")[75] This passage has opened the way for + different commentators to refer us to the public sentiment and + general practice of the Jews respecting useful industry and manual + labor. According to _Lightfoot_, "it was their custom to bring up + their children to some trade, yea, though they gave them learning or + estates." According to Rabbi Judah, "He that teaches not his son a + trade, is as if he taught him to be a thief."[76] It was, _Kuinoel_ + affirms, customary even for Jewish teachers to unite labor + (opificium) with the study of the law. This he confirms by the + highest Rabbinical authority.[77] _Heinrichs_ quotes a Rabbi as + teaching, that no man should by any means neglect to train his son + to honest industry.[78] Accordingly, the apostle Paul, though + brought up at the "feet of Gamaliel," the distinguished disciple of + a most illustrious teacher, practised the art of tent-making. His + own hands ministered to his necessities; and his example is so + doing, he commends to his Gentile brethren for their imitation.[79] + That Zebedee, the father of John the Evangelist, had wealth, various + hints in the New Testament render probable.[80] Yet how do we find + him and his sons, while prosecuting their appropriate business? In + the midst of the hired servants, "in the ship mending their + nets."[81] + + [Footnote 75: Acts, xviii. 1-3.] + + [Footnote 76: Henry on Acts, xviii. 1-3.] + + [Footnote 77: Kuinoel on Acts.] + + [Footnote 78: Heinrichs on Acts.] + + [Footnote 79: Acts, xx. 34, 35; 1 Thess. iv. 11.] + + [Footnote 80: See Kuinoel's Prolegom. to the Gospel of John.] + + [Footnote 81: Mark, i. 19, 20.] + + + Slavery among a people who, from the highest to the lowest, were + used to manual labor! What occasion for slavery there? And how could + it be maintained? No place can be found for slavery among a people + generally inured to useful industry. With such, especially if + men of learning, wealth, and station, "labor, working with their + hands," such labor must be honorable. On this subject, let Jewish + maxims and Jewish habits be adopted at the South, and the "peculiar + institution" would vanish like a ghost at daybreak. + + 5. Another hint, here deserving particular attention, is furnished + in the allusions of the New Testament to the lowest casts and most + servile employments among the Jews. With profligates, _publicans_ + were joined as depraved and contemptible. The outcasts of society + were described, not as fit to herd with slaves, but as deserving a + place among Samaritans and publicans. They were "_hired servants_," + whom Zebedee employed. In the parable of the prodigal son we have a + wealthy Jewish family. Here servants seem to have abounded. The + prodigal, bitterly bewailing his wretchedness and folly, described + their condition as greatly superior to his own. How happy the change + which should place him by their side? His remorse, and shame, and + penitence made him willing to embrace the lot of the lowest of them + all. But these--what was their condition? They were HIRED SERVANTS. + "Make me as one of thy hired servants." Such he refers to as the + lowest menials known in Jewish life. + +Lay such hints as have now been suggested together; let it be +remembered, that slavery was inconsistent with the Mosaic economy; +that John the Baptist in preparing the way for the Messiah makes no +reference "to the yoke" which, had it been before him, he would, like +Isaiah, have condemned; that the Savior, while he took the part of +the poor and sympathized with the oppressed, was evidently spared the +pain of witnessing within the sphere of his ministry, the presence, +of the chattel principle, that it was the habit of the Jews, whoever +they might be, high or low, rich or poor, learned or rude, "to labor, +working with their hands;" and that where reference was had to the +most menial employments, in families, they were described as carried +on by hired servants; and the question of slavery "in Judea," so far +as the seed of Abraham were concerned, is very easily disposed of. +With every phase and form of society among them slavery was +inconsistent. + +The position which, in the article so often referred to in this paper, +the Princeton professor takes, is sufficiently remarkable. Northern +abolitionists he saw in an earnest struggle with southern +slaveholders. The present welfare and future happiness of myriads of +the human family were at stake in this contest. In the heat of the +battle, he throws himself between the belligerent powers. He gives +the abolitionists to understand, that they are quite mistaken in the +character of the objections they have set themselves so openly and +sternly against. Slaveholding is not, as they suppose, contrary to +the law of God. It was witnessed by the Savior "in its worst +forms"[82] without extorting from his laps a syllable of rebuke. "The +sacred writers did not condemn it." [83] And why should they? By a +definition[84] sufficiently ambiguous and slippery, he undertakes to +set forth a form of slavery which he looks upon as consistent with the +law of Righteousness. From this definition he infers that the +abolitionists are greatly to blame for maintaining that American +slavery is inherently and essentially sinful, and for insisting that +it ought at once to be abolished. For this labor of love the +slaveholding South is warmly grateful and applauds its reverend ally, +as if a very Daniel had come as their advocate to judgment.[85] + +[Footnote 82: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.] + +[Footnote 83: The same, p. 13.] + +[Footnote 84: The same, p. 12.] + +[Footnote 85: Supra, p. 58.] + + +A few questions, briefly put, may not here be inappropriate. + + 1. Was the form of slavery which our professor pronounces innocent + _the form_ witnessed by our Savior "in Judea?" That, _he_ will by + no means admit. The slavery there was, he affirms, of the "worst" + kind. _How then does he account for the alleged silence of the + Savior?--a silence covering the essence and the form--the + institution and its "worst" abuses_? + + 2. Is the slaveholding, which, according to the Princeton professor, + Christianity justifies, the same as that which the abolitionists so + earnestly wish to see abolished? Let us see. + + + _Christianity in supporting Slavery, _The American system for + according to Professor Hodge_, supporting Slavery_, + + "Enjoins a fair compensation for Makes compensation + labor" impossible by reducing the + laborer to a chattel. + + "It insists on the moral and It sternly forbids its + intellectual improvement of all victim to learn to read + classes of men" even the name of his + Creator and Redeemer. + + "It condemns all infractions of It outlaws the conjugal + marital or parental rights." and parental relations. + + "It requires that free scope It forbids any effort, on + should be allowed to human the part of myriads of the + improvement." human family, to improve + their character, + condition, and prospects. + + "It requires that all suitable It inflicts heavy + means should be employed to improve penalties for teaching + mankind" letters to the poorest of + the poor. + + "Wherever it has had free scope, Wherever it has free + it has abolished domestic bondage." scope, it perpetuates + domestic bondage. + + + _Now it is slavery according to the American system_ that the + abolitionists are set against. _Of the existence of any_ such form + of slavery as is consistent with Professor Hodge's account of the + requisitions of Christianity, they know nothing. It has never met + their notice, and of course, has never roused their feelings or + called forth their exertions. What, then, have _they_ to do with the + censures and reproaches which the Princeton professor deals around? + Let those who have leisure and good nature protect the man of + _straw_ he is so hot against. The abolitionists have other business. + It is not the figment of some sickly brain; but that system of + oppression which in theory is corrupting, and in practice destroying + both Church and State;--it is this that they feel pledged to do + battle upon, till by the just judgment of Almighty God it is thrown, + dead and damned, into the bottomless abyss. + + 3. _How can the South feel itself protected by any shield which may + be thrown over_ SUCH SLAVERY, _as may be consistent with what the + Princeton professor describes as the requisitions of Christianity_? + Is _this_ THE _slavery_ which their laws describe, and their hands + maintain? "Fair compensation for labor"--"marital and parental + rights"--"free scope" and "all suitable means" for the "improvement, + moral and intellectual, of all classes of men;"--are these, + according to the statutes of the South, among the objects of + slaveholding legislation? Every body knows that any such + requisitions and American slavery are flatly opposed to and directly + subversive of each other. What service, then, has the Princeton + professor, with all his ingenuity and all his zeal, rendered the + "peculiar institution?" Their gratitude must be of a stamp and + complexion quite peculiar, if they can thank him for throwing their + "domestic system" under the weight of such Christian requisitions as + must at once crush its snaky head "and grind it to powder." + +And what, moreover, is the bearing of the Christian requisitions, +which Professor Hodge quotes, upon the definition of slavery which +he has elaborated? "All the ideas which necessarily enter into the +definition of slavery are, deprivation of personal liberty, +obligation of service at the discretion of another, and the +transferable character of the authority and claim of service of the +master."[86] + +[Footnote 86: Pittsburg pamphlet p. 12.] + + +_According to Professor Hodge's _According to Professor Hodge's +account of the definition of Slavery_, +requisitions of Christianity_, + +The spring of effort in the The laborer must serve at the +laborer is a fair compensation. discretion of another. + +Free scope must be given for He is deprived of personal +his moral and intellectual liberty--the necessary condition, +improvement. and living soul of improvement, + without which he has no control + of either intellect or morals. + + + +His rights as a husband and The authority and claims of the +a father are to be protected. master may throw an ocean between + him and his family, and separate + them from each other's presence + at any moment and forever. + + + +Christianity, then, requires such slavery as Professor Hodge so +cunningly defines, to be abolished. It was well provided for the +peace of the respective parties, that he placed _his definition_ so +far from _the requisitions of Christianity_. Had he brought them +into each other's presence, their natural and invincible antipathy +to each other would have broken out into open and exterminating +warfare. But why should we delay longer upon an argument which is +based on gross and monstrous sophistry? It can mislead only such as +_wish_ to be misled. The lovers of sunlight are in little danger +of rushing into the professor's dungeon. Those who, having something +to conceal, covet darkness, can find it there, to their heart's +content. The hour cannot be far away, when upright and reflective +minds at the South will be astonished at the blindness which could +welcome such protection as the Princeton argument offers to the +slaveholder. + +But _Professor Stuart_ must not be forgotten. In his celebrated +letter to Dr. Fisk, he affirms that "_Paul did not expect slavery to +be ousted in a day_."[87] _Did not_ EXPECT! What then! Are the +_requisitions_ of Christianity adapted to any EXPECTATIONS which +in any quarter and on any ground might have risen to human +consciousness? And are we to interpret the _precepts_ of the gospel +by the expectations of Paul? The Savior commanded all men every +where to repent, and this, though "Paul did not expect" that human +wickedness, in its ten thousand forms would in any community +"be ousted in a day." Expectations are one thing; requisitions quite +another. + +[Footnote 87: Supra, p. 7.] + + +In the mean time, while expectation waited, Paul, the professor adds, +"gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor." _That_ he +did. Of what character were these precepts? Must they not have been +in harmony with the Golden Rule? But this, according to Professor +Stuart, "decides against the righteousness of slavery" even as a +"theory." Accordingly, Christians were required, _without respect of +persons_, to do each other justice--to maintain equality as common +ground for all to stand upon--to cherish and express in all their +intercourse that tender love and disinterested charity which one +_brother_ naturally feels for another. These were the "ad interim +precepts."[88] which cannot fail, if obeyed, to cut up slavery, +"root and branch," at once and forever. + +[Footnote 88: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7.] + + +Professor Stuart comforts us with the assurance that "_Christianity +will ultimately certainly destroy slavery_." Of this _we_ have not +the feeblest doubt. But how could _he_ admit a persuasion and utter +a prediction so much at war with the doctrine he maintains, that +"_slavery may exist without_ VIOLATING THE CHRISTIAN FAITH OR THE +CHURCH?"[89] What, Christianity bent on the destruction of an ancient +and cherished institution which hurts neither her character nor +condition?[90] Why not correct its abuses and purify its spirit; and +shedding upon it her own beauty, preserve it, as a living trophy of +her reformatory power? Whence the discovery that, in her onward +progress, she would trample down and destroy what was no way hurtful +to her? This is to be _aggressive_ with a witness. Far be it from +the Judge of all the earth to whelm the innocent and guilty in the +same destruction! In aid of Professor Stuart, in the rude and +scarcely covert attack which he makes upon himself, we maintain that +Christianity will certainly destroy slavery on account of its +inherent wickedness--its malignant temper--its deadly effects--its +constitutional, insolent, and unmitigable opposition to the +authority of God and the welfare of man. + +[Footnote 89: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7.] + +[Footnote 90: Professor Stuart applies here the words, _salva fide et +salva ecclesia_.] + + +"Christianity will _ultimately_ destroy slavery." "ULTIMATELY!" What +meaneth that portentous word? To what limit of remotest time, +concealed in the darkness of futurity, may it look? Tell us, O +watchman, on the hill of Andover. Almost nineteen centuries have +rolled over this world of wrong and outrage--and yet we tremble in +the presence of a form of slavery whose breath is poison, whose fang +is death! If any one of the incidents of slavery should fall, but +for a single day, upon the head of the prophet, who dipped his pen +in such cold blood, to write that word "ultimately," how, under the +sufferings of the first tedious hour, would he break out in the +lamentable cry, "How _long_, O Lord, HOW LONG!" In the agony of +beholding a wife or daughter upon the table of the auctioneer, while +every bid fell upon his heart like the groan of despair, small +comfort would he find in the dull assurance of some heartless prophet, +quite at "ease in Zion," that "ULTIMATELY _Christianity would +destroy slavery_." As the hammer falls, and the beloved of his soul, +all helpless and most wretched, is borne away to the haunts of +_legalized_ debauchery, his hearts turns to stone, while the cry +dies upon his lips, "_How_ LONG, _O Lord_, HOW LONG!" + +"_Ultimately_!" In _what circumstances_ does Professor Stuart +assure himself that Christianity will destroy slavery? Are we, as +American citizens, under the sceptre of a Nero? When, as integral parts +of this republic--as living members of this community, did we forfeit +the prerogatives of _freemen_? Have we not the right to speak and +act as wielding the powers which the privileges of self-government +has put in our possession? And without asking leave of priest or +statesman of the North or the South, may we not make the most of the +freedom which we enjoy under the guaranty of the ordinances of Heaven +and the Constitution of our country! Can we expect to see Christianity +on higher vantage-ground than in this country she stands upon? In +the midst of a republic based on the principle of the equality of +mankind, where every Christian, as vitally connected with the state, +freely wields the highest political rights and enjoys the richest +political privileges; where the unanimous demand of one-half of the +members of the churches would be promptly met in the abolition of +slavery, what "_ultimately_" must Christianity here wait for before +she crushes the chattel principle beneath her heel? Her triumph over +slavery is retarded by nothing but the corruption and defection so +widely spread through the "sacramental host" beneath her banners! +Let her voice be heard and her energies exerted, and the _ultimately_ +of the "dark spirit of slavery" would at once give place to the +_immediately_ of the Avenger of the Poor. + + + +No. 12. + +THE + +ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. + + * * * * * + + + + +DISUNION. + + +ADDRESS OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY + +AND + +F. JACKSON'S LETTER ON THE PRO-SLAVERY CHARACTER +OF THE CONSTITUTION + + + + +NEW YORK: + +AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. + +142 NASSAU STREET. + +1845. + + + +BOSTON: +PRINTED BY DAVID H. ELA, +NO. 37, CORNHILL. + + + + + +ADDRESS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE +OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY +TO Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the U. States. + + +At the Tenth Anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, held +in the city of New-York, May 7th, 1844,--after grave deliberation, +and a long and earnest discussion,--it was decided, by a vote of +nearly three to one of the members present, that fidelity to the +cause of human freedom, hatred of oppression, sympathy for those who +are held in chains and slavery in this republic, and allegiance to +God, require that the existing national compact should be instantly +dissolved; that secession from the government is a religious and +political duty; that the motto inscribed on the banner of Freedom +should be, NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS; that it is impracticable for +tyrants and the enemies of tyranny to coalesce and legislate together +for the preservation of human rights, or the promotion of the +interests of Liberty; and that revolutionary ground should be +occupied by all those who abhor the thought of doing evil that good +may come, and who do not mean to compromise the principles of +Justice and Humanity. + +A decision involving such momentous consequences, so well calculated +to startle the public mind, so hostile to the established order of +things, demands of us, as the official representatives of the +American Society, a statement of the reasons which led to it. This +is due not only to the Society, but also to the country and the world. + +It is declared by the American people to be a self-evident truth, +"that all men are created equal; that they are endowed BY THEIR +CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are +life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness." It is further +maintained by them, that "all governments derive their just powers +from the consent of the governed;" that "whenever any form of +government becomes destructive of human rights, it is the right of +the people to alter or to abolish it, and institute a new government, +laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers +in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their +safety and happiness." These doctrines the patriots of 1776 sealed +with their blood. They would not brook even the menace of oppression. +They held that there should be no delay in resisting, at whatever +cost or peril, the first encroachments of power on their liberties. +Appealing to the great Ruler of the universe for the rectitude of +their course, they pledged to each other "their lives, their +fortunes and their sacred honor," to conquer or perish in their +struggle to be free. + +For the example which they set to all people subjected to a despotic +sway, and the sacrifices which they made, their descendants cherish +their memories with gratitude, reverence their virtues, honor their +deeds, and glory in their triumphs. + +It is not necessary, therefore, for us to prove that a state of +slavery is incompatible with the dictates of reason and humanity; or +that it is lawful to throw off a government which is at war with the +sacred rights of mankind. + +We regard this as indeed a solemn crisis, which requires of every +man sobriety of thought, prophetic forecast, independent judgment, +invincible determination, and a sound heart. A revolutionary step is +one that should not be taken hastily, nor followed under the +influence of impulsive imitation. To know what spirit they are +of--whether they have counted the cost of the warfare--what are the +principles they advocate--and how they are to achieve their object--is +the first duty of revolutionists. + +But, while circumspection and prudence are excellent qualities in +every great emergency, they become the allies of tyranny whenever +they restrain prompt, bold and decisive action against it. + +We charge upon the present national compact, that it was formed at +the expense of human liberty, by a profligate surrender of principle, +and to this hour is cemented with human blood. + +We charge upon the American Constitution, that it contains provisions, +and enjoins duties, which make it unlawful for freemen to take the +oath of allegiance to it, because they are expressly designed to +favor a slaveholding oligarchy, and, consequently, to make one +portion of the people a prey to another. + +We charge upon the existing national government, that it is an +insupportable despotism, wielded by a power which is superior to all +legal and constitutional restraints--equally indisposed and unable to +protect the lives or liberties of the people--the prop and safeguard +of American slavery. + +These charges we proceed briefly to establish: + +I. It is admitted by all men of intelligence,--or if it be denied in +any quarter, the records of our national history settle the question +beyond doubt,--that the American Union was effected by a guilty +compromise between the free and slaveholding States; in other words, +by immolating the colored population on the altar of slavery, by +depriving the North of equal rights and privileges, and by +incorporating the slave system into the government. In the expressive +and pertinent language of scripture, it was "a covenant with death, +and an agreement with hell"--null and void before God, from the first +hour of its inception--the framers of which were recreant to duty, +and the supporters of which are equally guilty. + +It was pleaded at the time of the adoption, it is pleaded now, that, +without such a compromise there could have been no union; that, +without union, the colonies would have become an easy prey to the +mother country; and, hence, that it was an act of necessity, +deplorable indeed when viewed alone, but absolutely indispensable to +the safety of the republic. + +To this we reply: The plea is as profligate as the act was tyrannical. +It is the jesuitical doctrine, that the end sanctifies the means. It +is a confession of sin, but the denial of any guilt in its +perpetration. It is at war with the government of God, and +subversive of the foundations of morality. It is to make lies our +refuge, and under falsehood to hide ourselves, so that we may escape +the overflowing scourge. "Therefore, thus saith the Lord God, +Judgment will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet; +and the bail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters +shall overflow the hiding place." Moreover, "because ye trust in +oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon; therefore this +iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in +a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant. And he +shall break it as the breaking of the potter's vessel that is broken +in pieces; he shall not spare." + +This plea is sufficiently broad to cover all the oppression and +villany that the sun has witnessed in his circuit, since God said, +"Let there by light." It assumes that to be practicable, which is +impossible, namely, that there can be freedom with slavery, union +with injustice, and safety with blood guiltiness. A union of virtue +with pollution is the triumph of licentiousness. A partnership +between right and wrong, is wholly wrong. A compromise of the +principles of Justice, is the deification of crime. + +Better that the American Union had never been formed, than that it +should have been obtained at such a frightful cost! If they were +guilty who fashioned it, but who could not foresee all its frightful +consequences, how much more guilty are they, who, in full view of +all that has resulted from it, clamor for its perpetuity! If it was +sinful at the commencement, to adopt it on the ground of escaping a +greater evil, is it not equally sinful to swear to support it for the +same reason, or until, in process of time, it be purged from its +corruption? + +The fact is, the compromise alluded to, instead of effecting a union, +rendered it impracticable; unless by the term union we are to +understand the absolute reign of the slaveholding power over the +whole country, to the prostration of Northern rights. In the just +use of words, the American Union is and always has been a sham--an +imposture. It is an instrument of oppression unsurpassed in the +criminal history of the world. How then can it be innocently +sustained? It is not certain, it is not even probable, that if it had +not been adopted, the mother country would have reconquered the +colonies. The spirit that would have chosen danger in preference to +crime,--to perish with justice rather than live with dishonor,--to +dare and suffer whatever might betide, rather than sacrifice the +rights of one human being,--could never have been subjugated by any +mortal power. Surely it is paying a poor tribute to the valor and +devotion of our revolutionary fathers in the cause of liberty, to say +that, if they had sternly refused to sacrifice their principles, they +would have fallen an easy prey to the despotic power of England. + +II. The American Constitution is the exponent of the national compact. +We affirm that it is an instrument which no man can innocently bind +himself to support, because its anti-republican and anti-Christian +requirements are explicit and peremptory; at least, so explicit that, +in regard to all the clauses pertaining to slavery, they have been +uniformly understood and enforced in the same way, by all the courts +and by all the people; and so peremptory, that no individual +interpretation or authority can set them aside with impunity. It is +not a ball of clay, to be moulded into any shape that party +contrivance or caprice may choose it to assume. It is not a form of +words, to be interpreted in any manner, or to any extent, or for the +accomplishment of any purpose, that individuals in office under it +may determine. _It means precisely what those who framed and adopted +it meant_--NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS, _as a matter of bargain and +compromise_. Even if it can be construed to mean something else, +without violence to its language, such construction is not to be +tolerated _against the wishes of either party_. No just or honest +use of it can be made, in opposition to the plain intention of its +framers, _except to declare the contract at an end, and to refuse to +serve under it_. + +To the argument, that the words "slaves" and "slavery" are not to be +found in the Constitution, and therefore that it was never intended +to give any protection or countenance to the slave system, it is +sufficient to reply, that though no such words are contained in that +instrument, other words were used, intelligently and specifically, +TO MEET THE NECESSITIES OF SLAVERY; and that these were adopted _in +good faith, to be observed until a constitutional change could be +effected_. On this point, as to the design of certain provisions, no +intelligent man can honestly entertain a doubt. If it be objected, +that though these provisions were meant to cover slavery, yet, as +they can fairly be interpreted to mean something exactly the reverse, +it is allowable to give to them such an interpretation, _especially +as the cause of freedom will thereby be promoted_--we reply, that +this is to advocate fraud and violence toward one of the contracting +parties, _whose co-operation was secured only by an express +agreement and understanding between them both, in regard to the +clauses alluded to_; and that such a construction, if enforced by +pains and penalties, would unquestionably lead to a civil war, in +which the aggrieved party would justly claim to have been betrayed, +and robbed of their constitutional rights. + +Again, if it be said, that those clauses, being immoral, are null and +void--we reply, it is true they are not to be observed; but it is +also true that they are portions of an instrument, the support of +which, AS A WHOLE, is required by oath or affirmation; and, therefore, +_because they are immoral_, and BECAUSE OF THIS OBLIGATION +TO ENFORCE IMMORALITY, no one can innocently swear to support the +Constitution. + +Again, if it be objected, that the Constitution was formed by the +people of the United States, in order to establish justice, to +promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to +themselves and their posterity: and therefore, it is to be so +construed as to harmonize with these objects; we reply, again, that +its language is _not to be interpreted in a sense which neither of +the contracting parties understood_, and which would frustrate every +design of their alliance--to wit, _union at the expense of the +colored population of the country_. Moreover, nothing is more +certain than that the preamble alluded to never included, in the +minds of those who framed it, _those who were then pining in +bondage_--for, in that case, a general emancipation of the slaves +would have instantly been proclaimed throughout the United States. The +words, "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our +posterity," assuredly meant only the white population. "To promote the +general welfare," referred to their own welfare exclusively. "To +establish justice," was understood to be for their sole benefit as +slaveholders, and the guilty abettors of slavery. This is +demonstrated by other parts of the same instrument, and by their own +practice under it. + +We would not detract aught from what is justly their due; but it is +as reprehensible to give them credit for _what they did not possess_, +as it is to rob them of what is theirs. It is absurd, it is false, +it is an insult to the common sense of mankind, to pretend that the +Constitution was intended to embrace the entire population of the +country under its sheltering wings; or that the parties to it were +actuated by a sense of justice and the spirit of impartial liberty; +or that it needs no alteration, but only a new interpretation, to +make it harmonize with the object aimed at by its adoption. As truly +might it be argued, that because it is asserted in the Declaration +of Independence, that all men are created equal, and endowed with an +inalienable right to liberty, therefore none of its signers were +slaveholders, and since its adoption, slavery has been banished from +the American soil! The truth is, our fathers were intent on securing +liberty _to themselves_, without being very scrupulous as to the +means they used to accomplish their purpose. They were not actuated +by the spirit of universal philanthropy; and though _in words_ they +recognized occasionally the brotherhood of the human race, _in +practice_ they continually denied it. They did not blush to enslave +a portion of their fellow-men, and to buy and sell them as cattle in +the market, while they were fighting against the oppression of the +mother country, and boasting of their regard for the rights of man. +Why, then, concede to them virtues which they did not posses. +_Why cling to the falsehood, that they were not respecters of +persons in the formation of the government_? + +Alas! that they had no more fear of God, no more regard for man, in +their hearts! "The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah [the +North and South] is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, +and the city full of perverseness; for they say, the Lord hath +forsaken the earth, and the Lord seeth not." + +We proceed to a critical examination of the American Constitution, +in its relations to slavery. + +In ARTICLE 1, Section 9, it is declared--"the migration or +importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall +think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress, prior +to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty +may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for +each person." + +In this Section, it will be perceived, the phraseology is so guarded +as not to imply, _ex necessitate_, any criminal intent or inhuman +arrangement; and yet no one has ever had the hardihood or folly to +deny, that it was clearly understood by the contracting parties, to +mean that there should be no interference with the African slave +trade, on the part of the general government, until the year 1808. +For twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution, the +citizens of the United States were to be encouraged and protected in +the prosecution of that infernal traffic--in sacking and burning the +hamlets of Africa--in slaughtering multitudes of the inoffensive +natives on the soil, kidnapping and enslaving a still greater +proportion, crowding them to suffocation in the holds of the slave +ships, populating the Atlantic with their dead bodies, and +subjecting the wretched survivors to all the horrors of unmitigated +bondage! This awful covenant was strictly fulfilled; and though, +since its termination, Congress has declared the foreign slave +traffic to be piracy, yet all Christendom knows that the American +flag, instead of being the terror of the African slavers, has given +them the most ample protection. + +The manner in which the 9th Section was agreed to, by the national +convention that formed the constitution, is thus frankly avowed by +the Hon. Luther Martin,[91] who was a prominent member of that body: + + "The Eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion of slavery, (!) + _were very willing to indulge the Southern States_ at least with + a temporary liberty to prosecute the slave trade, provided the + Southern States would, in the return, _gratify_ them by laying no + restriction on navigation acts; and, after a very little time, the + committee, by a great majority, agreed on a report, _by which the + general government was to be prohibited from preventing the + importation of slaves_ for a limited time; and the restrictive + clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted." + + +Behold the iniquity of this agreement! How sordid were the motives +which led to it! what a profligate disregard of justice and humanity, +on the part of those who had solemnly declared the inalienable right +of all men to be free and equal, to be a self-evident truth! + +It is due to the national convention to say, that this section was +not adopted "without considerable opposition." Alluding to it, +Mr. Martin observes-- + +[Footnote 91: Speech before the Legislature of Maryland in 1787.] + +"It was said we had just assumed a place among the independent +nations in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great +Britain to _enslave us_; that this opposition was grounded upon the +preservation of those rights to which God and nature has entitled us, +not in _particular_, but in _common with all the rest of mankind_; +that we had appealed to the Supreme Being for his assistance, as the +God of freedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve +the rights which he had thus imparted to his creatures; that now, +when we had scarcely risen from our knees, from supplicating his +mercy and protection in forming our government over a free people, a +government formed pretendedly on the principles of liberty, and for +its preservation,--in that government to have a provision, not only +of putting out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade, +even encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States +the power and influence in the Union in proportion as they cruelly +and wantonly sported with the rights of their fellow-creatures, +ought to be considered as a solemn mockery of, and insult to, that +God whose protection we had thus implored, and could not fail to +hold us up in detestation, and render us contemptible to every true +friend of liberty in the world. It was said that national crimes can +only be, and frequently are, punished in this world by _national +punishments_, and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus +giving it a national character, sanction, and encouragement, ought +to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and +vengeance of him who is equally the Lord of all, and who views +with equal eye the poor _African slave_ and his _American master_![92] + +[Footnote 92: How terribly and justly has this guilty nation been +scourged, since these words were spoken, on account of slavery and +the slave trade! Secret Proceedings, p. 64.] + + +"It was urged that, by this system, we were giving the general +government full and absolute power to regulate commerce, under which +general power it would have a right to restrain, or totally prohibit, +the slave trade: it must, therefore, appear to the world absurd and +disgraceful to the last degree that we should except from the +exercise of that power the only branch of commerce which is +unjustifiable in its nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind. +That, on the contrary, we ought to prohibit expressly, in our +Constitution, the further importation of slaves, and to authorize +the general government, from time to time, to make such regulations +as should be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of +slavery, and the emancipation of the slaves already in the States. +That slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and +has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, +as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and +habituates to tyranny and oppression. It was further urged that, by +this system of government, every State is to be protected both from +foreign invasion and from domestic insurrections; and, from this +consideration, it was of the utmost importance it should have the +power to restrain the importation of slaves, since in proportion as +the number of slaves increased in any State, in the same proportion +is the State weakened and exposed to foreign invasion and domestic +insurrection: and by so much less will it be able to protect itself +against either, and therefore by so much, want aid from, and be a +burden to, the Union. + +"It was further said, that, in this system, as we were giving the +general government power, under the idea of national character, or +national interest, to regulate even our weights and measures, and +have prohibited all possibility of emitting paper money, and passing +insolvent laws, &c., it must appear still more extraordinary that we +prohibited the government from interfering with the slave trade, +than which nothing could more effect our national honor and interest. + +"These reasons influenced me, both in the committee and in the +convention, most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as +it now makes part of the system."[93] + +[Footnote 93: Secret Proceedings, p. 64.] + + +Happy had it been for this nation, had these solemn considerations +been heeded by the framers of the Constitution! But for the sake of +securing some local advantages, they choose to do evil that good may +come, and to make the end sanctify the means. They were willing to +enslave others, that they might secure their own freedom. They did +this deed deliberately, with their eyes open, with all the facts and +consequences arising therefrom before them, in violation of all +their heaven-attested declarations, and in atheistical distrust of +the overruling power of God. "The Eastern States were very willing +to _indulge_ the Southern States" in the unrestricted prosecution of +their piratical traffic, provided in return they could be _gratified_ +by no restriction being laid on navigation acts!!--Had there been no +other provision of the Constitution justly liable to objection, this +one alone rendered the support of that instrument incompatible with +the duties which men owe to their Creator, and to each other. It was +the poisonous infusion in the cup, which, though constituting but a +very slight portion of its contents, perilled the life of every one +who partook of it. + +If it be asked to what purpose are these animadversions, since the +clause alluded to has long since expired by its own limitation--we +answer, that, if at any time the foreign slave trade could be +_constitutionally_ prosecuted, it may yet be renewed, under the +Constitution, at the pleasure of Congress, whose prohibitory statute +is liable to be reversed at any moment, in the frenzy of Southern +opposition to emancipation. It is ignorantly supposed that the +bargain was, that the traffic _should cease_ in 1808; but the only +thing secured by it was, the _right_ of Congress (not any obligation) +to prohibit it at that period. If, therefore, Congress had not +chosen to exercise that right, _the traffic might have been +prolonged indefinitely, under the Constitution_. The right to +destroy any particular branch of commerce, implies the right to +re-establish it. True, there is no probability that the African slave +trade will ever again be legalized by the national government; but +no credit is due the framers of the Constitution on this ground; for, +while they threw around it all the sanction and protection of the +national character and power for twenty years, _they set no bounds to +its continuance by any positive constitutional prohibition_. + +Again, the adoption of such a clause, and the faithful execution of +it, prove what was meant by the words of the preamble--"to form a +more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, +provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and +secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our +posterity"--namely, that the parties to the Constitution regarded +only their own rights and interests, and never intended that its +language should be so interpreted as to interfere with slavery, or to +make it unlawful for one portion of the people to enslave another, +_without an express alteration in that instrument, in the manner +therein set forth_. While, therefore, the Constitution remains as it +was originally adopted, they who swear to support it are bound to +comply with all its provisions, as a matter of allegiance. For it +avails nothing to say, that some of those provisions are at war with +the law of God and the rights of man, and therefore are not +obligatory. Whatever may be their character, they are +_constitutionally_ obligatory; and whoever feels that he cannot +execute them, or swear to execute them, without committing sin, has no +other choice left than to withdraw from the government, or to violate +his conscience by taking on his lips an impious promise. The object of +the Constitution is not to define _what is the law of God_, but WHAT IS +THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE--which will is not to be frustrated by an +ingenious moral interpretation, by those whom they have elected to +serve them. + +ARTICLE 1, Sect. 2, provides--"Representatives and direct taxes +shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included +within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which +shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, +including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding +Indians not taxed, _three-fifths of all other persons_." + +Here, as in the clause we have already examined, veiled beneath a +form of words as deceitful as it is unmeaning in a truly democratic +government, is a provision for the safety, perpetuity and +augmentation of the slaveholding power--a provision scarcely less +atrocious than that which related to the African slave trade, and +almost as afflictive in its operation--a provision still in force, +with no possibility of its alteration, so long as a majority of the +slave States choose to maintain their slave system--a provision which, +at the present time, enables the South to have twenty-five additional +representatives in Congress on the score of _property_, while the +North is not allowed to have one--a provision which concedes to the +oppressed three-fifths of the political power which is granted to +all others, aid then puts this power into the hands of their +oppressors, to be wielded by them for the more perfect security of +their tyrannous authority, and the complete subjugation of the +non-slaveholding States. + +Referring to this atrocious bargain, ALEXANDER HAMILTON remarked in +the New York Convention-- + +"The first thing objected to, is that clause which allows a +representation for three-fifths of the negroes. Much has been said +of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own: +whether this is _reasoning_ or _declamation_, (!!) I will not +presume to say. It is the _unfortunate_ situation of the Southern +States to have a great part of their population, as well as _property_, +in blacks. The regulation complained of was one result of _the +spirit of accommodation_ which governed the Convention; and +without this _indulgence_, NO UNION COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN FORMED. +But, sir, considering some _peculiar advantages_ which we derive +from them it is entirely JUST that they should be _gratified_--The +Southern States possess certain staples,--tobacco, rice, indigo, +&c.--which must be _capital_ objects in treaties of commerce with +foreign nations; and the advantage which they necessarily procure in +these treaties will be felt throughout the United States." + +If such was the patriotism, such the love of liberty, such the +morality of ALEXANDER HAMILTON, what can be said of the character of +those who were far less conspicuous than himself in securing +American independence, and in framing the American Constitution? + +Listen, now, to the opinions of JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, respecting the +constitutional clause now under consideration:-- + +"'In outward show, it is a representation of persons in bondage; in +fact, it is a representation of their masters,--the oppressor +representing the oppressed.'--'Is it in the compass of human +imagination to devise a more perfect exemplification of the art of +committing the lamb to the tender custody of the wolf?'--'The +representative is thus constituted, not the friend, agent and +trustee of the person whom he represents, but the most inveterate of +his foes.'--'It was _one_ of the curses from that Pandora's box, +adjusted at the time, as usual, by a _compromise_, the whole +advantage of which inured to the benefit of the South, and to +aggravate the burdens of the North.'--'If there be a parallel to it +in human history, it can only be that of the Roman Emperors, who, +from the days when Julius Caesar substituted a military despotism in +the place of a republic, among the offices which they always +concentrated upon themselves, was that of tribune of the people. A +Roman Emperor tribune of the people, is an exact parallel to that +feature in the Constitution of the United States which makes the +master the representative of his slave.'--'The Constitution of the +United States expressly prescribes that no title of nobility shall +be granted by the United States. The spirit of this interdict is not +a rooted antipathy to the grant of mere powerless empty _titles_, +but to titles of _nobility_; to the institution of privileged orders +of men. But what order of men under the most absolute of monarchies, +or the most aristocratic of republics, was ever invested with such +an odious and unjust privilege as that of the separate and exclusive +representation of less than half a million owners of slaves, in the +Hall of this House, in the Chair of the Senate, and in the +Presidential mansion?'--'This investment of power in the owners of +one species of property concentrated in the highest authorities of +the nation, and disseminated through thirteen of the twenty-six +States of the Union, constitutes a privileged order of men in the +community, more adverse to the rights of all, and more pernicious to +the interests of the whole, than any order of nobility ever known. +To call government thus constituted a democracy, is to insult the +understanding of mankind. To call it an aristocracy, is to do +injustice to that form of government. Aristocracy is the government +of _the best_. Its standard qualification for accession to power +_is merit_, ascertained by popular election recurring at short +intervals of time. If even that government is prone to degenerate +into tyranny, what must be the character of that form of polity in +which the standard qualification for access to power is wealth in +the possession of slaves? It is doubly tainted with the infection of +riches and of slavery. _There is no name in the language of national +jurisprudence that can define it_--no model in the records of +ancient history, or in the political theories of Aristotle, with +which it can be likened. It was introduced into the Constitution of +the United States by an equivocation--a representation of property +under the name of persons. Little did the members of the Convention +from the free States foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden +under the mask of this concession.'--'The House of Representatives +of the United States consists of 223 members--all, by the _letter_ of +the Constitution, representatives only of _persons_, as 135 of them +really are; but the other 88, equally representing the _persons_ of +their constituents, by whom they are elected, also represent, under +the name of _other persons_, upwards of two and a half millions of +_slaves_, held as the _property_ of less than half a million of +the white constituents, and valued at twelve hundred millions of +dollars. Each of these 88 members represents in fact the whole of +that mass of associated wealth, and the persons and exclusive +interests of its owners; all thus knit together, like the members of +a moneyed corporation, with a capital not of thirty-five or forty or +fifty, but of twelve hundred millions of dollars, exhibiting the +most extraordinary exemplification of the anti-republican tendencies +of associated wealth that the world ever saw,'--'Here is one class +of men, consisting of not more than one fortieth part of the whole +people, not more than one-thirtieth part of the free population, +exclusively devoted to their personal interests identified with +their own as slaveholders of the same associated wealth, and +wielding by their votes, upon every question of government or of +public policy, two-fifths of the whole power of the House. In the +Senate of the Union, the proportion of the slaveholding power is yet +greater. By the influence of slavery, in the States where the +institution is tolerated, over their elections, no other than a +slaveholder can rise to the distinction of obtaining a seat in the +Senate; and thus, of the 52 members of the federal Senate, 26 are +owners of slaves, and as effectively representatives of that +interest as the 88 members elected by them to the House.'--'By this +process it is that all political power in the States is absorbed and +engrossed by the owners of _slaves_, and the overruling policy of +the States is shaped to strengthen and consolidate their domination. +The legislative, executive, and judicial authorities are all in +their hands--the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of the +black code of slavery--every law of the legislature becomes a link +in the chain of the slave; every executive act a rivet to his +hapless fate; every judicial decision a perversion of the human +intellect to the justification of _wrong_.--Its reciprocal +operation upon the government of the nation is, to establish an +artificial majority in the slave representation over that of the +free people, in the American Congress, and thereby to make the +PRESERVATION, PROPAGATION, AND PERPETUATION OF SLAVERY THE VITAL AND +ANIMATING SPIRIT OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.--The result is seen +in the fact that, at this day, the President of the United States, +the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of +Representatives, and five out of nine of the Judges of the Supreme +Judicial Courts of the United States, are not only citizens of +slaveholding States, but individual slaveholders themselves. So are, +and constantly have been, with scarcely an exception, all the +members of both Houses of Congress from the slaveholding States; and +so are, in immensely disproportionate numbers, the commanding +officers of the army and navy; the officers of the customs; the +registers and receivers of the land offices, and the post-masters +throughout the slaveholding States.--The Biennial Register indicates +the birth-place of all the officers employed in the government of +the Union. If it were required to designate the owners of this +species of property among them, it would be little more than a +catalogue of slaveholders.'" + +It is confessed by Mr. Adams, alluding to the national convention +that framed the Constitution, that "the delegation from the free +States, in their extreme anxiety to conciliate the ascendency of the +Southern slaveholder, did listen to a _compromise between right and +wrong_--_between freedom and slavery_; of the ultimate fruits of which +they had no conception, but which already even now is urging the +Union to its inevitable ruin and dissolution, by a civil, servile, +foreign, and Indian war, all combined in one; a war, the essential +issue of which will be between freedom and slavery, and in which the +unhallowed standard of slavery will be the desecrated banner of the +North American Union--that banner, first unfurled to the breeze, +inscribed with the self-evident truths of the Declaration of +Independence." + +Hence, to swear to support the Constitution of the United States, _as +it is_, is to make "a compromise between right and wrong," and to +wage war against human liberty. It is to recognize and honor as +republican legislators, _incorrigible men-stealers_, MERCILESS +TYRANTS, BLOOD THIRSTY ASSASSINS, who legislate with deadly weapons +about their persons, such as pistols, daggers, and bowie-knives, +with which they threaten to murder any Northern senator or +representative who shall dare to stain their _honor_, or interfere +with their _rights_! They constitute a banditti more fierce and cruel +than any whose atrocities are recorded on the pages of history or +romance. To mix with them on terms of social or religious fellowship, +is to indicate a low state of virtue; but to think of administering +a free government by their co-operation, is nothing short of insanity. + +Article IV., Section 2, declares,--"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." + +Here is a third clause, which, like the other two, makes no mention +of slavery or slaves, in express terms; and yet, like them, was +intelligently framed and mutually understood by the parties to the +ratification, and intended both to protect the slave system and to +restore runaway slaves. It alone makes slavery a national institution, +a national crime, and all the people who are not enslaved, the +body-guard over those whose liberties have been cloven down. This +agreement, too, has been fulfilled to the letter by the North. + +Under the Mosaic dispensation it was imperatively commanded,--"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 warning which the +prophet Isaiah gave to oppressing Moab was of a similar kind: +"Take counsel, execute judgment; make thy shadow as the night in the +midst of the noon-day; hide the outcasts; bewray not him that +wandereth. Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab; be thou a covert +to them from the face of the spoiler." The prophet Obadiah brings +the following charge against treacherous Edom, which is precisely +applicable to this guilty nation:--"For thy violence against thy +brother Jacob, shame shall come over thee, and thou shalt be cut off +for ever. In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the +day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and +foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, +_even thou wast as one of them_. But thou shouldst not have looked +on the day of thy brother, in the day that he became a stranger; +neither shouldst thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah, in +the day of their destruction; neither shouldst thou have spoken +proudly in the day of distress; neither shouldst thou have _stood in +the cross-way, to cut off those of his that did escape_; neither +shouldst thou have _delivered up those of his that did remain_, in +the day of distress." + +How exactly descriptive of this boasted republic is the impeachment +of Edom by the same prophet! "The pride of thy heart hath deceived +thee, thou whose habitation is high; that sayeth in thy heart, Who +shall bring me down to the ground? Though thou exalt thyself as the +eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I +bring thee down, saith the Lord." The emblem of American pride and +power is the _eagle_, and on her banner she has mingled _stars_ with +its _stripes_. Her vanity, her treachery, her oppression, her +self-exaltation, and her defiance of the Almighty, far surpass the +madness and wickedness of Edom. What shall be her punishment? Truly, +it may be affirmed of the American people, (who live not under the +Levitical but Christian code, and whose guilt, therefore, is the +more awful, and their condemnation the greater,) in the language of +another prophet--"They all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every +man his brother with a net. That they may do evil with both hands +earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and +the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: _so they wrap it +up_." Likewise of the colored inhabitants of this land it may be said, +--"This is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared +in holes, and they are hid in prison-houses; they are for a prey, +and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore." + +By this stipulation, the Northern States are made the hunting ground +of slave-catchers, who may pursue their victims with blood-hounds, +and capture them with impunity wherever they can lay their robber +hands upon them. At least twelve or fifteen thousand runaway slaves +are now in Canada, exiled from their native land, because they could +not find, throughout its vast extent, a single road on which they +could dwell in safety, _in consequence of this provision of the +Constitution_? How is it possible, then, for the advocates of +liberty to support a government which gives over to destruction +one-sixth part of the whole population? + +It is denied by some at the present day, that the clause which has +been cited, was intended to apply to runaway slaves. This indicates +either ignorance, or folly, or something worse. JAMES MADISON as one +of the framers of the Constitution, is of some authority on this +point. Alluding to that instrument, in the Virginia convention, he +said:-- + + "Another clause _secures us that property which we now possess_. At + present, if any slave elopes to those States where slaves are free, + _he becomes emancipated by their laws_; for the laws of the States + are _uncharitable_(!) to one another in this respect; but in this + constitution, 'No person held to service or labor in one State, + under the laws thereof, shall, in consequence of any law or + regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but + shall be delivered upon claim of the party to whom such service or + labor away be due. THIS CLAUSE WAS EXPRESSLY INSERTED TO ENABLE THE + OWNERS OF SLAVES TO RECLAIM THEM. _This is a better security than + any that now exists_. No power is given to the general government to + interfere with respect to the property in slaves now held by the + States." + +In the same convention, alluding to the same clause, GOV. RANDOLPH +said:-- + + "Every one knows that slaves are held to service or labor. And, when + authority is given to owners of slaves to _vindicate their + property_, can it be supposed they can be deprived of it? If a + citizen of this State, in consequence of this clause, can take his + runaway slave in Maryland, can it be seriously thought that, after + taking him and bringing him home, he could be made free?" + +It is objected, that slaves are held as property, and therefore, as +the clause refers to persons, it cannot mean slaves. But this is +criticism against fact. Slaves are recognized not merely as property, +but also as persons--as having a mixed character--as combining the +human with the brutal. This is paradoxical, we admit; but slavery is +a paradox--the American Constitution is a paradox--the American +Union is a paradox--the American Government is a paradox; and if any +one of these is to be repudiated on that ground, they all are. That +it is the duty of the friends of freedom to deny the binding +authority of them all, and to secede from them all, we distinctly +affirm. After the independence of this country had been achieved, +the voice of God exhorted the people, saying, "Execute true judgment, +and show mercy and compassion every man to his brother: and oppress +not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and +let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. But +they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped +their ears, that they should not hear; yea, they made their hearts +as an adamant stone." "Shall I not visit for these things? saith the +Lord. Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?" + +Whatever doubt may have rested on any honest mind, respecting the +meaning of the clause in relation to persons held to service or labor, +must have been removed by the unanimous decision of the Supreme +Court of the United States, in the case of Prigg versus The State of +Pennsylvania. By that decision, any Southern slave-catcher is +empowered to seize and convey to the South, without hindrance or +molestation on the part of the State, and without any legal process +duly obtained and served, any person or persons, irrespective of +caste or complexion, whom he may choose to claim as runaway slaves; +and if, when thus surprised and attacked, or on their arrival South, +they cannot prove by legal witnesses, that they are freemen, their +doom is sealed! Hence the free colored population of the North are +specially liable to become the victims of this terrible power, and +all the other inhabitants are at the mercy of prowling kidnappers, +because there are multitudes of white as well as black slaves on +Southern plantations, and slavery is no longer fastidious with +regard to the color of its prey. + +As soon as that appalling decision of the Supreme Court was +enunciated, in the name of the Constitution, the people of the North +should have risen _en masse_, if for no other cause, and declared the +Union at an end; and they would have done so, if they had not lost +their manhood, and their reverence for justice and liberty. + +In the 4th Sect. of Art. IV., the United States guarantee to protect +every State in the Union "_against domestic violence_." By the 8th +Section of Article 1., congress is empowered "to provide for calling +forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, _suppress +insurrections_, and repel invasions." These provisions, however +strictly they may apply to cases of disturbance among the white +population, were adopted with special reference to the slave +population, for the purpose of keeping them in their chains by the +combined military force of the country; and were these repealed, and +the South left to manage her slaves as best she could, a servile +insurrection would ere long be the consequence, as general as it +would unquestionably be successful. Says Mr. Madison, respecting +these clauses:-- + + "On application of the legislature or executive, as the case may be, + the militia of the other States are to be called to suppress + domestic insurrections. Does this bar the States from calling forth + their own militia? No; but it gives them a _supplementary_ security + to suppress insurrections and domestic violence." + +The answer to Patrick Henry's objection, as urged against the +constitution in the Virginia convention, that there was no power left +to the States to quell an insurrection of slaves, as it was wholly +vested in congress, George Nicholas asked:-- + + "Have they it now? If they have, does the constitution take it away? + If it does, it must be in one of those clauses which have been + mentioned by the worthy member. The first part gives the general + government power to call them out when necessary. Does this take it + away from the States? No! but _it gives an additional security_; + for, beside the power in the State government to use their own + militia, it will be _the duty of the general government_ to aid + them WITH THE STRENGTH OF THE UNION, when called for." + +This solemn guaranty of security to the slave system, caps the +climax of national barbarity, and stains with human blood the +garments of all the people. In consequence of it, that system has +multiplied its victims from five hundred thousand to nearly three +millions--a vast amount of territory has been purchased, in order to +give it extension and perpetuity--several new slave States have been +admitted into the Union--the slave trade has been made one of the +great branches of American commerce--the slave population, though +over-worked, starved, lacerated, branded, maimed, and subjected to +every form of deprivation and every species of torture, have been +over awed and crushed,--or, whenever they have attempted to gain +their liberty by revolt, they have been shot down and quelled by the +strong arm of the national government; as, for example, in the case +of Nat Turner's insurrection in Virginia, when the naval and military +forces of the government were called into active service. Cuban +bloodhounds have been purchased with the money of the people, and +imported and used to hunt slave fugitives among the everglades of +Florida. A merciless warfare has been waged for the extermination or +expulsion of the Florida Indians, because they gave succor to those +poor hunted fugitives--a warfare which has cost the nation several +thousand lives, and forty millions of dollars. But the catalogue +of enormities is too long to be recapitulated in the present address. + +We have thus demonstrated that the compact between the North and the +South embraces every variety of wrong and outrage,--is at war with +God and man, cannot be innocently supported, and deserves to be +immediately annulled. In behalf of the Society which we represent, +we call upon all our fellow-citizens, who believe it is right to +obey God rather than man, to declare themselves peaceful +revolutionists, and to unite with us under the stainless banner of +Liberty, having for its motto--"EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL--NO UNION WITH +SLAVEHOLDERS!" + +It is pleaded that the Constitution provides for its own amendment; +and we ought to use the elective franchise to effect this object. +True, there is such a proviso; but, until the amendment be made, +that instrument is binding as it stands. Is it not to violate every +moral instinct, and to sacrifice principle to expediency, to argue +that we may swear to steal, oppress and murder by wholesale, because +it may be necessary to do so only for the time being, and because +there is some remote probability that the instrument which requires +that we should be robbers, oppressors and murderers, may at some +future day be amended in these particulars? Let us not palter with +our consciences in this manner--let us not deny that the compact was +conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity--let us not be so +dishonest, even to promote a good object, as to interpret the +Constitution in a manner utterly at variance with the intentions and +arrangements of the contracting parties; but, confessing the guilt +of the nation, acknowledging the dreadful specifications in the bond, +washing our hands in the waters of repentance from all further +participation in this criminal alliance, and resolving that we will +sustain none other than a free and righteous government, let us +glory in the name of revolutionists, unfurl the banner of disunion, +and consecrate our talents and means to the overthrow of all that is +tyrannical in the land,--to the establishment of all that is free, +just, true and holy,--to the triumph of universal love and peace. + +If, in utter disregard of the historical facts which have been cited, +it is still asserted, that the Constitution needs no amendment to +make it a free instrument, adapted to all the exigencies of a free +people, and was never intended to give any strength or countenance +to the slave system--the indignant spirit of insulted Liberty +replies:--"What though the assertion be true? Of what avail is a mere +piece of parchment? In itself, though it be written all over with +words of truth and freedom--though its provisions be as impartial and +just as words can express, or the imagination paint--though it be as +pure as the gospel, and breathe only the spirit of Heaven--it is +powerless; it has no executive vitality; it is a lifeless corpse, even +though beautiful in death. I am famishing for lack of bread! How is my +appetite relieved by holding up to my gaze a painted loaf? I am +manacled, wounded, bleeding dying! What consolation is it to know, +that they who are seeking to destroy my life, profess in words to be +my friends?" If the liberties of the people have been betrayed--if +judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off, and +truth has fallen in the streets, and equality cannot enter--if the +princes of the land are roaring lions, the judges evening wolves, +the people light and treacherous persons, the priests covered with +pollution--if we are living under a frightful despotism, which scoffs +at all constitutional restraints, and wields the resources of the +nation to promote its own bloody purposes--tell us not that the +forms of freedom are still left to us! Would such tameness and +submission have freighted the May-Flower for Plymouth Rock? Would it +have resisted the Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, or any of those entering +wedges of tyranny with which the British government sought to rive +the liberties of America? The wheel of the Revolution would have +rusted on its axle, if a spirit so weak had been the only power to +give it motion. Did our fathers say, when their rights and liberties +were infringed--"_Why, what is done cannot be undone_. That is the +first thought." No, it was the last thing they thought of: or, rather, +it never entered their minds at all. They sprang to the conclusion at +once--"_What is done_ SHALL _be undone_. That is our FIRST and ONLY +thought." + + + "Is water running in our veins? Do we remember still + Old Plymouth Rock, and Lexington, and famous Bunker Hill? + The debt we owe our fathers' graves? and to the yet unborn, + Whose heritage ourselves must make a thing of pride or scorn?" + + "Gray Plymouth Rock hath yet a tongue, and Concord is not dumb; + And voices from our fathers' graves and from the future come: + They call on us to stand our ground--they charge us still to be + Not only free from chains ourselves, but foremost to make free!" + + +It is of little consequence who is on the throne, if there be behind +it a power mightier than the throne. It matters not what is the +theory of the government, if the practice of the government be unjust +and tyrannical. We rise in rebellion against a despotism +incomparably more dreadful than that which induced the colonists to +take up arms against the mother country; not on account of a +three-penny tax on tea, but because fetters of living iron are +fastened on the limbs of millions of our countrymen, and our most +sacred rights are trampled in the dust. As citizens of the State, +we appeal to the State in vain for protection and redress. As +citizens of the United States, we are treated as outlaws in one +half of the country, and the national government consents to our +destruction. We are denied the right of locomotion, freedom of speech, +the right of petition, the liberty of the press, the right peaceably +to assemble together to protest against oppression and plead for +liberty--at least in thirteen States of the Union. If we venture, as +avowed and unflinching abolitionists, to travel South of Mason and +Dixon's line, we do so at the peril of our lives. If we would escape +torture and death, on visiting any of the slave States, we must +stifle our conscientious convictions, bear no testimony against +cruelty and tyranny, suppress the struggling emotions of humanity, +divest ourselves of all letters and papers of an anti-slavery +character, and do homage to the slaveholding power--or run the risk +of a cruel martyrdom! These are appalling and undeniable facts. + +Three millions of the American people are crushed under the American +Union! They are held as slaves--trafficked as merchandise--registered +as goods and chattels! The government gives them no protection--the +government is their enemy--the government keeps them in chains! +There they lie bleeding--we are prostrate by their side--in +their sorrows and sufferings we participate--their stripes are +inflicted on our bodies, their shackles are fastened on our limbs, +their cause is ours! The Union which grinds them to the dust +rests upon us, and with them we will struggle to overthrow it! +The Constitution, which subjects them to hopeless bondage, is one +that we cannot swear to support! Our motto is, "NO UNION WITH +SLAVEHOLDERS," either religious or political. They are the fiercest +enemies of mankind, and the bitterest foes of God! We separate from +them not in anger, not in malice, not for a selfish purpose, not to +do them an injury, not to cease warning, exhorting, reproving them +for their crimes, not to leave the perishing bondman to his fate--O +no! But to clear our skirts of innocent blood--to give the oppressor +no countenance--to signify our abhorrence of injustice and +cruelty--to testify against an ungodly compact--to cease striking +hands with thieves and consenting with adulterers--to make no +compromise with tyranny--to walk worthily of our high profession--to +increase our moral power over the nation--to obey God and vindicate +the gospel of his Son--hasten the downfall of slavery in America, +and throughout the world! + +We are not acting under a blind impulse. We have carefully counted +the cost of this warfare, and are prepared to meet its consequences. +It will subject us to reproach, persecution, infamy--it will prove a +fiery ordeal to all who shall pass through it--it may cost us our +lives. We shall be ridiculed as fools, accused as visionaries, +branded as disorganizers, reviled as madmen, threatened and perhaps +punished as traitors. But we shall bide our time. Whether safety +or peril, whether victory or defeat, whether life or death be ours, +believing that our feet are planted on an eternal foundation, that +our position is sublime and glorious, that our faith in God is +rational and steadfast, that we have exceeding great and precious +promises on which to rely, THAT WE ARE IN THE RIGHT, we shall not +falter nor be dismayed, "though the earth be removed, and though the +mountains be carried into the midst of the sea,"--though our ranks +be thinned to the number of "three hundred men." Freemen! are you +ready for the conflict? Come what may, will you sever the chain that +binds you to a slaveholding government, and declare your independence? +Up, then, with the banner of revolution! Not to shed blood--not to +injure the person or estate of any oppressor--not by force and arms +to resist any law--not to countenance a servile insurrection--not to +wield any carnal weapons! No--ours must be a bloodless strife, +excepting _our_ blood be shed--for we aim, as did Christ our leader, +not to destroy men's lives, but to save them--to overcome evil with +good--to conquer through suffering for righteousness' sake--to set +the captive free by the potency of truth! + +Secede, then, from the government. Submit to its exactions, but pay +it no allegiance, and give it no voluntary aid. Fill no offices +under it. Send no senators or representatives to the national or +State legislature; for what you cannot conscientiously perform +yourself, you cannot ask another to perform as your agent. Circulate +a declaration of DISUNION FROM SLAVEHOLDERS, throughout the country. +Hold mass meetings--assemble in conventions--nail your banners to +the mast! + +Do you ask what can be done, if you abandon the ballot-box? What did +the crucified Nazarene do without the elective franchise? What did +the apostles do? What did the glorious army of martyrs and +confessors do? What did Luther and his intrepid associates do? What +can women and children do? What has Father Mathew done for teetotalism? +What has Daniel O'Connell done for Irish repeal? "Stand, having your +loins girt about with truth, and having on the breast-plate of +righteousness," and arrayed in the whole armor of God! + +The form of government that shall succeed the present government of +the United States, let time determine. It would be a waste of time +to argue that question, until the people are regenerated and turned +from their iniquity. Ours is no anarchical movement, but one of +order and obedience. In ceasing from oppression, we establish liberty. +What is now fragmentary, shall in due time be crystallized, and +shine like a gem set in the heavens, for a light to all coming ages. + +Finally--we believe that the effect of this movement will be,--First, +to create discussion and agitation throughout the North; and these +will lead to a general perception of its grandeur and importance. + +Secondly, to convulse the slumbering South like an earthquake, and +convince her that her only alternative is, to abolish slavery, or be +abandoned by that power on which she now relies for safety. + +Thirdly, to attack the slave power in its most vulnerable point, and +to carry the battle to the gate. + +Fourthly, to exalt the moral sense, increase the moral power, and +invigorate the moral constitution of all who heartily espouse it. + +We reverently believe that, in withdrawing from the American Union, +we have the God of justice with us. We know that we have our +enslaved countrymen with us. We are confident that all free hearts +will be with us. We are certain that tyrants and their abettors will +be against us. + +In behalf of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery +Society, + +WM. LLOYD GARRISON, _President_. + + WENDELL PHILLIPS, } _Secretaries_. + MARIA WESTON CHAPMAN, } + + _Boston, May_ 20, 1844. + + * * * * * + + +LETTER FROM FRANCIS JACKSON. + +BOSTON, 4TH July, 1844 + +_To His Excellency George N. Briggs_: + +SIR--Many years since, I received from the Executive of the +Commonwealth a commission as Justice of the Peace. I have held the +office that it conferred upon me till the present time, and have +found it a convenience to myself, and others. It might continue to +be so, could I consent longer to hold it. But paramount +considerations forbid, and I herewith transmit to you my commission, +respectfully asking you to accept my resignation. + +While I deem it a duty to myself to take this step, I feel called on +to state the reasons that influence me. + +In entering upon the duties of the office in question, I complied +with the requirements of the law, by taking an oath "_to support the +Constitution of the United States_." I regret that I ever took that +oath. Had I then as maturely considered its full import, and the +obligations under which it is understood, and meant to lay those who +take it, as I have done since, I certainly never would have taken it, +seeing, as I now do, that the Constitution of the United States +contains provisions calculated and intended to foster, cherish, +uphold and perpetuate _slavery_. It pledges the country to guard and +protect the slave system so long as the slaveholding States choose +to retain it. It regards the slave code as lawful in the States +which enact it. Still more, "it has done that, which, until its +adoption, was never before done for African slavery. It took it out +of its former category of municipal law and local life, adopted it +as a national institution, spread around it the broad and sufficient +shield of national law, and thus gave to slavery a national existence." +Consequently, the oath to support the Constitution of the United +States is a solemn promise to do that which is morally wrong; that +which is a violation of the natural rights of man, and a sin in the +sight of God. + +I am not, in this matter, constituting myself a judge of others. I +do not say that no honest man can take such an oath, and abide by it. +I only say, that _I_ would not now deliberately take it; and that, +having inconsiderately taken it, I can no longer suffer it to lie +upon my soul. I take back the oath, and ask you, sir, to take back +the commission, which was the occasion of my taking it. + +I am aware that my course in this matter is liable to be regarded as +singular, if not censurable; and I must, therefore, be allowed to +make a more specific statement of those _provisions of the +Constitution_ which support the enormous wrong, the heinous sin of +slavery. + +The very first Article of the Constitution takes slavery at once +under its legislative protection, as a basis of representation in +the popular branch of the National Legislature. It regards slaves +under the description "of all other _persons_"--as of only +three-fifths of the value of free persons; thus to appearance +undervaluing them in comparison with freemen. But its dark and +involved phraseology seems intended to blind us to the consideration, +that those underrated slaves are merely a _basis_, not the _source_ +of representation; that by the laws of all the States where they live, +they are regarded not as _persons_; but as _things_; that they are +not the _constituency_ of the representative, but his property; and +that the necessary effect of this provision of the Constitution is, +to take legislative power out of the hands of _men_, as such, and +give it to the mere possessors of goods and chattels. Fixing upon +thirty thousand persons, as the smallest number that shall send one +member into the House of Representatives, it protects slavery by +distributing legislative power in a free and in a slave State thus: +To a congressional district in South Carolina, containing fifty +thousand slaves, claimed as the property of five hundred whites, who +hold, on an average, one hundred apiece, it gives one Representative +in Congress; to a district in Massachusetts containing a population +of thirty thousand five hundred, one Representative is assigned. But +inasmuch as a slave is never permitted to vote, the fifty thousand +persons in a district in Carolina form no part of "the constituency;" +that is found only in the five hundred free persons. Five hundred +freemen of Carolina could send one Representative to Congress, while +it would take thirty thousand five hundred freemen of Massachusetts, +to do the same thing: that is, one slaveholder in Carolina is +clothed by the Constitution with the same political power and +influence in the Representatives Hall at Washington, as sixty +Massachusetts men like you and me, who "eat their bread in the sweat +of their own brows." + +According to the census of 1830, and the ratio of representation +based upon that, slave property added twenty-five members to the +House of Representatives. And as it has been estimated, (as an +approximation to the truth,) that the two and a half million slaves +in the United States are held as property by about two hundred and +fifty thousand persons--giving an average of ten slaves to each +slaveholder, those twenty-five Representatives, each chosen, at most, +by only ten thousand voters, and probably by less than three-fourths +of that number, were the representatives, not only of the two +hundred and fifty thousand persons who chose them; but of _property_ +which, five years ago, when slaves were lower in market, than at +present, were estimated, by the man who is now the most prominent +candidate for the Presidency, at twelve hundred millions of dollars--a +sum, which, by the natural increase of five years, and the enhanced +value resulting from a more prosperous state of the planting +interest, cannot now be less than fifteen hundred millions of dollars. +All this vast amount of property, as it is "peculiar," is also +identical in its character. In Congress, as we have seen, it is +animated by one spirit, moves in one mass, and is wielded with one +aim; and when we consider that tyranny is always timid, and despotism +distrustful, we see that this vast money power would be false to +itself, did it not direct all its eyes and hands, and put forth all +its ingenuity and energy, to one end--self-protection and +self-perpetuation. And this it has ever done. In all the vibrations +of the political scale, whether in relation to a Bank or Sub-Treasury, +Free Trade or a Tariff, this immense power has moved, and will +continue to move, in one mass, for its own protection. + +While the weight of the slave influence is thus felt in the House of +Representatives, "in the Senate of the Union," says John Quincy Adams, +"the proportion of slaveholding power is still greater. By the +influence of slavery in the States where the institution is tolerated, +over their elections, no other than a slaveholder can rise to the +distinction of obtaining a seat in the Senate; and thus, of the +fifty-two members of the federal Senate, twenty-six are owners of +slaves, and are as effectually representatives of that interest, as +the eighty-eight members elected by them to the House." + +The dominant power which the Constitution gives to the slave interest, +as thus seen and exercised in the _Legislative Halls_ of our nation, +is equally obvious and obtrusive in every other department of the +National government. + +In the _Electoral colleges_, the same cause produces the same +effect--the same power is wielded for the same purpose, as in the +Halls of Congress. Even the preliminary nominating conventions, before +they dare name a candidate for the highest office in the gift of the +people, must ask of the Genius of slavery, to what votary she will +show herself propitious. This very year, we see both the great +political parties doing homage to the slave power, by nominating +each a slaveholder for the chair of the State. The candidate of one +party declares. "I should have opposed, and would continue to oppose, +any scheme whatever of emancipation, either gradual or immediate;" +and adds, "It is not true, and I rejoice that it is not true, that +either of the two great parties of this country has any design or +aim at abolition. I should deeply lament it, if it were true."[94] + +[Footnote 94: Henry Clay's speech in the United States Senate in 1839, +and confirmed at Raleigh, N.C. 1844.] + + +The other party nominates a man who says, "I have no hesitation in +declaring that I am in favor of the immediate re-annexation of Texas +to the territory and government of the United States." + +Thus both the political parties, and the candidates of both, vie +with each other, in offering allegiance to the slave power, as a +condition precedent to any hope of success in the struggle for the +executive chair; a seat that, for more than three-fourths of the +existence of our constitutional government, has been occupied by a +slaveholder. + +The same stern despotism overshadows even the sanctuaries of +_justice_. Of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United +States, five are slaveholders, and of course, must be faithless to +their own interest, as well as recreant to the power that gives them +place, or must, so far as _they_ are concerned, give both to law and +constitution such a construction as shall justify the language of +John Quincy Adams, when he says--"The legislative, executive, and +judicial authorities, are all in their hands--for the preservation, +propagation, and perpetuation of the black code of slavery. Every +law of the legislature becomes a link in the chain of the slave; +every executive act a rivet to his hapless fate; every judicial +decision a perversion of the human intellect to the justification of +wrong." + +Thus by merely adverting but briefly to the theory and the practical +effect of this clause of the Constitution, that I have sworn to +support, it is seen that it throws the political power of the nation +into the hands of the slaveholders; a body of men, which, however it +may be regarded by the Constitution as "persons," is in fact and +practical effect, a vast moneyed corporation, bound together by an +indissoluble unity of interest, by a common sense of a common danger; +counselling at all times for its common protection; wielding the +whole power, and controlling the destiny of the nation. + +If we look into the legislative halls, slavery is seen in the chair +of the presiding officer of each, and controlling the action of both. +Slavery occupies, by prescriptive right, the Presidential chair. The +paramount voice that comes from the temple of national justice, +issues from the lips of slavery. The army is in the hands of slavery, +and at her bidding, must encamp in the everglades of Florida, or +march from the Missouri to the borders of Mexico, to look after her +interests in Texas. + +The navy, even that part that is cruising off the coast of Africa, to +suppress the foreign slave trade, is in the hands of slavery. + +Freemen of the North, who have even dared to lift up their voice +against slavery, cannot travel through the slave States, but at the +peril of their lives. + +The representatives of freemen are forbidden, on the floor of +Congress, to remonstrate against the encroachments of slavery, or to +pray that she would let her poor victims go. + +I renounce my allegiance to a Constitution that enthrones such a +power, wielded for the purpose of depriving me of my rights, of +robbing my countrymen of their liberties, and of securing its own +protection, support and perpetuation. + +Passing by that clause of the Constitution, which restricted Congress +for twenty years, from passing any law against the African slave +trade, and which gave authority to raise a revenue on the stolen +sons of Africa, I come to that part of the fourth article, which +guarantees protection against "_domestic violence_," and which +pledges to the South the military force of the country, to protect +the masters against their insurgent slaves: binds us, and our +children, to shoot down our fellow-countrymen, who may rise, in +emulation of our revolutionary fathers, to vindicate their inalienable +"right to life, _liberty_ and the pursuit of happiness,"--this +clause of the Constitution, I say distinctly, I never will +support. + +That part of the Constitution which provides for the surrender of +fugitive slaves, I never have supported and never will. I will join +in no slave-hunt. My door shall stand open, as it has long stood, for +the panting and trembling victim of the slave-hunter. When I shut it +against him, may God shut the door of his mercy against me! Under +this clause of the Constitution, and designed to carry it into effect, +slavery has demanded that laws should be passed, and of such a +character, as have left the free citizen of the North without +protection for his own liberty. The question, whether a man seized +in a free State as a slave, _is_ a slave or not, the law of Congress +does not allow a jury to determine: but refers it to the decision of +a Judge of a United States' Court, or even of the humblest State +magistrate, it may be, upon the testimony or affidavit of the party +most deeply interested to support the claim. By virtue of this law, +freemen have been seized and dragged into perpetual slavery--and +should I be seized by a slave-hunter in any part of the country +where I am not personally known, neither the Constitution nor laws +of the United States would shield me from the same destiny. + +These, sir, are the specific parts of the Constitution of the United +States, which in my opinion are essentially vicious, hostile at once +to the liberty and to the morals of the nation. And these are the +principal reasons of my refusal any longer to acknowledge my +allegiance to it, and of my determination to revoke my oath to +support it. I cannot, in order to keep the law of man, break the law +of God, or solemnly call him to witness my promise that I will break +it. + +It is true that the Constitution provides for its own amendment, and +that by this process, all the guarantees of Slavery may be expunged. +But it will be time enough to swear to support it when this is done. +It cannot be right to do so, until these amendments are made. + +It is also true that the framers of the Constitution did studiously +keep the words "Slave" and "Slavery" from its face. But to do our +constitutional fathers justice, while they forebore--from very +shame--to give the word "Slavery" a place in the Constitution, they +did not forbear--again to do them justice--to give place in it to +the _thing_. They were careful to wrap up the idea, and the substance +of Slavery, in the clause for the surrender of the fugitive, though +they sacrificed justice in doing so. + +There is abundant evidence that this clause touching "persons held +to service or labor," not only operates practically, under the +judicial construction, for the protection of the slave interest; but +that it was intended so to operate by the framers of the +Constitution. The highest judicial authorities--Chief Justice Shaw, +of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in the Latimer case, and +Mr. Justice Story, in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the +case of _Prigg_ vs. _The State of Pennsylvania_,--tell us, I know +not on what evidence, that without this "compromise," this security +for Southern slaveholders, "the Union could not have been formed." +And there is still higher evidence, not only that the framers of the +Constitution meant by this clause to protect slavery, but that they +did this, knowing that slavery was wrong. Mr. Madison[95] informs us +that the clause in question, as it came out of the hands of Dr. +Johnson, the chairman of the "committee on style," read thus: "No +person legally held to service, or labor, in one State, escaping into +another, shall," &c., and that the word "legally" was struck out, and +the words "under the laws thereof" inserted after the word "State," in +compliance with the wish of some, who thought the term _legal_ +equivocal, and favoring the idea that slavery was legal "_in a moral +view_." A conclusive proof that, although future generations might +apply that clause to other kinds of "service or labor," when slavery +should have died out, or been killed off by the young spirit of +liberty, which was _then_ awake and at work in the land; still, +slavery was what they were wrapping up in "equivocal" words; and +wrapping it up for its protection and safe keeping: a conclusive proof +that the framers of the Constitution were more careful to protect +themselves in the judgment of coming generations, from the charge +of ignorance, than of sin; a conclusive proof that they knew that +slavery was _not_ "legal in a moral view," that it was a violation +of the moral law of God; and yet knowing and confessing its +immorality, they dared to make this stipulation for its support and +defence. + +[Footnote 95: Madison Papers, p. 1589] + +This language may sound harsh to the ears of those who think it a +part of their duty, as citizens, to maintain that whatever the +patriots of the Revolution did, was right; and who hold that we are +bound to _do_ all the iniquity that they covenanted for us that we +_should_ do. But the claims of truth and right are paramount to +all other claims. + +With all our veneration for our constitutional fathers, we must +admit,--for they have left on record their own confession of it,--that +in this part of their work they intended to hold the shield of +their protection over a wrong, knowing that it was a wrong. They +made a "compromise" which they had no right to make--a compromise of +moral principle for the sake of what they probably regarded as +"political expediency." I am sure they did not know--no man could +know, or can now measure, the extent, or the consequences of the +wrong, that they were doing. In the strong language of John Quincy +Adams,[96] in relation to the article fixing the basis of +representation, "Little did the members of the Convention, from the +free States, imagine or foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden +under the mask of this concession." + +[Footnote 96: See his Report on the Massachusetts Resolutions.] + + +I verily believe that, giving all due consideration to the benefits +conferred upon this nation by the Constitution, its national unity, +its swelling masses of wealth, its power, and the external +prosperity of its multiplying millions; yet the _moral_ injury that +has been done, by the countenance shown to slavery by holding over +that tremendous sin the shield of the Constitution, and thus +breaking down in the eyes of the nation the barrier between right +and wrong; by so tenderly cherishing slavery as, in less than the +life of man, to multiply her children from half a million to nearly +three millions; by exacting oaths from those who occupy prominent +stations in society, that they will violate at once the rights of +man and the law of God; by substituting itself as a rule of right, +in place of the moral laws of the universe;--thus in effect, +dethroning the Almighty in the hearts of this people and setting up +another sovereign in his stead--more than outweighs it all. A +melancholy and monitory lesson this, to all timeserving and +temporising statesmen! A striking illustration of the _impolicy_ of +sacrificing _right_ to any considerations of expediency! Yet, what +better than the evil effects that we have seen, could the authors of +the Constitution have reasonably expected, from the sacrifice of +right, in the concessions they made to slavery? Was it reasonable in +them to expect that after they had introduced a vicious element into +the very Constitution of the body politic which they were calling +into life, it would not exert its vicious energies? Was it reasonable +in them to expect that, after slavery had been corrupting the public +morals for a whole generation, their children would have too much +virtue to _use_ for the defence of slavery, a power which they +themselves had not too much virtue to _give_? It is dangerous for +the sovereign power of a State to license immorality; to hold the +shield of its protection over any thing that is not "legal in a moral +view." Bring into your house a benumbed viper, and lay it down upon +your warm hearth, and soon it will not ask you into which room it +may crawl. Let Slavery once lean upon the supporting arm, and bask +in the fostering smile of the State, and you will soon see, as we +now see, both her minions and her victims multiply apace till the +politics, the morals, the liberties, even the religion of the nation, +are brought completely under her control. + + +To me, it appears that the virus of slavery, introduced into the +Constitution of our body politic, by a few slight punctures, has now +so pervaded and poisoned the whole system of our National Government, +that literally there is no health in it. The only remedy that I can +see for the disease, is to be found in the _dissolution of the +patient_. + +The Constitution of the United States, both in theory and practice, +is so utterly broken down by the influence and effects of slavery, +so imbecile for the highest good of the nation, and so powerful for +evil, that I can give no voluntary assistance in holding it up any +longer. + +Henceforth it is dead to me, and I to it. I withdraw all profession +of allegiance to it, and all my voluntary efforts to sustain it. The +burdens that it lays upon me, while it is held up by others, I shall +endeavor to bear patiently, yet acting with reference to a higher law, +and distinctly declaring, that while I retain my own liberty, I will +be a party to no compact, which helps to rob any other man of his. + +Very respectfully, your friend, + +FRANCIS JACKSON. + + + * * * * * + +FROM MR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH AT NIBLO'S GARDENS. + +"We have slavery, already, amongst us. The Constitution found it +among us; it recognized it and gave it SOLEMN GUARANTIES. To the +full extent of these guaranties we are all bound, in honor, in +justice, and by the Constitution. All the stipulations, contained in +the Constitution, _in favor of the slaveholding States_ which are +already in the Union, ought to be fulfilled, and so far as depends +on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fullness of their spirit, and to +the exactness of their letter."!!! + + * * * * * + +EXTRACTS FROM JOHN Q. ADAMS'S ADDRESS + +AT NORTH BRIDGEWATER, NOV. 6, 1844. + +The benefits of the Constitution of the United States, were the +restoration of credit and reputation, to the country--the revival of +commerce, navigation, and ship-building--the acquisition of the +means of discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection +and encouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the +country. All this, however, as is now well ascertained, was +insufficient to propitiate the rulers of the Southern States to +the adoption of the Constitution. What they specially wanted was +_protection_.--Protection from the powerful and savage tribes of +Indians within their borders, and who were harassing them with the most +terrible of wars--and protection from their own negroes--protection +from their insurrections--protection from their escape--protection +even to the trade by which they were brought into the +country--protection, shall I not blush to say, protection to the very +bondage by which they were held. Yes! it cannot be denied--the +slaveholding lords of the South prescribed, as a condition of their +assent to the Constitution, three special provisions to secure the +perpetuity of their dominion over their slaves. The first was the +immunity for twenty years of preserving the African slave-trade; the +second was the stipulation to surrender fugitive slaves--an +engagement positively prohibited by the laws of God, delivered from +Sinai; and thirdly, the exaction fatal to the principles of popular +representation, of a representation for slaves--for articles of +merchandise, under the name of persons. + +The reluctance with which the freemen of the North submitted to the +dictation of these conditions, is attested by the awkward and +ambiguous language in which they are expressed. The word slave is +most cautiously and fastidiously excluded from the whole instrument. +A stranger, who should come from a foreign land, and read the +Constitution of the United States, would not believe that slavery or +a slave existed within the borders of our country. There is not a +word in the Constitution _apparently_ bearing upon the condition of +slavery, nor is there a provision but would be susceptible of +practical execution, if there were not a slave in the land. + +The delegates from South Carolina and Georgia distinctly avowed that, +without this guarantee of protection to their property in slaves, +they would not yield their assent to the Constitution; and the +freemen of the North, reduced to the alternative of departing from +the vital principle of their liberty, or of forfeiting the Union +itself, averted their faces, and with trembling hand subscribed the +bond. + +Twenty years passed away--the slave markets of the South were +saturated with the blood of African bondage, and from midnight of the +31st of December, 1807, not a slave from Africa was suffered ever +more to be introduced upon our soil. But the internal traffic was +still lawful, and the _breeding_ States soon reconciled themselves to +a prohibition which gave them the monopoly of the interdicted trade, +and they joined the full chorus of reprobation, to punish with death +the slave-trader from Africa, while they cherished and shielded and +enjoyed the precious profits of the American slave-trade exclusively +to themselves. + +Perhaps this unhappy result of their concession had not altogether +escaped the foresight of the freemen of the North; but their intense +anxiety for the preservation of the whole Union, and the habit +already formed of yielding to the somewhat peremptory and overbearing +tone which the relation of master and slave welds into the nature of +the lord, prevailed with them to overlook this consideration, the +internal slave-trade having scarcely existed while that with Africa +had been allowed. But of one consequence which has followed from the +slave representation, pervading the whole organic structure of the +Constitution, they certainly were not prescient; for if they had been, +never--no, never would they have consented to it. + +The representation, ostensibly of slaves, under the name of persons, +was in its operation an exclusive grant of power to one class of +proprietors, owners of one species of property, to the detriment of +all the rest of the community. This species of property was odious +in its nature, held in direct violation of the natural and +inalienable rights of man, and of the vital principles of +Christianity; it was all accumulated in one geographical section of +the country, and was all held by wealthy men, comparatively small in +numbers, not amounting to a tenth part of the free white population +of the States in which it was concentrated. + +In some of the ancient, and in some modern republics, extraordinary +political power and privileges have been invested in the owners of +horses; but then these privileges and these powers have been granted +for the equivalent of extraordinary duties and services to the +community, required of the favoured class. The Roman knights +constituted the cavalry of their armies, and the bushels of rings +gathered by Hannibal from their dead bodies, after the battle of +Cannae, amply prove that the special powers conferred upon them were +no gratuitous grants. But in the Constitution of the United States, +the political power invested in the owners of slaves is entirely +gratuitous. No extraordinary service is required of them; they are, +on the contrary, themselves grievous burdens upon the community, +always threatened with the danger of insurrections, to be smothered +in the blood of both parties, master and slave, and always +depressing the condition of the poor free laborer, by competition +with the labor of the slave. The property in horses was the gift of +God to man, at the creation of the world; the property in slaves is +property acquired and held by crimes, differing in no moral aspect +from the pillage of a freebooter, and to which no lapse of time can +give a prescriptive right. You are told that this is no concern of +yours, and that the question of freedom and slavery is exclusively +reserved to the consideration of the separate States. But if it be so, +as to the mere question of right between master and slave, it is of +tremendous concern to you that this little cluster of slave-owners +should possess, besides their own share in the representative hall +of the nation, the exclusive privilege of appointing two-fifths of +the whole number of the representatives of the people. This is now +your condition, under that delusive ambiguity of language and of +principle, which begins by declaring the representation in the +popular branch of the legislature a representation of persons, and +then provides that one class of persons shall have neither part not +lot in the choice of their representatives; but their elective +franchise shall be transferred to their masters, and the oppressors +shall represent the oppressed. The same perversion of the +representative principle pollutes the composition of the colleges of +electors of President and Vice President of the United States, and +every department of the government of the Union is thus tainted at +its source by the gangrene of slavery. + +Fellow-citizens,--with a body of men thus composed, for legislators +and executors of the laws, what will, what must be, what has been +your legislation? The numbers of freemen constituting your nation +are much greater than those of the slaveholding States, bond and free. +You have at least three-fifths of the whole population of the Union. +Your influence on the legislation and the administration of the +government ought to be in the proportion of three to two.--But how +stands the fact? Besides the legitimate portion of influence +exercised by the slaveholding States by the measure of their numbers, +here is an intrusive influence in every department, by a +representation nominally of persons, but really of property, +ostensibly of slaves, but effectively of their masters, +overbalancing your superiority of numbers, adding two-fifths of +supplementary power to the two-fifths fairly secured to them by the +compact, CONTROLLING AND OVERRULING THE WHOLE ACTION OF YOUR +GOVERNMENT AT HOME AND ABROAD, and warping it to the sordid private +interest and oppressive policy of 300,000 owners of slaves. + +From the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United +States, the institution of domestic slavery has been becoming more +and more the abhorrence of the civilized world. But in proportion as +it has been growing odious to all the rest of mankind, it has been +sinking deeper and deeper into the affections of the holders of +slaves themselves. The cultivation of cotton and of sugar, unknown +in the Union at the establishment of the Constitution, has added +largely to the pecuniary value of the slave. And the suppression of +the African slave-trade as piracy upon pain of death, by securing +the benefit of a monopoly to the virtuous slaveholders of the +ancient dominion, has turned her heroic tyrannicides into a +community of slave-breeders for sale, and converted the land of +George Washington, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas +Jefferson, into a great barracoon--a cattle-show of human beings, an +emporium, of which the staple articles of merchandise are the flesh +and blood, the bones and sinews of immortal man. + +Of the increasing abomination of slavery in the unbought hearts of +men at the time when the Constitution of the United States was formed, +what clearer proof could be desired, than that the very same year in +which that charter of the land was issued, the Congress of the +Confederation, with not a tithe of the powers given by the people to +the Congress of the new compact, actually abolished slavery for ever +throughout the whole Northwestern territory, without a remonstrance +or a murmur. But in the articles of confederation, there was no +guaranty for the property of the slaveholder--no double representation +of him in the Federal councils--no power of taxation--no stipulation +for the recovery of fugitive slaves. But when the powers of +_government_ came to be delegated to the Union, the South--that +is, South Carolina and Georgia--refused their subscription to +the parchment, till it should be saturated with the infection +of slavery, which no fumigation could purify, no quarantine could +extinguish. The freemen of the North gave way, and the deadly +venom of slavery was infused into the Constitution of freedom. Its +first consequence has been to invert the first principle of Democracy, +that the will of the majority of numbers shall rule the land. By +means of the double representation, the minority command the whole, +and a KNOT OF SLAVEHOLDERS GIVE THE LAW AND PRESCRIBE THE POLICY OF +THE COUNTRY. To acquire this superiority of a large majority of +freemen, a persevering system of engrossing nearly all the seats +of power and place, is constantly for a long series of years +pursued, and you have seen, in a period of fifty-six years, the +Chief-magistracy of the Union held, during forty-four of them, by +the owners of slaves. The Executive departments, the Army and Navy, +the Supreme Judicial Court and diplomatic missions abroad, all +present the same spectacle:--an immense majority of power in the +hands of a very small minority of the people--millions made for a +fraction of a few thousands. + +* * * * * + +From that day (1830), SLAVERY, SLAVEHOLDING, SLAVE-BREEDING AND +SLAVE-TRADING, HAVE FORMED THE WHOLE FOUNDATION OF THE POLICY OF THE +FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and of the slaveholding States, at home and +abroad; and at the very time when a new census has exhibited a large +increase upon the superior numbers of the free States, it has +presented the portentous evidence of increased influence and +ascendancy of the slaveholding power. + +Of the prevalence of that power, you have had continual and +conclusive evidence in the suppression for the space of ten years of +the right of petition, guarantied, if there could be a guarantee +against slavery, by the first article amendatory of the Constitution. + + + +No. 13. + +THE +ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. + + * * * * * + +ON THE CONDITION OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR +IN THE UNITED STATES. + + * * * * * + +NEW YORK: + +PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, +NO. 143 NASSAU STREET. + +1839. + + * * * * * + +This No. contains 1-1/2 sheet.--Postage, under 100 miles, +2-1/2 cts. over 100, 3 cts. + +Please Read and circulate. + + + + + ON THE CONDITION OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR. + + * * * * * + +It appears from the census of 1830, that there were then 319,467 +free colored persons in the United States. At the present time the +number cannot be less than 360,000. Fifteen States of the Federal +Union have each a smaller population than this aggregate. Hence if +the whole mass of human beings inhabiting Connecticut, or New Jersey, +or any other of these fifteen States, were subjected to the ignorance, +and degradation, and persecution and terror we are about to describe, +as the lot of this much injured people, the amount of suffering would +still be numerically less than that inflicted by a professedly +Christian and republican community upon the free negroes. Candor, +however, compels us to admit that, deplorable as is their condition, +it is still not so wretched as Colonizationists and slaveholders, +for obvious reasons, are fond of representing it. It is not true +that free negroes are "more vicious and miserable than slaves _can_ +be,"[97] nor that "it would be as humane to throw slaves from the +decks of the middle passage, as to set them free in this country,"[98] +nor that "a sudden and universal emancipation without +colonization, would be a greater CURSE to the slaves themselves, +than the bondage in which they are held." + +[Footnote 97: Rev. Mr. Bacon, of New Haven, 7 Rep. Am. Col. Soc. +p. 99.] + +[Footnote 98: African Repository, Vol. IV. p. 226.] + + +It is a little singular, that in utter despite of these rash +assertions slaveholders and colonizationists unite in assuring us, +that the slaves are rendered _discontented_ by _witnessing_ the +freedom of their colored brethren; and hence we are urged to assist +in banishing to Africa these sable and dangerous mementoes of liberty. + +We all know that the wife and children of the free negro are not +ordinarily sold in the market--that he himself does not toil under +the lash, and that in certain parts of our country he is permitted +to acquire some intelligence, and to enjoy some comforts, utterly +and universally denied to the slave. Still it is most unquestionable, +that these people grievously suffer from a cruel and wicked +prejudice--cruel in its consequences; wicked in its voluntary +adoption, and its malignant character. + +Colonizationists have taken great pains to inculcate the opinion that +prejudice against color is implanted in our nature by the Author of +our being; and whence they infer the futility of every effort to +elevate the colored man in this country, and consequently the duty +and benevolence of sending him to Africa, beyond the reach of our +cruelty.[99] The theory is as false in fact as it is derogatory to +the character of that God whom we are told is LOVE. With what +astonishment and disgust should we behold an earthly parent exciting +feuds and animosities among his own children; yet we are assured, +and that too by professing Christians, that our heavenly Father has +implanted a principle of hatred, repulsion and alienation between +certain portions of his family on earth, and then commanded them, as +if in mockery, to "love one another." + +[Footnote 99: "Prejudices, which neither refinement, nor argument, +nor education, NOR RELIGION ITSELF can subdue, mark the people of +color, whether bond or free, as the subjects of a degradation +_inevitable and incurable_."--_Address of the Connecticut Col. +Society_. "The managers consider it clear that causes exist, and are +now operating, to prevent their improvement and elevation to any +considerable extent as a class in this country, which are fixed, not +only beyond the control of the friends of humanity, but of _any +human power_: CHRISTIANITY cannot do for them here, what it will do +for them in Africa. This is not the _fault_ of the colored man, +_nor of the white man_, but an ORDINATION OF PROVIDENCE, _and no +more to be changed than the laws of nature_."--15 Rep. Am. Col. Soc. +p. 47. + +"The people of color must, in this country, remain for ages, +probably for ever, a separate and distinct caste, weighed down by +causes powerful, universal, invincible, which neither legislation +nor CHRISTIANITY can remove."--African Repository Vol. VIII. p. 196. + +"Do they (the abolitionists) not perceive that in thus confounding +all the distinctions which GOD himself has made, they arraign the +wisdom and goodness of Providence itself? It has been His divine +pleasure, to make the black man black, and the white man white, and +to distinguish them by other _repulsive_ constitutional +differences."--Speech in Senate of the United States, February 7, +1839, by HENRY CLAY, PRESIDENT OF THE AM. COL. SOC.] + + +In vain do we seek in nature, for the origin of this prejudice. Young +children never betray it, and on the continent of Europe it is +unknown. We are not speaking of matters of taste, or of opinions of +personal beauty, but of a prejudice against complexion, leading to +insult, degradation and oppression. In no country in Europe is any +man excluded from refined society, or deprived of literary, religious, +or political privileges on account of the tincture of his skin. If +this prejudice is the fiat of the Almighty, most wonderful is it, +that of all the kindreds of the earth, none have been found +submissive to the heavenly impulse, excepting the white inhabitants +of North America; and of these, it is no less strange than true, +that this divine principle of repulsion is most energetic in such +persons as, in other respects, are the least observant of their +Maker's will. This prejudice is sometimes erroneously regarded as +the _cause_ of slavery; and some zealous advocates of emancipation +have flattered themselves that, could the prejudice be destroyed, +negro slavery would fall with it. Such persons have very inadequate +ideas of the malignity of slavery. They forget that the slaves in +Greece and Rome were of the same hue as their masters; and that at +the South, the value of a slave, especially of a female, rises, as +the complexion recedes from the African standard. + +Were we to inquire into the geography of this prejudice, we should +find that the localities in which it attains its rankest luxuriance, +are not the rice swamps of Georgia, nor the sugar fields of Louisiana, +but the hills and valleys of New England, and the prairies of Ohio! +It is a fact of acknowledged notoriety, that however severe may be +the laws against colored people at the South, the prejudice against +their _persons_ is far weaker than among ourselves. + +It is not necessary for our present purpose, to enter into a +particular investigation of the condition of the free negroes in the +slave States. We all know that they suffer every form of oppression +which the laws can inflict upon persons not actually slaves. That +unjust and cruel enactments should proceed from a people who keep +two millions of their fellow men in abject bondage, and who believe +such enactments essential to the maintenance of their despotism, +certainly affords no cause for surprise. + +We turn to the free States, where slavery has not directly steeled +our hearts against human suffering, and where no supposed danger of +insurrection affords a pretext for keeping the free blacks in +ignorance and degradation; and we ask, what is the character of the +prejudice against color _here_? Let the Rev. Mr. Bacon, of +Connecticut, answer the question. This gentleman, in a vindication +of the Colonization Society, assures us, "The _Soodra_ is not +farther separated from the _Brahim_ in regard to all his privileges, +civil, intellectual, and moral, than the negro from the white man by +the prejudices which result from the difference made between them by +THE GOD OF NATURE."--(_Rep. Am. Col. Soc._ p. 87.) + +We may here notice the very opposite effect produced on Abolitionists +and Colonizationists, by the consideration that this difference +_is_ made by the GOD OF NATURE; leading the one to discard the +prejudice, and the other to banish its victims. + +With these preliminary remarks we will now proceed to take a view of +the condition of the free people of color in the non-slaveholding +States; and will consider in order, the various disabilities and +oppressions to which they are subjected, either by law or the +customs of society. + + +1. GENERAL EXCLUSION FROM THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. + +Were this exclusion founded on the want of property, or any other +qualification deemed essential to the judicious exercise of the +franchise, it would afford no just cause of complaint; but it is +founded solely on the color of the skin, and is therefore irrational +and unjust. That taxation and representation should be inseparable, +was one of the axioms of the fathers of our revolution; and one of +the reasons they assigned for their revolt from the crown of Britain. +But _now_, it is deemed a mark of fanaticism to complain of the +disfranchisement of a whole race, while they remain subject to the +burden of taxation. It is worthy of remark, that of the thirteen +original States, only _two_ were so recreant to the principles of +the Revolution, as to make a _white skin_ a qualification for +suffrage. But the prejudice has grown with our growth, and +strengthened with our strength; and it is believed that in _every_ +State constitution subsequently formed or revised,[excepting +Vermont and Maine, and the Revised constitution of Massachusetts,] +the crime of a dark complexion has been punished, by debarring its +possessor from all approach to the ballot-box.[100] The necessary +effect of this proscription in aggravating the oppression and +degradation of the colored inhabitants must be obvious to all who +call to mind the solicitude manifested by demagogues, and +office-seekers, and law makers, to propitiate the good will of all +who have votes to bestow. + +[Footnote 100: From this remark the revised constitution of New York +is _nominally_ an exception; colored citizens, possessing a _freehold_ +worth two hundred and fifty dollars, being allowed to vote; while +suffrage is extended to _white_ citizens without any property +qualification.] + + +2. DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF LOCOMOTION. + +It is in vain that the Constitution of the United States expressly +guarantees to "the citizens of each State, all the privileges and +immunities of citizens in the several States:"--It is in vain that +the Supreme Court of the United States has solemnly decided that this +clause confers on every citizen of one State the right to "pass +through, or reside in any other State for the purposes of trade, +agriculture, professional pursuits, or _otherwise_." It is in vain +that "the members of the several State legislatures" are required to +"be bound by oath or affirmation to support" the constitution +conferring this very guarantee. Constitutions, and judicial decisions, +and religious obligations are alike outraged by our State enactments +against people of color. There is scarcely a slave State in which a +citizen of New York, with a dark skin, may visit a dying child +without subjecting himself to legal penalties. But in the slave +States we look for cruelty; we expect the rights of humanity and the +laws of the land to be sacrificed on the altar of slavery. In the +free States we had reason to hope for a greater deference to decency +and morality. Yet even in these States we behold the effects of a +miasma wafted from the South. The Connecticut Black Act, prohibiting, +under heavy penalties, the instruction of any colored person from +another State, is well known. It is one of the encouraging signs of +the times, that public opinion has recently compelled the repeal of +this detestable law. But among all the free States, OHIO stands +pre-eminent for the wickedness of her statutes against this class of +our population. These statutes are not merely infamous outrages on +every principle of justice and humanity, but are gross and palpable +violations of the State constitution, and manifest an absence of +moral sentiment in the Ohio legislature as deplorable as it is +alarming. We speak the language, not of passion, but of sober +conviction; and for the truth of this language we appeal, first, to +the Statutes themselves, and then to the consciences of our readers. +We shall have occasion to notice these laws under the several +divisions of our subject to which they belong; at present we ask +attention to the one intended to prevent the colored citizens of +other States from removing into Ohio. By the constitution of New York, +the colored inhabitants are expressly recognized as "citizens." Let +us suppose then a New York freeholder and voter of this class, +confiding in the guarantee given by the Federal constitution removes +into Ohio. No matter how much property he takes with him; no matter +what attestations he produces to the purity of his character, he is +required by the Act of 1807, to find, within twenty days, two +freehold sureties in the sum of five hundred dollars for his _good +behavior_; and likewise for his _maintenance_, should he at any +future period from any cause whatever be unable to maintain himself, +and in default of procuring such sureties he is to be removed by the +overseers of the poor. The legislature well knew that it would +generally be utterly impossible for a stranger, and especially a +_black_ stranger, to find such sureties. It was the _design_ of +the Act, by imposing impracticable conditions, to prevent colored +emigrants from remaining within the State; and in order more +certainly to effect this object, it imposes a pecuniary penalty on +every inhabitant who shall venture to "harbor," that is, receive +under his roof, or who shall even "employ" an emigrant who has not +given the required sureties; and it moreover renders such inhabitant +so harboring or employing him, legally liable for his future +maintenance!! + +We are frequently told that the efforts of the abolitionists have in +fact aggravated the condition of the colored people, bond and free. +The _date_ of this law, as well as the date of most of the laws +composing the several slave codes, show what credit is to be given +to the assertion. If a barbarous enactment is _recent_, its odium is +thrown upon the friends of the blacks--if _ancient_, we are assured +it is _obsolete_. The Ohio law was enacted only four years after the +State was admitted into the Union. In 1800 there were only three +hundred and thirty-seven free blacks in the territory, and in 1830 +the number in the State was nine thousand five hundred. Of course a +very large proportion of the present colored population of the State +must have entered it in ignorance of this iniquitous law, or in +defiance of it. That the law has not been universally enforced, +proves only that the people of Ohio are less profligate than their +legislators--that it has remained in the statute book for thirty-two +years, proves the depraved state of public opinion and the horrible +persecution to which the colored people are legally exposed. But let +it not be supposed that this vile law is in fact obsolete, and its +very existence forgotten. + +In 1829, a very general effort was made to enforce this law, and +about _one thousand free blacks_ were in consequence of it driven +out of the State; and sought a refuge in the more free and Christian +country of Canada. Previous to their departure, they sent a +deputation to the Governor of the Upper Province, to know if they +would be admitted, and received from Sir James Colebrook this +reply,--"Tell the _republicans_ on your side of the line, that we +royalists do not know men by their color. Should you come to us, you +will be entitled to all the privileges of the rest of his majesty's +subjects." This was the origin of the Wilberforce colony in Upper +Canada. + +We have now before us an Ohio paper, containing a proclamation by +John S. Wiles, overseer of the poor in the town of Fairfield, dated +12th March, 1838. In this instrument notice is given to all +"black or mulatto persons" residing in Fairfield, to comply with the +requisitions of the Act of 1807 within twenty days, or the law would +be enforced against them. The proclamation also addresses the white +inhabitants of Fairfield in the following terms,--"Whites, look out! +If any person or persons _employing_ any black or mulatto person, +contrary to the 3d section of the above law, you may look out for +the breakers." The extreme vulgarity and malignity of this notice +indicates the spirit which gave birth to this detestable law, and +continues it in being. + +Now what says the constitution of Ohio? "ALL are born free and +independent, and have certain natural, inherent, inalienable rights; +among which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, +_acquiring, possessing, and protecting property_, and pursuing and +attaining happiness and safety." Yet men who had called their Maker +to witness, that they would obey this very constitution, require +impracticable conditions, and then impose a pecuniary penalty and +grievous liabilities on every man who shall give to an innocent +fellow countryman a night's lodging, or even a meal of victuals in +exchange for his honest labor! + + +3. DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION. + +We explicitly disclaim all intention to imply that the several +disabilities and cruelties we are specifying are of universal +application. The laws of some States in relation to people of color +are more wicked than others; and the spirit of persecution is not in +every place equally active and malignant. In none of the free States +have these people so many grievances to complain of as in Ohio, and +for the honor of our country we rejoice to add, that in no other +State in the Union, has their right to petition for a redress of +their grievances been denied. + +On the 14th January, 1839, a petition for relief from certain legal +disabilities, from colored inhabitants of Ohio, was presented to the +_popular_ branch of the legislature, and its rejection was moved +by George H. Flood.[101] This rejection was not a denial of the prayer, +but an _expulsion of the petition itself_, as an intruder into the +house. "The question presented for our decision," said one of the +members, "is simply this--Shall human beings, who are bound by every +enactment upon our statute book, be _permitted_ to _request_ the +legislature to modify or soften the laws under which they live?" To +the Grand Sultan, crowded with petitions as he traverses the streets +of Constantinople, such a question would seem most strange; but +American democrats can exert a tyranny over _men who have no votes_, +utterly unknown to Turkish despotism. Mr. Flood's motion was lost by +a majority of only _four_ votes; but this triumph of humanity and +republicanism was as transient as it was meagre. The _next_ day, the +House, by a large majority, resolved: "That the blacks and mulattoes +who may be residents within this State, have no constitutional right +to present their petitions to the General Assembly for any purpose +whatsoever, and that any reception of such petitions on the part of +the General Assembly is a mere act of privilege or policy, and not +imposed by any expressed or implied power of the Constitution." + +[Footnote 101: It is sometimes interesting to preserve the names of +individuals who have perpetrated bold and unusual enormities.] + + +The phraseology of this resolution is as clumsy as its assertions are +base and sophistical. The meaning intended to be expressed is simply, +that the Constitution of Ohio, neither in terms nor by implication, +confers on such residents as are negroes or mulattoes, any right +to offer a petition to the legislature for any object whatever; nor +imposes on that body any obligation to notice such a petition; and +whatever attention it may please to bestow upon it, ought to be +regarded as an act not of duty, but merely of favor or expediency. +Hence it is obvious, that the _principle_ on which the resolution is +founded is, that the reciprocal right and duty of offering and +hearing petitions _rest solely on constitutional enactment_, and not +on moral obligation. The reception of negro petitions is declared +to be a mere act of _privilege or policy_. Now it is difficult to +imagine a principle more utterly subversive of all the duties of +rulers, the rights of citizens, and the charities of private life. +The victim of oppression or fraud has no _right_ to appeal to the +constituted authorities for redress; nor are those authorities under +any obligation to consider the appeal--the needy and unfortunate +have no right to implore the assistance of their more fortunate +neighbors: and all are at liberty to turn a deaf ear to the cry of +distress. The eternal and immutable principles of justice and +humanity, proclaimed by Jehovah, and impressed by him on the +conscience of man, have no binding force on the legislature of Ohio, +unless expressly adopted and enforced by the State Constitution! + +But as the legislature has thought proper thus to set at defiance the +moral sense of mankind, and to take refuge behind the enactments of +the Constitution, let us try the strength of their entrenchments. The +words of the Constitution, which it is pretended sanction the +resolution we are considering are the following, viz.--"The _people_ +have a right to assemble together in a peaceable manner to consult +for their common good, to _instruct their representatives_, and to +apply to the legislature for a redress of grievances." It is obvious +that this clause confers no rights, but is merely declaratory of +existing rights. Still, as the right of the people to apply for a +redress of grievances is coupled with the right of _instructing +their representatives_, and as negroes are not electors and +consequently are without representatives, it is inferred that they +are not part of _the people_. That Ohio legislators are not +Christians would be a more rational conclusion. One of the members +avowed his opinion that "none but voters had a right to petition." If +then, according to the principle of the resolution, the Constitution +of Ohio denies the right of petition to all but electors, let us +consider the practical results of such a denial. In the first place, +every female in the State is placed under the same disability with +"blacks and mulattoes." No wife has a right to ask for a divorce--no +daughter may plead for a father's life. Next, no man under +twenty-one years--no citizen of any age, who from want of sufficient +residence, or other qualification, is not entitled to vote--no +individual among the tens of thousands of aliens in the +State--however oppressed and wronged by official tyranny or +corruption, has a right to seek redress from the representatives of +the people, and should he presume to do so, may be told, that, like +"blacks and mulattoes," he "has no constitutional right to present +his petition to the General Assembly for any purpose whatever." +Again--the State of Ohio is deeply indebted to the citizens of other +States, and also to the subjects of Great Britain for money borrowed +to construct her canals. Should any of these creditors lose their +certificates of debt, and ask for their renewal; or should their +interest be withheld, or paid in depreciated currency, and were they +to ask for justice at the hands of the legislature, they might be +told, that any attention paid to their request must be regarded as a +"mere act of privilege or policy, and not imposed by any expressed +or implied power of the Constitution," for, not being voters, they +stood on the same ground as "blacks and mulattoes." Such is the +folly and wickedness in which prejudice against color has involved +the legislators of a republican and professedly Christian State in +the nineteenth century. + + +4. EXCLUSION FROM THE ARMY AND MILITIA. + +The Federal Government is probably the only one in the world that +forbids a portion of its subjects to participate in the national +defence, not from any doubts of their courage, loyalty, or physical +strength, but merely on account of the tincture of their skin! To +such an absurd extent is this prejudice against color carried, that +some of our militia companies have occasionally refused to march to +the sound of a drum when beaten by a black man. To declare a certain +class of the community unworthy to bear arms in defence of their +native country, is necessarily to consign that class to general +contempt. + + +5. EXCLUSION FROM ALL PARTICIPATION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. + +No colored man can be a judge, juror, or constable. Were the talents +and acquirements of a Mansfield or a Marshall veiled in a sable skin, +they would be excluded from the bench of the humblest court in the +American republic. In the slave States generally, no black man can +enter a court of justice as a witness against a white one. Of course +a white man may, with perfect impunity, defraud or abuse a negro to +any extent, provided he is careful to avoid the presence of any of +his own caste, at the execution of his contract, or the indulgence of +his malice. We are not aware that an outrage so flagrant is +sanctioned by the laws of any _free_ State, with one exception. That +exception the reader will readily believe can be none other than OHIO. +A statute of this State enacts, "that no black or mulatto _person_ or +_persons_ shall hereafter be permitted to be sworn, or give evidence +in any court of Record or elsewhere, in this State, in any cause +depending, or matter of controversy, when either party to the same +is a WHITE person; or in any prosecution of the State against any +WHITE person." + +We have seen that on the subject of petition the legislature regards +itself as independent of all obligation except such as is imposed by +the Constitution. How mindful they are of the requirements even of +that instrument, when obedience to them would check the indulgence of +their malignity to the blacks, appears from the 7th Section of the +8th Article, viz.--"All courts shall be open, and every _person_, for +any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall +have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered +without denial or delay." + +Ohio legislators may deny that negroes and mulattoes are citizens, or +people; but they are estopped by the very words of the statute just +quoted, from denying that they are "_persons_." Now, by the +Constitution every _person_, black as well as white, is to have +justice administered to him without denial or delay. But by the law, +while any unknown _white_ vagrant may be a witness in any case +whatever, no black suitor is permitted to offer a witness of his own +color, however well established may be his character for +intelligence and veracity, to prove his rights or his wrongs; and +hence in a multitude of cases, justice is denied in despite of the +Constitution; and why denied? Solely from a foolish and wicked +prejudice against color. + + +6. IMPEDIMENTS TO EDUCATION. + +No people have ever professed so deep a conviction of the importance +of popular education as ourselves, and no people have ever resorted +to such cruel expedients to perpetuate abject ignorance. More than +one third of the whole population of the slave States are prohibited +from learning even to read, and in some of them free men, if with +dark complexions, are subject to stripes for teaching their own +children. If we turn to the free States, we find that in all of them, +without exception, the prejudices and customs of society oppose +almost insuperable obstacles to the acquisition of a liberal +education by colored youth. Our academies and colleges are barred +against them. We know there are instances of young men with dark +skins having been received, under peculiar circumstances, into +northern colleges; but we neither know nor believe, that there have +been a dozen such instances within the last thirty years. + +Colored children are very generally excluded from our common schools, +in consequence of the prejudices of teachers and parents. In some of +our cities there are schools _exclusively_ for their use, but in the +country the colored population is usually too sparse to justify such +schools; and white and black children are rarely seen studying under +the same roof; although such cases do sometimes occur, and then they +are confined to elementary schools. Some colored young men, who +could bear the expense, have obtained in European seminaries the +education denied them in their native land. + +It may not be useless to cite an instance of the malignity with +which the education of the blacks is opposed. The efforts made in +Connecticut to prevent the establishment of schools of a higher order +than usual for colored pupils, are too well known to need a recital +here; and her BLACK ACT, prohibiting the instruction of colored +children from other States, although now expunged from her statute +book through the influence of abolitionists, will long be remembered +to the opprobrium of her citizens. We ask attention to the following +illustration of public opinion in another New England State. + +In 1834 an academy was built by subscription in CANAAN, New Hampshire, +and a charter granted by the legislature; and at a meeting of the +proprietors it was determined to receive all applicants having +"suitable moral and intellectual recommendations, without other +distinctions;" in other words, without reference to _complexion_. +When this determination was made known, a TOWN MEETING was forthwith +convened, and the following resolutions adopted, viz. + +"RESOLVED, That we view with _abhorrence_ the attempt of the +Abolitionists to establish in this town a school for the instruction +of the sable sons and daughters of Africa, in common with our sons +and daughters. + +"RESOLVED, That we will not associate with, nor in any way +countenance, any man or woman who shall hereafter persist in +attempting to establish a school in this town for the _exclusive_ +education of blacks, _or_ for their education in conjunction with +the whites." + +The frankness of this last resolve is commendable. The inhabitants +of Canaan, assembled in legal town meeting, determined, it seems, +that the blacks among them should in future have no education +whatever--they should not be instructed in company with the whites, +neither should they have schools exclusively for themselves. + +The proprietors of the academy supposing, in the simplicity of their +hearts, that in a free country they might use their property in any +manner not forbidden by law, proceeded to open their school, and in +the ensuing spring had twenty-eight white, and fourteen colored +scholars. The crisis had now arrived when the cause of prejudice +demanded the sacrifice of constitutional liberty and of private +property. Another town meeting was convoked, at which, without a +shadow of authority, and in utter contempt of law and decency, it +was ordered, that the academy should be forcibly removed, and a +committee was appointed to execute the abominable mandate. Due +preparations were made for the occasion, and on the 10th of August, +three hundred men, with about 200 oxen, assembled at the place, and +taking the edifice from off its foundation, dragged it to a distance, +and left it a ruin. No one of the actors in this high-handed outrage +was ever brought before a court of justice to answer for this +criminal and riotous destruction of the property of others. + +The transaction we have narrated, expresses in emphatic terms the +deep and settled hostility felt in the free States to the education +of the blacks. The prejudices of the community render that hostility +generally effective without the aid of legal enactments. Indeed, +some remaining regard to decency and the opinion of the world, has +restrained the Legislatures of the free States, with _one exception_, +from consigning these unhappy people to ignorance by "decreeing +unrighteous decrees," and "framing mischief by a law." Our readers, +no doubt, feel that the exception must of course be OHIO. + +We have seen with what deference Ohio legislators profess to regard +their _constitutional_ obligations; and we are now to contemplate +another instance of their shameless violation of them. The +Constitution which these men have sworn to obey declares, "NO LAW +SHALL BE PASSED to prevent the poor of the several townships and +counties in this State from an _equal_ participation in the schools, +academies, colleges, and universities in this State, which are +endowed in whole, or _in part_, from the revenue arising from +_donations_ made by the United States, for the support of _colleges +and schools_--and the door of said schools, academies, and +universities shall be open for the reception of scholars, students, +and teachers of every _grade_, without ANY DISTINCTION OR PREFERENCE +WHATEVER." + +Can language be more explicit or unequivocal? But have any donations +been made by the United States for the support of colleges and +schools in Ohio? Yes--by an act of Congress, the sixteenth section of +land in _each_ originally surveyed township in the State, was set +apart as a donation for the express purpose of endowing and +supporting common schools. And now, how have the scrupulous +legislators of Ohio, who refuse to acknowledge any other than +constitutional obligations to give ear to the cry of distress--how +have they obeyed this injunction of the Constitution respecting the +freedom of their schools? They enacted a law in 1831, declaring that, +"when any appropriation shall be made by the directors of any school +district, from the treasury thereof, for the payment of a teacher, +the school in such district shall be open"--to whom? "_to scholars, +students, and teachers of every grade, without distinction or +preference whatever_," as commanded by the Constitution? Oh no! +"Shall be open to all the WHITE children residing therein!!" Such is +the impotency of written constitutions, where a sense of moral +obligation is wanting to enforce them. + +We have now taken a review of the Ohio laws against free people of +color. Some of them are of old, and others of recent date. The +opinion entertained of all these laws, new and old, by the _present_ +legislators of Ohio, may be learned by a resolution adopted in +January last, (1839) by both houses of the legislature. "RESOLVED, +That in the opinion of this general assembly it is unwise, impolitic, +and inexpedient to repeal _any_ law now in force imposing +disabilities upon black or mulatto persons, thus placing them upon +an equality with the whites, so far as this legislature can do, and +indirectly inviting the black population of other States to emigrate +to this, to the manifest injury of the public interest." The best +comment on the _spirit_ which dictated this resolve is an enactment +by the _same_ legislature, abrogating the supreme law which requires +us to "Do unto others as we would they should do unto us," and +prohibiting every citizen of Ohio from _harboring or concealing_ a +fugitive slave, under the penalty of fine or imprisonment. General +obedience to this vile statute is alone wanting to fill to the brim +the cup of Ohio's iniquity and degradation. She hath done what she +could to oppress and crush the free negroes within her borders. She +is now seeking to rechain the slave who has escaped from his fetters. + + +7. IMPEDIMENTS TO RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION. + +It is unnecessary to dwell here on the laws of the slave States +prohibiting the free people of color from learning to read the Bible, +and in many instances, from assembling at discretion to worship their +Creator. These laws, we are assured, are indispensable to the +perpetuity of that "peculiar institution," which many masters in +Israel are now teaching, enjoys the sanction of HIM who "will have +all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth," and +who has left to his disciples the injunction, "search the Scriptures." +We turn to the free States, in which no institution requires, that +the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should be prevented from +shining on any portion of the population, and inquire how far +prejudice here supplies the place of southern statutes. + +The impediments to education already mentioned, necessarily render +the acquisition of religious knowledge difficult, and in many +instances impracticable. In the northern cities, the blacks have +frequently churches of their own, but in the country they are too few, +and too poor to build churches and maintain ministers. Of course they +must remain destitute of public worship and religious instruction, +unless they can enjoy these blessings in company with the whites. +Now there is hardly a church in the United States, not exclusively +appropriated to the blacks, in which one of their number owns a pew, +or has a voice in the choice of a minister. There are usually, indeed, +a few seats in a remote part of the church, set apart for their use, +and in which no white person is ever seen. It is surely not +surprising, under all the circumstances of the case, that these +seats are rarely crowded. + +Colored ministers are occasionally ordained in the different +denominations, but they are kept at a distance by their white +brethren in the ministry, and are very rarely permitted to enter +their pulpits; and still more rarely, to sit at their tables, +although acknowledged to be ambassadors of Christ. The distinction +of _caste_ is not forgotten, even in the celebration of the Lord's +Supper, and seldom are colored disciples permitted to eat and drink +of the memorials of the Redeemer's passion till after every white +communicant has been served. + + +8. IMPEDIMENTS TO HONEST INDUSTRY. + +In this country ignorance and poverty are almost inseparable +companions; and it is surely not strange that those should be poor +whom we compel to be ignorant. The liberal professions are virtually +sealed against the blacks, if we except the church, and even in that +admission is rendered difficult by the obstacles placed in their way +in acquiring the requisite literary qualifications;[102] and when once +admitted, their administrations are confined to their own color. +Many of our most wealthy and influential citizens have commenced +life as ignorant and as pennyless as any negro who loiters in our +streets. Had their complexion been dark, notwithstanding their +talents, industry, enterprize and probity, they would have continued +ignorant and pennyless, because the paths to learning and to wealth, +would then have been closed against them. There is a conspiracy, +embracing all the departments of society, to keep the black man +ignorant and poor. As a general rule, admitting few if any exceptions, +the schools of literature and of science reject him--the counting +house refuses to receive him as a bookkeeper, much more as a +partner--no store admits him as a clerk--no shop as an apprentice. +Here and there a black man may be found keeping a few trifles on a +shelf for sale; and a few acquire, as if by stealth, the knowledge +of some handicraft; but almost universally these people, both in +town and country, are prevented by the customs of society from +maintaining themselves and their families by any other than menial +occupations. + +[Footnote 102: Of the truth of this remark, the trustees of the +Episcopal Theological Seminary at New-York, lately (June, 1839) +afforded a striking illustration. A young man, regularly +acknowledged by the Bishop as a candidate for orders, and in +consequence of such acknowledgment entitled, by an _express statute_ +of the seminary, to admission to its privileges, presented himself +as a pupil. But God had given him a dark complexion, and _therefore_ +the trustees, regardless of the statute, barred the doors against him, +by a formal and deliberate vote. As a compromise between conscience +and prejudice, the professors offered to give him _private_ +instruction--to do in secret what they were ashamed to do openly--to +confer as a favor, what he was entitled to demand as a right. The +offer was rejected. + +It is worthy of remark, that of the trustees who took an _active_ +part against the _colored_ candidate, one is the PRESIDENT _of the +New York Colonization Society_; another a MANAGER, and a third, one +of its public champions; and that the Bishop of the diocese, who +wished to exclude his candidate from the theological school of which +he is both a trustee and a professor, lately headed a recommendation +in the newspapers for the purchase of a packet ship for Liberia, as +likely to "render far more efficient than heretofore, the enterprize +of colonization."] + +In 1836, a black man of irreproachable character, and who by his +industry and frugality had accumulated several thousand dollars, made +application in the City of New York for a carman's license, and was +refused solely and avowedly on account of his complexion! We have +already seen the effort of the Ohio legislature, to consign the +negroes to starvation, by deterring others from employing them. +Ignorance, idleness, and vice, are at once the punishments we +inflict upon these unfortunate people for their complexion; and the +crimes with which we are constantly reproaching them. + + +9. LIABILITY TO BE SEIZED, AND TREATED AS SLAVES. + +An able-bodied colored man sells in the southern market for from +eight hundred to a thousand dollars; of course he is worth stealing. +Colonizationists and slaveholders, and many northern divines, +solemnly affirm, that the situation of a slave is far preferable to +that of a free negro; hence it would seem an act of humanity to +convert the latter into the former. Kidnapping being both a +lucrative and a benevolent business, it is not strange it should be +extensively practised. In many of the States this business is +regulated by law, and there are various ways in which the +transmutation is legally effected. Thus, in South Carolina, if a +free negro "entertains" a runaway slave, it may be his own wife or +child, he himself is turned into a slave. In 1827, a _free woman +and her three children_ underwent this benevolent process, for +_entertaining_ two fugitive children of six and nine years old. In +Virginia all emancipated slaves remaining twelve months in the State, +are kindly restored to their former condition. In Maryland a free +negro who marries a white woman, thereby acquires all the privileges +of a slave--and generally, throughout the slave region, including +the District of Columbia, every negro not known to be free, is +mercifully considered as a slave, and if his master cannot be +ascertained, he is thrown into a dungeon, and there kept, till by a +public sale a master can be provided for him. But often the law +grants to colored men, _known to be free_, all the advantages of +slavery. Thus, in Georgia, every _free_ colored man coming into the +State, and unable to pay a fine of one hundred dollars, becomes a +slave for life; in Florida, insolvent debtors, if _black_, are SOLD +for the benefit of their creditors; and in the District of Columbia +a free colored man, thrown into jail on suspicion of being a slave +and proving his freedom, is required by law to be sold as a slave, +if too poor to pay his jail fees. Let it not be supposed that these +laws are all obsolete and inoperative. They catch many a northern +negro, who, in pursuit of his own business, or on being decoyed +by others ventures to enter the slave region; and who, of course, +helps to augment the wealth of our southern brethren. On the 6th +of March, 1839, a report by a Committee was made to the House of +Representatives of the Massachusetts Legislature, in which are given +the _names_ of seventeen free colored men who had been enslaved at +the south. It also states an instance in which twenty-five colored +citizens, belonging to Massachusetts, were confined at one time in a +southern jail, and another instance in which 75 free colored persons +from different free States were confined, all preparatory to their +sale as slaves according to law. + +The facts disclosed in this report induced the Massachusetts +Legislature to pass a resolution protesting against the kidnapping +laws of the slave States, "as invading the sacred rights of citizens +of this commonwealth, as contrary to the Constitution of the United +States, and in utter derogation of that great principle of the +common law which presumes every person to be innocent until proved +to be guilty;" and ordered the protest to be forwarded to the +Governors of the several States. + +But it is not at the south alone that freemen may be converted into +slaves "according to law." The Act of Congress respecting the +recovery of fugitive slaves, affords most extraordinary facilities +for this process, through official corruption and individual perjury. +By this Act, the claimant is permitted to _select_ a justice of the +peace, before whom he may bring or send his alleged slave, and even +to prove his property by _affidavit_. Indeed, in almost every State +in the Union, a slaveholder may recover at law a human being as his +beast of burden with far less ceremony than he could his pig from +the possession of his neighbor. In only three States is a man, +claimed as a slave, entitled to a trial by jury. At the last session +of the New York Legislature a bill allowing a jury trial in such +cases was passed by the lower House, but rejected by a _democratic_ +vote in the Senate, democracy in that State, being avowedly only +_skin_ deep, all its principles of liberty, equality, and human rights +depending on complexion. + +Considering the wonderful ease and expedition with which fugitives +may be recovered by law, it would be very strange if mistakes did not +sometimes occur. _How_ often they occur cannot, of course, be known, +and it is only when a claim is _defeated_, that we are made sensible +of the exceedingly precarious tenure by which a poor friendless +negro at the north holds his personal liberty. A few years since, a +girl of the name of Mary Gilmore was arrested in Philadelphia, as a +fugitive slave from Maryland. Testimony was not wanting in support +of the claim; yet it was most conclusively proved that she was the +daughter of poor _Irish_ parents--having not a drop of negro blood +in her veins--that the father had absconded, and that the mother had +died a drunkard in the Philadelphia hospital, and that the infant +had been kindly received and _brought up in a colored family_. Hence +the attempt to make a slave of her. In the spring of 1839, a colored +man was arrested in Philadelphia, on a charge of having absconded +from his owner _twenty-three_ years before. This man had a wife and +family depending upon him, and a home where he enjoyed their society; +and yet, unless he could find witnesses who could prove his freedom +for more than this number of years, he was to be torn from his wife, +his children, his home, and doomed for the remainder of his days to +toil under the lash. _Four_ witnesses for the claimant swore to his +identity, although they had not seen him before for twenty-three years! +By a most extraordinary coincidence, a New England Captain, with +whom this negro had sailed _twenty-nine_ years before, in a sloop +from Nantucket, happened at this very time to be confined for debt +in the same prison with the alleged slave, and the Captain's +testimony, together with that of some other witnesses, who had +known the man previous to his pretended elopement, so fully +established his freedom, that the Court discharged him. + +Another mode of legal kidnapping still remains to be described. By +the Federal Constitution, fugitives from _justice_ are to be +delivered up, and under this constitutional provision, a free negro +may be converted into a slave without troubling even a Justice of +the Peace to hear the evidence of the captor's claim. A fugitive +slave is, of course, a felon--he not only steals himself, but also +the rags on his back which belong to his master. It is understood he +has taken refuge in New York, and his master naturally wishes to +recover him with as little noise, trouble, and delay as possible. +The way is simple and easy. Let the Grand Jury indict A.B. for +stealing wearing apparel, and let the indictment, with an affidavit +of the criminal's flight, be forwarded by the Governor of the State, +to his Excellency of New York, with a requisition for the delivery +of A.B., to the agent appointed to receive him. A warrant is, of +course, issued to "any Constable of the State of New York," to +arrest A.B. For what purpose?--to bring him before a magistrate +where his identity may be established?--no, but to deliver him up to +the foreign agent. Hence, the Constable may pick up the first likely +negro he finds in the street, and ship him to the south; and should +it be found, on his arrival on the plantation, that the wrong man +has come, it will also probably be found that the mistake is of no +consequence to the planter. A few years since, the Governor of New +York signed a warrant for the apprehension of 17 Virginia negroes, +as fugitives from justice.[103] Under this warrant, a man who had +lived in the neighborhood for three years, and had a wife and +children, and who claimed to be free, was seized, on a Sunday evening, +in the public highway, in West Chester County, N.Y., and without +being permitted to take leave of his family, was instantly +hand-cuffed, thrown into a carriage, and hurried to New York, and +the next morning was on his voyage to Virginia. + +[Footnote 103: There is no evidence that he knew they were negroes; +or that he acted otherwise than in perfect good faith. The alleged +crime was stealing a boat. The _real_ crime, it is said, was +stealing themselves and escaping in a boat. The most horrible abuses +of these warrants can only be prevented by requiring proof of +identity before delivery.] + +Free colored men are converted into slaves not only by law, but also +contrary to law. It is, of course, difficult to estimate the extent +to which illegal kidnapping is carried, since a large number of +cases must escape detection. In a work published by Judge Stroud, of +Philadelphia, in 1827, he states, that it had been _ascertained_ +that more than _thirty_ free colored persons, mostly children, had +been kidnapped in that city within the last two years.[104] + +[Footnote 104: Stroud's Sketch of the Slave Laws, p. 94.] + + + +10. SUBJECTION TO INSULT AND OUTRAGE. + +The feeling of the community towards these people, and the contempt +with which they are treated, are indicated by the following notice, +lately published by the proprietors of a menagerie, in New York. +"The proprietors wish it to be understood, that people of color are +not permitted to enter, _except when in attendance upon children and +families_." For two shillings, any white scavenger would be freely +admitted, and so would negroes, provided they came in a capacity +that marked their dependence--their presence is offensive, _only_ +when they come as independent spectators, gratifying a laudable +curiosity. + +Even death, the great leveller, is not permitted to obliterate, among +Christians, the distinction of caste, or to rescue the lifeless form +of the colored man from the insults of his white brethren. In the +porch of a Presbyterian Church, in Philadelphia, in 1837, was +suspended a card, containing the form of a deed, to be given to +purchasers of lots in a certain burial ground, and to enhance the +value of the property, and to entice buyers, the following clause was +inserted, "No person of _color_, nor any one who has been the +subject of _execution_, shall be interred in said lot." + +Our colored fellow-citizens, like others, are occasionally called to +pass from one place to another; and in doing so are compelled to +submit to innumerable hardships and indignities. They are frequently +denied seats in our stage coaches; and although admitted upon the +_decks_ of our steam boats, are almost universally excluded from +the cabins. Even women have been forced, in cold weather, to pass +the night upon deck, and in one instance the wife of a colored +clergyman lost her life in consequence of such an exposure. + +The contempt poured upon these people by our laws, our churches, our +seminaries, our professions, naturally invokes upon their heads the +fierce wrath of vulgar malignity. In order to exhibit the actual +condition of this portion of our population, we will here insert +some _samples_ of the outrages to which they are subjected, taken +from the ordinary public journals. + +In an account of the New York riots of 1834, the _Commercial +Advertiser_ says--"About twenty poor African (native American) +families, have had their all destroyed, and have neither bed, +clothing, nor food remaining. Their houses are completely eviscerated, +their furniture a wreck, and the ruined and disconsolate tenants of +the devoted houses are reduced to the necessity of applying to the +corporation for bread." + +The example set in New York was zealously followed in Philadelphia. +"Some arrangement, it appears, existed between the mob and the white +inhabitants, as the dwelling houses of the latter, contiguous to the +residences of the blacks, were illuminated and left undisturbed, +while the huts of the negroes were singled out with unerring +certainty. The furniture found in these houses was generally broken +up and destroyed--beds ripped open and their contents scattered in +the streets.... The number of houses assailed was not less than +twenty. In one house there was a _corpse, which was thrown from the +coffin, and in another a dead infant was taken out of the bed, and +cast on the floor, the mother being at the same time barbarously +treated_."--_Philadelphia Gazette_. + +"No case is reported of an attack having been _invited_ or _provoked_ +by the residents of the dwellings assailed or destroyed. The extent +of the depredations committed on the _three_ evenings of riot and +outrage can only be judged of by the number of houses damaged or +destroyed. So far as ascertained, this amounts to FORTY-FIVE. One of +the houses assaulted was occupied by an unfortunate cripple--who, +unable to fly from the fury of the mob, was so beaten by some of the +ruffians, that he has since died in consequence of the bruises and +wounds inflicted ... For the last two days the Jersey steam boats +have been loaded with numbers of the colored population, who, +fearful their lives were not safe in this, determined to seek refuge +in another State. On the Jersey side, tents were erected, and the +negroes have taken up a temporary residence, until a prospect shall +be offered for their perpetual location in some place of security +and liberty."--_National Gazette_. + +The facts we have now exhibited, abundantly prove the extreme +cruelty and sinfulness of that prejudice against color which we are +impiously told is an ORDINATION OF PROVIDENCE. Colonizationists, +assuming the prejudice to be natural and invincible, propose to +remove its victims beyond its influence. Abolitionists, on the +contrary, remembering with the Psalmist, that "It is HE that hath +made us, and not we ourselves," believe that the benevolent Father +of us all requires us to treat with justice and kindness every +portion of the human family, notwithstanding any particular +organization he has been pleased to impress upon them. Instead, +therefore, of gratifying and fostering this prejudice, by +continually banishing from our country those against whom it is +directed, Abolitionists are anxious to destroy the prejudice itself; +feeling, to use the language of another, that--"It is time to +recognize in the humblest portions of society, partakers of our +nature with all its high prerogatives and awful destinies--time to +remember that our distinctions are _exterior_ and evanescent, our +resemblance real and permanent--that all is transient but what is +moral and spiritual--that the only graces we can carry with us into +another world, are graces of divine implantation, and that amid the +rude incrustations of poverty and ignorance there lurks an +imperishable jewel--a SOUL, susceptible of the highest spiritual +beauty, destined, perhaps, to adorn the celestial abodes, and to +shine for ever in the mediatorial diadem of the Son of God--_Take +heed that ye despise not one of these little ones_." + + + + +No. 13. + +THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. + + * * * * * +CAN ABOLITIONISTS VOTE OR TAKE OFFICE UNDER +THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? + +"The preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of slavery +is the vital and animating spirit of the National Government." + +NEW YORK: +AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, +142 NASSAU STREET + +1815. + + + + + +INTRODUCTION. + +The American Anti-Slavery Society, at its Annual Meeting in May, 1844, +adopted the following Resolution: + +_Resolved_, That secession from the present United States +government is the duty of every abolitionist; since no one can take +office, or throw a vote for another to hold office, under the United +States Constitution, without violating his anti-slavery principles, +and rendering himself an abettor of the slaveholder in his sin. + +The passage of this Resolution has caused two charges to be brought +against the Society: _First_, that it is a _no-government_ body, +and that the whole doctrine of non-resistance is endorsed by this +vote:--and _secondly_, that the Society transcended its proper +sphere and constitutional powers by taking such a step. + +The logic which infers that because a man thinks the Federal +Government bad, he must necessarily think _all_ government so, has +at least, the merit and the charm of novelty. There is a spice of +arrogance just perceptible, in the conclusion that the Constitution +of these United States is so perfect, that one who dislikes it could +never be satisfied with any form of government whatever! + +Were O'Connell and his fellow Catholics non-resistants, because for +two hundred years they submitted to exclusion from the House of +Lords and the House of Commons, rather than qualify themselves for a +seat by an oath abjuring the Pope? Were the _non-juring_ Bishops of +England non-resistants, when they went down to the grave without +taking their seats in the House of Lords, rather than take an oath +denying the Stuarts and to support the House of Hanover? Both might +have purchased power at the price of one annual falsehood. There are +some in this country who do not seem to think that price at all +unreasonable. It were a rare compliment indeed to the non-resistants, +if every exhibition of rigid principle on the part of an individual +is to make the world suspect him of leaning towards their faith. + +The Society is not opposed to government, but only to _this_ +Government based upon and acting for slavery. + +With regard to the second charge, of exceeding its proper limits and +trespassing on the rights of the minority, it is enough to say, that +the object of the American Anti-Slavery Society is the "entire +abolition of slavery in the United States." Of course it is its duty +to find out all the sources of pro-slavery influence in the land. It +is its right, it is its duty to try every institution in the land, +no matter how venerable, or sacred, by the touchstone of +anti-slavery principle; and if it finds any one false, to proclaim +that fact to the world, with more or less of energy, according to +its importance in society. It has tried the Constitution, and +pronounced it unsound. + +No member's conscience need be injured--The qualification for +membership remains the same, "the belief that slave-holding is a +heinous crime"--No new test has been set up--But the majority of the +Society, for the time being, faithful to its duty of trying every +institution by the light of the present day--of uttering its opinion +on every passing event that touches the slave's welfare, has seen it +to be duty to sound forth its warning, + + +NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS. + +No one who did not vote for the Resolution is responsible for it. No +one is asked to quit our platform. We, the majority, only ask him to +extend to our opinions the same toleration that we extend to him, +and agreeing to differ on this point, work together where we can. We +proscribe no man for difference of opinion. + +It is said, that having refused in 1840, to say that a man _ought to +vote_, on the ground that such a resolution would be tyrannical and +intolerant, the Society is manifestly inconsistent now in taking +upon itself to say that no abolitionist _can_ consistently vote. But +the inconsistency is only apparent and not real. + +There may he a thousand reasons why a particular individual ought +not to do an act, though the act be innocent in itself. It would be +tyranny therefore in a society which can properly take notice of but +one subject, slavery, to promulgate the doctrine that all its +members ought to do any particular act, as for instance, to vote, to +give money, to lecture, to petition, or the like. The particular +circumstances and opinions of each one must regulate his actions. +All we have a right to ask is, that he do for the slave's cause as +much as he does for any other of equal importance. But when an act +is wrong, it is no intolerance to say to the whole world that it +ought _not to be done_. After the abolitionist has granted that +slavery is wrong, we have the right to judge him by his own +principles, and arraign him for inconsistency that, so believing, he +helps the slaveholder by his oath. + +The following pages have been hastily thrown together in explanation +of the vote above recited. They make no pretension to a full +argument of the topic. I hope that in a short time I shall get +leisure sufficient to present to our opponents, unless some one does +it for me, a full statement of the reasons which have led us to this +step. + +I am aware that we non-voters are rather singular. But history, from +the earliest Christians downwards, is full of instances of men who +refused all connection with government, and all the influence which +office could bestow, rather than deny their principles, or aid in +doing wrong. Yet I never heard them called either idiots or +over-scrupulous. Sir Thomas More need never have mounted the scaffold, +had he only consented to take the oath of supremacy. He had only to +tell a lie with solemnity, as we are asked to do, and he might not +only have saved his life, but, as the trimmers of his day would have +told him, doubled his influence. Pitt resigned his place as Prime +Minister of England, rather than break faith with the Catholics of +Ireland. Should I not resign a petty ballot rather than break faith +with the slave? But I was specially glad to find a distinct +recognition of the principle upon which we have acted, applied to a +different point, in the life of that Patriarch of the Anti-Slavery +enterprise, Granville Sharpe. It is in a late number of the +Edinburgh Review. While an underclerk in the War Office, he +sympathized with our fathers in their struggle for independence. +"Orders reached his office to ship munitions of war to the revolted +colonies. If his hand had entered the account of such a cargo, it +would have contracted in his eyes the stain of innocent blood. To +avoid this pollution, he resigned his place and his means of +subsistence at a period of life when be could no longer hope to find +any other lucrative employment." As the thoughtful clerk of the War +Office takes his hat down from the peg where it has used to hang for +twenty years, methinks I hear one of our opponents cry out, +"Friend Sharpe, you are absurdly scrupulous." "You may innocently +aid Government in doing wrong," adds another. While Liberty Party +yelps at his heels, "My dear Sir, you are quite losing your influence!" +And indeed it is melancholy to reflect how, from that moment the +mighty underclerk of the War Office(!) dwindled into the mere +Granville Sharpe of history! the man of whom Mansfield and Hargrave +were content to learn law, and Wilberforce, philanthropy. + +One friend proposes to vote for men who shall be pledged not to take +office unless the oath to the Constitution is dispensed with, and +who shall then go on to perform in their offices only such duties as +we, their constituents, approve. He cites, in support of his view, +the election of O'Connell to the House of Commons, in 1828, I believe, +just one year before the "Oath of Supremacy," which was the +objectionable one to the Catholics, was dispensed with. Now, if we +stood in the same circumstances as the Catholics did in 1828, the +example would be in point. When the public mind is thoroughly +revolutionized, and ready for the change, when the billow has +reached its height and begins to crest into foam, then such a +measure may bring matters to a crisis. But let us first go through, +in patience, as O'Connell did, our twenty years of agitation. +Waiving all other objections, this plan seems to me mere playing at +politics, and an entire waste of effort. + +It loses our high position as moral reformers; it subjects us to all +that malignant opposition and suspicion of motives which attend the +array of parties; and while thus closing up our access to the +national conscience, it wastes in fruitless caucussing and party +tactics, the time and the effort which should have been directed to +efficient agitation. + +The history of our Union is lesson enough, for every candid mind, of +the fatal effects of every, the least, compromise with evil. The +experience of the fifty years passed under it, shows us the slaves +trebling in numbers;--slaveholders monopolizing the offices and +dictating the policy of the Government;--prostituting the strength +and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and +elsewhere;--trampling on the rights of the free States, and making +the courts of the country their tools. To continue this disastrous +alliance longer is madness. The trial of fifty years only proves +that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, +without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the +sin of slavery. Why prolong the experiment? Let every honest man +join in the outcry of the American Anti-Slavery Society, + + +NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS. + +WENDELL PHILLIPS. + +_Boston, Jan_. 15, 1845. + + + + +THE NO-VOTING THEORY. + + +"God never made a CITIZEN, and no one will escape as a man, from the +sins which he commits as a citizen." + + +Can an abolitionist consistently take office, or vote, under the +Constitution of the United States? + +1st. What is an abolitionist? + +One who thinks slaveholding a sin in all circumstances, and desires +its abolition. Of course such an one cannot consistently aid another +in holding his slave;--in other words, I cannot innocently aid a man +in doing that which I think wrong. No amount of fancied good will +justify me in joining another in doing wrong, unless I adopt the +principle "of doing evil that good may come." + +2d. What do taking office and voting under the Constitution imply? + +The President swears "to execute the office of president," and +"to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United +States." The judges "to discharge the duties incumbent upon them +agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States." + +All executive, legislative, and judicial officers, both of the +several States and of the General Government, before entering on the +performance of their official duties, are bound to take an oath or +affirmation, "_to support the Constitution of the United States_." +This is what every office-holder expressly _promises in so many +words_. It is a contract between him and the _whole nation_. The +voter, who, by voting, sends his fellow citizen into office as his +representative, knowing beforehand that the taking of this oath is +the first duty his agent will have to perform, does by his vote, +request and authorize him to take it. He therefore, by voting, +impliedly engages to support the Constitution. What one does by his +agent he does himself. Of course no honest man will authorize and +request another to do an act which he thinks it wrong to do himself! +Every voter, therefore, is bound to see, _before voting_, whether he +could himself honestly swear to _support_ the constitution. Now what +does this oath of office-holders relate to and imply? "It applies," +says Chief Justice Marshall, "in an especial manner, to their conduct +in their official character." Judge Story, in his Commentaries on the +Constitution, speaks of it as "a solemn obligation to the due +execution of the trusts reposed in them, and to support the +Constitution." It is universally considered throughout the country, +by common men and by the courts, as a promise to do what the +Constitution bids, and to avoid what it forbids. It was in the +spirit of this oath, under which he spake, that Daniel Webster said +in New York, "The Constitution gave it (slavery) SOLEMN GUARANTIES. +To the full extent of these guaranties we are all bound by the +Constitution. All the stipulations contained in the Constitution in +favor of the slaveholding States ought to be fulfilled; and so far +as depends on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fulness of their spirit +and to the exactness of their letter." + +It is more than an oath of allegiance; more than a mere promise that +we will not resist the laws. For it is an engagement to "support them"; +as an _officer_ of government, to carry them into effect. Without +such a promise on the part of its functionaries, how could +government exist? It is more than the expression of that obligation +which rests on all peaceable citizens to _submit_ to laws, even +though they will not actively _support_ them. For it is the promise +which the judge makes, that he will actually _do_ the business of +the courts; which the sheriff assumes, that he will actually _execute_ +the laws. + +Let it be remarked, that it is an oath to support _the_ +Constitution--that is, _the whole of it_; there are no exceptions. +And let it be remembered, that by it each _one_ makes a contract +with the _whole_ nation, that he will do certain acts. + +3d. What is the Constitution which each voter thus engages to support? + +It contains the following clauses: + +Art. 1, Sect. 2. Representatives and direct taxes shall be +apportioned among the several States, which may be included within +this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be +determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including +those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians +not taxed, _three fifths of all other persons_. + +Art. 1, Sect. 8. Congress shall have power ... to suppress +insurrections. + +Art. 4, Sec. 2. 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. + +Art. 4, Sect. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in +this Union a republican form of government; and shall protect each +of them against invasion; and, on application of the legislature, or +of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened) _against +domestic violence_. + +The first of these clauses, relating to representation, gives to +10,000 inhabitants of Carolina equal weight in the government with +40,000 inhabitants of Massachusetts, provided they are rich enough +to hold 50,000 slaves:--and accordingly confers on a slaveholding +community additional political power for every slave held among them, +thus tempting them to continue to uphold the system. + +Its result has been, in the language of John Quincy Adams, "to make +the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of slavery the vital +and animating spirit of the National Government;" and again, to +enable "a knot of slaveholders to give the law and prescribe the +policy of the country." So that "since 1830 slavery, slaveholding, +slavebreeding, and slavetrading have formed the whole foundation of +the policy of the Federal Government." The second and the last +articles relating to insurrection and domestic violence, perfectly +innocent in themselves--yet being made with the fact directly in +view that slavery exists among us, do deliberately pledge the whole +national force against the unhappy slave if he imitate our fathers +and resist oppression--thus making us partners in the guilt of +sustaining slavery: the third is a promise, on the part of the whole +North, to return fugitive slaves to their masters; a deed which +God's law expressly condemns, and which every noble feeling of our +nature repudiates with loathing and contempt. + +These are the clauses which the abolitionist, by voting or taking +office, engages to uphold. While he considers slaveholding to be sin, +he still rewards the master with additional political power for +every additional slave that he can purchase. Thinking slaveholding +to be sin, he pledges to the master the aid of the whole army and +navy of the nation to reduce his slave again to chains, should he at +any time succeed a moment in throwing them off. Thinking +slaveholding to be sin, he goes on, year after year, appointing by +his vote judges and marshals to aid in hunting up the fugitives, and +seeing that they are delivered back to those who claim them! How +beautifully consistent are his _principles_ and his _promises_! + + + +OBJECTIONS. + + +OBJECTION I. + +Allowing that the clause relating to representation and that relating +to insurrections are immoral, it is contended that the article which +orders the return of fugitive slaves was not meant to apply to slaves, +but has been misconstrued and misapplied! + +ANSWER. The meaning of the other two clauses, settled as it has been +by the unbroken practice and cheerful acquiescence of the Government +and people, no one has attempted to deny. This also has the same +length of practice, and the same acquiescence, to show that it +relates to slaves. No one denies that the Government and Courts have +so construed it, and that the great body of the people have freely +concurred in and supported this construction. And further, "The +Madison Papers" (containing the debates of those who framed the +Constitution, at the time it was made) settle beyond all doubt what +meaning the framers intended to convey. + +Look at the following extracts from those Papers: + + _Tuesday, August 28th_, 1787. + + Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney moved to require "fugitive slaves and + servants to be delivered up like criminals." + + Mr. Wilson. This would oblige the Executive of the State to do it, + at the public expense. + + Mr. Sherman saw no more propriety in the public seizing and + surrendering a slave or servant, than a horse. + + Mr. Butler withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular + provision might be made, apart from this article. + + Article 15, as amended, was then agreed to, _nem. con._--Madison + papers, pp. 1447-8. + + _Wednesday, August_ 29, 1787. + + Mr. Butler moved to insert after Article 15, "If any person bound to + service or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into + another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service + or labor, in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State + to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly + claiming their service or labor,"--which was agreed to, _nem. + con._--p. 1456. + +And again, after the wording of the above article had been slightly +changed, and the clause newly numbered, as in the present +Constitution, we find another statement most clearly showing to what +subject the whole was intended to refer: + + _Saturday, September_ 15, 1787. + + Article 4, Section 2, (the third paragraph,) the term "legally" was + struck out; and the words, "under the laws thereof," inserted after + the word "State," in compliance with the wish of some who thought + the term legal equivocal, and favoring the idea that SLAVERY was + _legal_ in a moral view.--p. 1589. + +Is it not hence evident that SLAVERY was the subject referred to by +the whole article? + +The debates of the Convention held in the several States to ratify +the Constitution, at the same time show clearly what meaning it was +thought the framers had conveyed:--In Virginia Mr. Madison said, + + Another clause secures to us that property which we now possess. At + present, if any slave elopes to any of those States where slaves are + free, he becomes emancipated by their laws. For the laws of the + States are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this + Constitution, "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." This clause was expressly inserted to + enable owners of slaves to reclaim them. This is a better security + than any that now exists. + +Patrick Henry, in reply observed, + + The clause which had been adduced by the gentleman was no more than + this--that a runaway negro could be taken up in Maryland or New + York. + +Governor Randolph said, + + But another clause of the Constitution proves the absurdity of the + supposition. The words of the clause are, "No person held to service + or labor in one State," &c. Every one knows that slaves are held to + service and labor. If a citizen of this State, in consequence of + this clause, can take his runaway slave in Maryland, &c. + +General Pinckney in South Carolina Convention observed, + + "We have obtained a right to recover our slaves, in whatever part of + America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before." + +In North Carolina, Mr. Iredell + + Begged leave to explain the reason of this clause. In some of the + Northern States, they have emancipated all their slaves. If any of + our slaves, said he, go there and remain there a certain time, they + would, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, so that + their masters could not get them again. This would be extremely + prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States, and to + prevent it, this clause is inserted in the Constitution. Though the + word _slave_ be not mentioned, this is the meaning of it. The + Northern delegates, owing to their particular scruples on the + subject of slavery, did not choose the word _slave_ to be mentioned. + +But even if TWO clauses are immoral that is enough for our purpose, +and shews that no honest man should engage to uphold them. Who has +the right to construe and expound the laws? Of course the Courts of +the Nation. The Constitution provides (Article 3, Section 2,) that +the Supreme Court shall be the final and only interpreter of its +meaning. What says the Supreme Court? That this clause does relate +to slaves, and order their return. All the other courts concur in +this opinion. But, say some, the courts are corrupt on this question. +Let us appeal to the people. Nine hundred and ninety-nine out of +every thousand answer, that the courts have construed it rightly, +and almost as many cheerfully support it. If the unanimous, +concurrent, unbroken practice of every department of the Government, +judicial, legislative, and executive, and the acquiescence of the +people for fifty years, do not prove which is the true construction, +then how and where can such a question ever be settled? If the +people and the courts of the land do not know what they themselves +mean, who has authority to settle their meaning for them? + +If the Constitution is not what history, unbroken practice, and the +courts prove that our fathers intended to make it, and what too, +their descendants, this nation say they did make it, and agree to +uphold,--who shall decide what the Constitution is? + +This is the sense then in which the Nation understand that the +promise is made to them. The Nation _understand_ that the judge +pledges himself to return fugitive slaves. The judge knows this when +he takes the oath. And Paley expresses the opinion of all writers on +morals, as well as the conviction of all honest men, when he says, +"that a promise is binding in that sense in which the promiser +thought at the time that the other party understood it." + + +OBJECTION II. + +A promise to do an immoral act is not binding: therefore an oath to +support the Constitution of the United States, does not bind one to +support any provisions of that instrument which are repugnant to his +ideas of right. And an abolitionist, thinking it wrong to return +slaves, may as an office-holder, innocently and properly take an +oath to support a Constitution which commands such return. + +ANSWER. Observe that this objection allows the Constitution to be +pro-slavery, and admits that there are clauses in it which no +abolitionist ought to carry out or support. + +And observe, further, that we all agree, that a bad promise is +better broken than kept--that every abolitionist, who has before now +taken the oath to the Constitution, is bound to break it, and +disobey the pro-slavery clauses of that instrument. So far there is +no difference between us. But the point in dispute now is, whether a +man, having found out that certain requirements of the Constitution +are wrong, can, after that, innocently swear to support and obey them, +_all the while meaning not to do so_. + +Now I contend that such loose construction of our promises is +contrary alike to honor, to fair dealing, and to truthfulness--that +it tends to destroy utterly that confidence between man and man +which binds society together, and leads, in matters of government, +to absolute tyranny. + +The Constitution is a series of contracts made by each individual +with every other of the fourteen millions. A man's oath is evidence +of his assent to this contract. If I offer a man the copy of an +agreement, and he, after reading, swears to perform it, have I not a +right to infer from his oath that he assents to the _rightfulness_ +of the articles of that paper? What more solemn form of expressing +his assent could he select? A man's oath expresses his conviction of +the rightfulness of the actions he promises to do, as well as his +determination to do them. If this be not so, I can have no trust in +any man's word. He may take my money, promise to do what I wish in +return, and yet, keeping my money, tell me, on the morrow, that he +shall not keep his promise, and never meant to, because the act, his +conscience tells him, is wrong. Who would trust property to such men, +or such maxims in the common affairs of life? Shall we not be as +honest in the Senate House as on 'Change? The North makes a contract +with the South by which she receives certain benefits, and agrees to +render certain services. The benefits she carefully keeps--but the +services she refuses to render, because immoral contracts are not +binding! Is this fair dealing? It is the rule alike of law and +common sense, that if we are not able, from _any cause_, to furnish +the article we have agreed to, we ought to return the pay we have +received. If power is put into our hands on certain conditions, and +we find ourselves unable to comply with those conditions, we ought +to surrender the power back to those who gave it. + +Immoral laws are doubtless void, and should not be obeyed. But the +question is here, whether one knowing a law to be immoral, may +innocently promise to obey it in order to get into office? The +people have settled the conditions on which one may take office. The +first is, that he assent to their Constitution. Is it honest to +accept power with the intention at the time of not keeping the +conditions?--The rightfulness of those conditions is not here the +question. + + +OBJECTION III. + +I swear to support the Constitution, _as I understand it_. Certain +parts of it, in my opinion, contradict others and are therefore void. + +ANSWER. Will any one take the title deed of his house and carry it +to the man he bought of, and let him keep the covenants of that +paper as he says "he understands them?" Do we not all recognize the +justice of having some third, disinterested party to judge between +two disputants about the meaning of contracts? Who ever heard of a +contract of which each party was at liberty to keep as much as he +thought proper? + +As in all other contracts, so in that of the Constitution, there is +a power provided to affix the proper construction to the instrument, +and that construction both parties are bound to abide by, or +repudiate the _whole_ contract. That power is the Supreme Court of +the United States. + +Do we seek the common sense, practical view of this question? Go to +the Exchange and ask any broker how many dollars he will trust any +man with, who avows his right to make promises with the design, at +the time, of breaking some parts, and not feeling called upon to +state which those parts will be? + +Do you seek the moral view of the point, which philosophers have +taken? Paley says, "A promise is binding in that sense in which the +promiser thought at the time of making that the other party +understood it." Is there any doubt what meaning the great body of +the American people attach to the Constitution and the official oath? +They are that party to whom the promise is made. + +But, say some, our lives are notice to the whole people what meaning +we attach to the oath, and we will protest when we swear, that we do +not include in our oath the pro-slavery clauses. You may as well +utter the protest now, as when you are swearing--or at home, equally +as well as within the State House. For no such protest can be of any +avail. The Chief Justice stands up to administer to me the oath of +some office, no matter which. "Sir," say I, "I must take that oath +with a qualification, excluding certain clauses." His reply will be, +"Sir, I have no discretion in this matter. I am here merely to +administer a prescribed form of oath. If you assent to it, you are +qualified for your station. If you do not, you cannot enter. I have +no authority given me to listen to exceptions. I am a servant--the +people are my masters--here is what they require that you support, +not this or that part of the Constitution, but '_the Constitution_,' +that is, the _whole_." + +Baffled here, I turn to the people. I publish my opinions in +newspapers. I proclaim them at conventions, I spread them through +the country on the wings of a thousand presses. Does this avail me? +Yes, says Liberty party, if after this, men choose to vote for you, +it is evident they mean you shall take the oath as you have given +notice that you understand it. + +Well, the voters in Boston, with this understanding, elect me to +Congress, and I proceed to Washington. But here arises a +difficulty,--my constituents at home have assented--but when I get +to Congress, I find I am not the representative of Boston only, but +of the whole country. The interests of Carolina are committed to my +hands as well as those of Massachusetts; I find that the contract I +made by my oath was not with Boston, but with the whole nation. It +is the _nation_ that gives me the power to declare war and make +peace--to lay taxes on cotton, and control the commerce of New +Orleans. The nation prescribed the conditions in 1789, when the +Constitution was settled, and though Boston may be willing to accept +me on other terms, Carolina is not willing. Boston has accepted my +protest, and says, "Take office." Carolina says, "The oath you swear +is sworn to me, as well as to the rest--I demand the whole bond." +In other words, when I have made my protest, what evidence is there +that _the nation_, the other party to the contract, assents to it? +There can be none until that nation amends its Constitution. +Massachusetts when she accepted that Constitution, bound herself to +send only such men as could swear to return slaves. If by an underhand +compromise with some of her citizens, she sends persons of other +sentiments, she is perjured, and any one who goes on such an errand +is a partner in the perjury. Massachusetts has no right to assent to +my protest--she has no right to send representatives, except on +certain conditions. She cannot vary those conditions, without +leave from those whose interests are to be affected by the change, +that is, the whole nation. Those conditions are written down in the +Constitution. Do she and South Carolina differ, as to the meaning? +The Court will decide for them. + +But, says the objector, do you mean to say that I swear to support +the Constitution, not as I understand it, but as some judge +understands it? Yes, I do--otherwise there is no such thing as law. +This right of private judgment, for which he contends, exists in +religion--but not in Government. Law is a rule _prescribed_. The +party prescribing must have the right to construe his own rule, +otherwise there would be as many laws as there are individual +consciences. Statutes would be but recommendations if every man was +at liberty to understand and obey them as he thought proper. But I +need not argue this. The absurdity of a Government that has no right +to govern--and of laws which have no fixed meaning--but which each +man construes to mean what he pleases and obeys accordingly--must be +evident to every one. + +What more power did the most despotic of the English Stuarts ask, +than the right, after having sworn to laws, to break such as their +consciences disapproved? It is the essence of tyranny. + +What is the Constitution of the United States? In good old fashioned +times we thought we knew, when we had read it and listened to the +court's exposition. But we have improved upon that. The Liberty +party man says, it is for him "what he understands it." John C. +Calhoun, of course, has the same right, and instead of "Liberty +regulated by law," we have liberty regulated by fourteen millions of +understandings! + +The Liberty party man takes office on conditions, which, he says, +are not binding upon him. He gives us notice that he shall use the +power as he thinks right, without any regard to these conditions of +his oath. Well, if this is law, it is good for all. John C. Calhoun +can of course take office with the same broad liberty, and swear to +support the Constitution "as _he_ understands it." He has told us +often what that "understanding" is--"to sustain Slavery." Of course +having made this public, if, after that, Carolina sends him, +according to Liberty party logic, it is evidence that Massachusetts +assents to his "understanding," and accepts his oath with that +meaning! Why I thought I had fathomed the pro-slavery depths of the +Constitution when I read over all its wicked clauses--but that is +skimming only the surface, if the Constitution allows every man, to +whom it commits power to use it, as he chooses to "understand" the +conditions, and not as the nation understands them. If with this +right, Abolitionists may take office and help Liberty, we must +remember that by the same rule, slaveholders may take office and +lawfully use all their power to help Slavery. If this be so, how +absurd to keep crying out of this and the other thing it is +"unconstitutional." + +Away with such logic! If we have a Constitution, let us remember +Jefferson's advice, and not make it "waste paper by construction." +The man who tampers thus with the sacred obligation of an +oath,--swears, and Jesuit like, keeps "reserved meanings" in his own +breast,--does more harm to society by loosening the foundations of +morals, than he would do good, did his one falsehood free every +slave from the Potomac to the Del Norte. + + +OBJECTION IV. + +"The oath does not mean that I will positively do what I swear to do, +but only that I will do it, _or submit_ to the penalty the law awards. +If my actions in office don't suit the nation, let them impeach me." + +ANSWER. That is, John Tyler may, without consulting Congress, plunge +us into war with Mexico--incur fifty millions of public debt--lose a +hundred thousand lives--and the _sufficient recompense_ to this +nation will be to impeach John Tyler, Esq., and send him home to his +slaves! These are the wise safeguards of Constitutional liberty! He +has faithfully kept it "as he understands it." What is a Russian +slave? One who holds life, property, and all, at the mercy of the +Czar's idea of right. Does not this description of the power every +officer has here, under our Constitution, reduce Americans to the +same condition? + +But, is it true that the bearing of the penalty is an excuse for +breach of our official oaths? + +The Judge who, in questions of divorce, has trifled with the +sanctity of the marriage tie--who, in matters of property has +decided unjustly, and taken bribes--in capital cases has so dealt +judgment as to send innocent men to the gallows--may cry out, +"If you don't like me, impeach me." But will impeachment restore the +dead to life, or the husband to his defamed wife? Would the community +consider his submission to impeachment as equivalent to the keeping +of his oath of office, and thenceforward view him as an honest, +truth-speaking, unperjured man? It is idle to suppose so. Yet the +interests committed to some of our officeholders' keeping, are more +important often than even those which a Judge controls. And we must +remember that men's ideas of right always differ. To admit such a +principle into the construction of oaths, if it enable one man to do +much good, will enable scoundrels who creep into office to do much +harm, "according to _their_ consciences." But yet the rule, if it be +admitted, must be universal. Liberty becomes, then, matter of +accident. + + +OBJECTION V. + +I shall resign whenever a case occurs that requires me to aid in +returning a fugitive slave. + +ANSWER. "The office-holder has promised active obedience to the +Constitution in every exigency which it has contemplated and sought +to provide for. If he promised, not meaning to perform in certain +cases, is he not doubly dishonest? Dishonest to his own conscience +in promising to do wrong, and to his fellow-citizens in purposing +from the first to break his oath, as he knew they understood it? If +he had sworn, not regarding anything as immoral which he bound +himself to do, and afterwards found in the oath something against +his conscience of which he was not at first aware, or if by change +of views he had come to deem sinful what before he thought right, +then doubtless, by promptly resigning, he might escape guilt. But is +not the case different, when among the acts promised are some known +at the time to be morally wrong? 'It is a sin to swear unto sin,' +says the poet, although it be, as he truly adds, 'a greater sin to +keep the sinful oath.'" + +The captain has no right to put to sea, and resign when the storm +comes. Besides what supports a wicked government more than good men +taking office under it, even though they secretly determine not to +carry out all its provisions? The slave balancing in his lonely +hovel the chance of escape, knows nothing of your secret reservations, +your future intentions. He sees only the swarming millions at the +North ostensibly sworn to restore him to his master, if he escape a +little way. Perchance it is your false oath, which you don't mean to +keep, that makes him turn from the attempt in despair. He knows you +only--the world knows only by your _actions_, not your _intentions_, +and those side with his master. The prayer which he lifts to Heaven, +in his despair, numbers you rightly among his oppressors. + + +OBJECTION VI. + +I shall only take such an office as brings me into no connection +with slavery. + +ANSWER. Government is a whole; unless each in his circle aids his +next neighbor, the machine will stand still. The Senator does not +himself return the fugitive slave, but he appoints the Marshal, +whose duty it is to do so. The State representative does not himself +appoint the Judge who signs the warrant for the slave's recapture, +but he chooses the United States Senator who does appoint that Judge. +The elector does not himself order out the militia to resist +"domestic violence," but he elects the President, whose duty requires, +that a case occurring, he should do so. + +To suppose that each of these may do that part of his duty that +suits him, and leave the rest undone, is _practical anarchy_. It is +bringing ourselves precisely to that state which the Hebrew describes. +"In those days there was no king in Israel, but each man did what +was right in his own eyes." This is all consistent in us, who hold +that man is to do right, even if anarchy follows. How absurd to set +up such a scheme, and miscall it a _government_,--where nobody +governs, but everybody does as he pleases. + + +OBJECTION VII. + +As men and all their works are imperfect, we may innocently +"support a Government which, along with many blessings, assists in +the perpetration of some wrong." + +ANSWER. As nobody disputes that we may rightly assist the worst +Government in doing good, provided we can do so without at the same +time aiding it in the wrong it perpetrates, this must mean, of course, +that it is right to aid and obey a Government _in doing wrong_, if +we think that, on the whole, the Government effects more good than +harm. Otherwise the whole argument is irrelevant, for this is the +point in dispute; since every office of any consequence under the +United States Constitution has some immediate connection with Slavery. +Let us see to what lengths this principle will carry one. Herod's +servants, then, were right in slaying every child in Bethlehem, from +two years old and under, provided they thought Herod's Government, +on the whole, more a blessing than a curse to Judea! The soldiers of +Charles II. were justified in shooting the Covenanters on the muirs +of Scotland, if they thought his rule was better, on the whole, for +England, than anarchy! According to this theory, the moment the +magic wand of Government touches our vices, they start up into +virtues! But has Government any peculiar character or privilege in +this respect? Oh, no--Government is only an association of +individuals, and the same rules of morality which govern my conduct +in relation to a thousand men, ought to regulate my conduct to any +one. Therefore, I may innocently aid a man in doing wrong, if I +think that, on the whole, he has more virtues than vices. If he +gives bread to the hungry six days in the week, I may rightly help +him, on the seventh, in forging bank notes, or murdering his father! +The principle goes this length, and every length, or it cannot be +proved to exist at all. It ends at last, practically, in the old +maxim, that the subject and the soldier have no right to keep any +conscience, but have only to obey the rulers they serve: for there +are few, if any, Governments this side of Satan's, which could not, +in some sense, be said to do more good than harm. Now I candidly +confess, that I had rather be covered all over with inconsistencies, +in the struggle to keep my hands clean, than settle quietly down on +such a principle as this. It is supposing that we may-- + + "To do a great right, do a little wrong;" + +a rule, which the master poet of human nature has rebuked. It is +doing evil that good may come--a doctrine, of which an Apostle has +pronounced the condemnation. + +And let it be remembered that in dealing with the question of slavery, +we are not dealing with extreme cases. Slavery is no minute evil +which lynx-eyed suspicion has ferreted out. Every sixth man is a +slave. The ermine of justice is stained. The national banner clings +to the flag-staff heavy with blood. "The preservation of slavery," +says our oldest and ablest statesman, "is the vital and animating +_spirit_ of the National Government." + +Surely IF it be true that a man may justifiably stand connected with +a government in which he sees some slight evils--still it is also +true, even then, that governments _may_ sin so atrociously, so +enormously, may make evil so much the _purpose_ of their being, as +to render it the duty of honest men to wash their hands of them. + +I may give money to a friend whose life has some things in it which +I do not fully approve--but when his nights are passed in the brothel, +and his days in drunkenness, when he uses his talents to seduce +others, and his gold to pave their road to ruin, surely the case is +changed. + +I may perhaps sacrifice health by staying awhile in a room rather +overheated, but I shall certainly see it to be my duty to rush out, +when the whole house is in full blaze. + + +OBJECTION VIII. + +God intended that society and governments should exist. We therefore +are bound to support them. He has conferred upon us the rights of +citizenship in this country, and we cannot escape from the +responsibility of exercising them. God made us _citizens_. + +ANSWER. This reminds me of an old story I have heard. When the +Legislature were asked to set off a portion of the town of +Dorchester and call it South Boston, the old minister of the town is +said to have objected, saying, "God made it Dorchester, and +Dorchester it ought to be." + +God made us social beings, it is true, but _society_ is not +necessarily the Constitution of the United States! Because God meant +some form of government should exist, does not at all prove that we +are justified in supporting a wicked one. Man confers the rights and +regulates the duties of citizenship. God never made a _citizen_, and +no one will escape, as a man, from the sins he commits as a citizen. +This is the first time that it has ever been held an excuse for sin +that we "went with the multitude to do evil!" + +Certainly we can be under no _such_ responsibility to become and +remain _citizens_, as will excuse us from the sinful acts which as +such citizens we are called to commit. Does God make obligatory on +his creature the support of institutions which require him to do +acts in themselves wrong? To suppose so, were to confound all the +rules of God's moral kingdom. + +President Wayland has lately been illustrating, and giving his +testimony to the principle, that a combination of men cannot change +the moral character of an act, which is in itself sinful--that the +law of morals is binding the same on communities, corporations, &c. +as on individuals. + +After describing slavery, and saying that to hold a man in such a +state is wrong--he goes on: + + "I will offer but one more supposition. Suppose that any number, for + instance one half of the families in our neighborhood, should by law + enact that the weaker half should be slaves, that we would exercise + over them the authority of masters, prohibit by law their + instruction, and concert among ourselves means for holding them + permanently in their present situation. In what manner would this + alter the moral aspect of the case?" + + A law in this case is merely a determination of one party, in which + all unite, to hold the other party in bondage; and a compact by + which the whole party bind themselves to assist every individual of + themselves to subdue all resistance from the other party, and + guaranteeing to each other that exercise of this power over the + weaker party which they now possess. + + Now I cannot see that this in any respect changes the nature of the + parties. They remain, as before, human beings, possessing the same + intellectual and moral nature, holding the same relations to each + other and to God, and still under the same unchangeable law, Thou + shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. By the act of holding a man in + bondage, this law is violated. Wrong is done, moral evil is + committed. In the former case it was done by the individual; now it + is done by the individual and the society. Before, the individual + was responsible only for his own wrong; now he is responsible both + for his own, and also, as a member of the society, for all the wrong + which the society binds itself to uphold and render perpetual. + + The scriptures frequently allude to the fact, that wrong done by + law, that is by society, is amenable to the same retribution as + wrong done by the individual. Thus, Psalm 94:20-23. 'Shall the + throne of iniquity have fellowship with them which frame mischief by + a law, and gather themselves together against the soul of the + righteous, and condemn the innocent blood? But the Lord is my + defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge. And he shall bring + upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own + wickedness; yea, the Lord our God shall cut them off' So also + Isaiah 10:1-4. 'Wo unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and + that write grievousness which they have prescribed.' &c. Besides, + persecution for the sake of religious opinion is always perpetrated + by law; but this in no manner affects its moral character. + + There is, however, one point of difference, which arises from the + fact that this wrong has been established by law. It becomes a + social wrong. The individual, or those who preceded him, may have + surrendered their individual right over it to the society. In this + case it may happen that the individual cannot act as he might act, + if the law had not been made. In this case the evil can only be + eradicated by changing the opinions of the society, and inducing + them to abolish the law. It will however be apparent that this, as I + said before, does not change the relation of the parties either to + each other or to God. The wrong exists as before. The individual act + is wrong. The law which protects it is wrong. The whole society, in + putting the law into execution, is wrong. Before only the + individual, now, the whole society, becomes the wrong doer, and + for that wrong, both the individuals and the society are held + responsible in the sight of God." + +If such "individual act is wrong," the man who knowingly does it is +surely a sinner. Does God, through society, require men to sin? + + +OBJECTION IX. + +If not being non-resistants, we concede to mankind the right to +frame Governments, which must, from the very nature of man, be more +or less evil, the right or duty to support them, when framed, +necessarily follows. + +ANSWER. I do not think it follows at all. Mankind, that is, any +number of them, have a right to set up such forms of worship as they +see fit, but when they have done so, does it necessarily follow that +I am in duty bound to support any one of them, whether I approve it +or not? Government is precisely like any other voluntary association +of individuals--a temperance or anti-slavery society, a bank or +railroad corporation. I join it, or not, as duty dictates. If a +temperance society exists in the village where I am, that love for +my race which bids me seek its highest good, commands me to join it. +So if a Government is formed in the land where I live, the same +feeling bids me to support it, if I innocently can. This is the +whole length of my duty to Government. From the necessity of the case, +and that constitution of things which God has ordained, it follows +that in any specified district, the majority must rule--hence +results the duty of the minority to submit. But we must carefully +preserve the distinction between _submission_ and _obedience_ +--between _submission_ and _support_. If the majority set up an +immoral Government, I obey those laws which seem to me good, because +they are good--and I submit to all the penalties which my +disobedience of the rest brings on me. This is alike the dictate of +common sense, and the command of Christianity. And it must be the +true doctrine, since any other obliges me to obey the majority if +they command me to commit murder, a rule which even the Tory +Blackstone has denied. Of course for me to do anything I deem wrong, +is the same, in quality, as to commit murder. + + +OBJECTION X. + +But it is said, your theory results in good men leaving government +to the dishonest and wicked. + +ANSWER. Well, if to sustain government we must sacrifice honesty, +government could not be in a more appropriate place, than in the +hands of dishonest men. + +But it by no means follows, that if I go out of government, I leave +nothing but dishonest men behind. An act may be sin to me, which +another may sincerely think right--and if so, let him do it, till he +changes his mind. I leave government in the hands of those whom I do +not think as clear-sighted as myself, but not necessarily in the +hands of the dishonest. Whether it be so in this country now, is not, +at present, the question, but whether it would be so necessarily, in +all cases. The real question is, what is the duty of those who +presume to think that God has given them clearer views of duty than +the bulk of those among whom they live? + +Don't think us conceited in supposing ourselves a little more +enlightened than our neighbors. It is no great thing after all to be a +little better than a lynching--mobocratic--slaveholding--debt +repudiating community. + +What then is the duty of such men? Doubtless to do all they can to +extend to others the light they enjoy. + +Will they best do so by compromising their principles? by letting +their political life give the lie to their life of reform? Who will +have the most influence, he whose life is consistent, or he who says +one thing to-day, and swears another thing to-morrow--who looks one +way and rows another? My object is to let men _understand me_, and I +submit that the body of the Roman people understood better, and felt +more earnestly, the struggle between the people and the princes, +when the little band of democrats _left the city_ and encamped on +_Mons Sacer, outside_, than while they remained mixed up and +voting with their masters, shoulder to shoulder. _Dissolution_ is +our _Mons Sacer_--God grant that it may become equally famous in the +world's history as the spot where the right triumphed. + +It is foolish to suppose that the position of such men, divested of +the glare of official distinction, has no weight with the people. If +it were so, I am still bound to remember that I was not sent into +the world _to have influence_, but to do my duty according to my own +conscience. But it is not so. People do know an honest man when they +see him. (I allow that this is so rare an event now-a-days, as +almost to justify one in supposing they might have forgotten how he +looked.) They will give a man credit, when his life is one manly +testimony to the truthfulness of his lips. Even Liberty party, blind +as she is, has light enough to see that "Consistency is the jewel, +the everything of such a cause as ours." The position of a non-voter, +in a land where the ballot is so much idolized, kindles in every +beholder's bosom something of the warm sympathy which waits on the +persecuted, carries with it all the weight of a disinterested +testimony to truth, and pricks each voter's conscience with an +uneasy doubt, whether after all voting _is_ right. There is +constantly a Mordecai in the gate. + +I admit that we should strive to have a _political_ influence--for +with politics is bound up much of the welfare of the people. But +this objection supposes that the ballot box is the _only_ means of +political influence. Now it is a good thing that every man should +have the right to vote. But it is by no means necessary that every +man should actually vote, in order to influence his times. We by no +means necessarily desert our social duty when we refuse to take +office, or to confer it. Lafayette did better service to the cause +of French liberty when he retired to Lagrange and refused to +acknowledge Napoleon, than he could have done had he stood, for years, +at the tyrant's right hand. From the silence of that chamber there +went forth a voice--from the darkness of that retreat there burst +forth a light; feeble indeed at first, like the struggling beams of +the morning, but destined like them to brighten into perfect day. + +This objection, that we non-voters shall lose all our influence, +confounds the broad distinction between _influence_ and _power_. +_Influence_ every honest man must and will have, in exact +proportion to his honesty and ability. God always annexes influence +to worth. The world, however unwilling, can never get free from the +influence of such a man. This influence the possession of office +cannot give, nor the want of it take away. For the exercise of such +influence as this, man is responsible. _Power_ we buy of our fellow +men at a certain price. Before making the bargain it is our duty to +see that we do not pay "too dear for our whistle." He who buys it at +the price of truth and honor, buys only weakness--and sins beside. + +Of those who go to the utmost verge of honesty in order to reach the +seats of worldly power, and barter a pure conscience for a weighty +name, it may be well said with old Fuller, "They need to have steady +heads who can dive into these gulfs of policy, and come out with a +safe conscience." + + +OBJECTION XI. + +This withdrawing from government is pharisaical--"Shall we, 'weak, +sinful men,'" one says, "perhaps even more sinful than the +slaveholder, cry out, No Union with Slaveholders?" Such a course is +wanting in brotherly kindness. + +ANSWER. Because we refuse to aid a wrong-doer in his sin, we by no +means proclaim, or assume, that we think our _whole character_ +better than his. It is neither pharisaical to have opinions, nor +presumptuous to guide our lives by them. If I have joined with +others in doing wrong, is it either presumptuous or unkind, when my +eyes are opened, to refuse to go any further with them in their +career of guilt? Does love to the thief require me to help him in +stealing? Yet this is all we refuse to do. We will extend to the +slaveholder all the courtesy he will allow. If he is hungry, we will +feed him; if he is in want, both hands shall be stretched out for +his aid. We will give him full credit for all the good that he does, +and our deep sympathy in all the temptations under whose strength he +falls. But to help him in his sin, to remain partners with him in +the slave-trade, is more than he has a right to ask. He would be a +strange preacher who should set out to reform his circle by joining +in all their sins! It is a principle similar to that which the tipsy +Duke of Norfolk acted on, when seeing a drunken friend in the gutter, +he cried out, "My dear fellow, I can't help you out, but I'll do +better, I'll lie down by your side." + + +OBJECTION XII. + +But consider, the abstaining from all share in Government will leave +bad men to have everything their own way--admit Texas--extend +slavery, &c. &c. + +ANSWER. That is no matter of mine. God, the great conservative power +of the Universe, when he established the right, saw to it that it +should always be the safest and best. He never laid upon a poor +finite worm the staggering load of following out into infinity the +complex results of his actions. We may rest on the bosom of +Infinite Wisdom, confident that it is enough for us to do justice, +he will see to it that happiness results. + + +OBJECTION XIII. + +But the same conscientious objection against promising your support +to government, ought to lead you to avoid actually giving your +support to it by paying taxes or sueing in the courts. + +ANSWER. This is what logicians call a _reductio ad absurdum_: an +attempt to prove our principle unsound by showing that, fairly +carried out, it leads to an absurdity. But granting all it asks, it +does not saddle us with any absurdity at all. It is perfectly +possible to live without petitioning, sueing, or holding stocks. +Thousands in this country have lived, died, and been buried, without +doing either. And does it load us with any absurdity to prove that +we shall be obliged to do from principle, what the majority of our +fellow-citizens do from choice? We lawyers may think it is an +absurdity to say a man can't sue, for, like the Apostle at Ephesus, +it touches our "craft," but that don't go far to prove it. Then, as +to taxes, doubtless many cases might be imagined, when every one +would allow it to be our duty to resist the slightest taxation, did +Christianity allow it, with "war to the hilt." If such cases may +ever arise, why may not this be one? + +Until I become an Irishman, no one will ever convince me that I +ought to vote, by proving that I ought not to pay taxes! Suppose +all these difficulties do really encompass us, it will not be +the first time that the doing of one moral duty has revealed a +dozen others which we never thought of. The child has climbed the +hill over his native village, which he thought the end of the world, +and lo! there are mountains beyond! He won't remedy the matter by +creeping back to his cradle and disbelieving in mountains! + +But then, is there any such inconsistency in non-voters sueing and +paying taxes? + +Look at it. A. and B. have agreed on certain laws, and appointed C. +to execute them. A. owes me, who am no party to the contract, a just +debt, which his laws oblige him to pay. Do I acknowledge the +rightfulness of his relation to B. and C. by asking C. to use the +power given him, in my behalf? It appears to me that I do not. I may +surely ask A. to pay me my debt--why not then ask the keeper, whom +he has appointed over himself, to make him do so? + +I am a prisoner among pirates. The mate is abusing me in some way +contrary to their laws. Do I recognize the rightfulness of the +Captain's authority, by asking him to use the power the mate has +consented to give him, to protect me? It seems to me that I do not +necessarily endorse the means by which a man has acquired money or +power, when I ask him to use either in my behalf. + +An alien does not recognize the rightfulness of a government by +living under it. It has always been held that an English subject may +swear allegiance to an usurper and yet not be guilty of treason to +the true king. Because he may innocently acknowledge the king +_de facto_ (the king _in deed_,) without assuming him to be king +_de jure_ (king by _right_.) The distinction itself is as old as +the time of Edward the First. The principle is equally applicable to +suits. It has been universally acted on and allowed. The Catholic, +who shrank from acknowledging the heretical Government of England, +always, I believe, sued in her courts. + +Who could convince a common man, that by sueing in Constantinople or +Timbuctoo, he does an act which makes him responsible for the +character of those governments? + +Then, as for taxes. It is only our voluntary acts for which we are +responsible. And when did government ever trust tax-paying to the +voluntary good will of its subjects? When it does so, I, for one, +will refuse to pay. + +When did any sane man conclude that our Saviour's voluntary payment +of a tax acknowledged the rightfulness of Rome's authority over Judea? + +"The States," says Chief Justice Marshall, "have only not to elect +Senators, and this government expires without a struggle." + +Every November, then, we _create_ the government anew. Now, what +"instinct" will tell a common-sense man, that the act of a +_sovereign_,--voting--which creates a wicked government, is, +_essentially_ the same as the submission of a + _subject_,--tax-paying,--an act done without our consent. It should +be remembered, that we vote as _sovereigns_,--we pay taxes as +_subjects_. Who supposes that the humble tax-payer of Austria, who +does not, perhaps, know in what name the charter of his bondage runs, +is responsible for the doings of Metternich? And what sane man likens +his position to that of the voting sovereign of the United States? +My innocent acts may, through others' malice, result in evil. In that +case, it will be for my best judgment to determine whether to continue +or cease them. They are not thereby rendered essentially sinful. For +instance, I walk out on Sabbath morning. The priest over the way will +exclaim, "Sabbath-breaker," and the infidel will delude his followers, +by telling them I have no regard for Christianity. Still, it will be +for me to settle which, in present circumstances, is best,--to +remain in, and not be misconstrued, or to go out and bear a +testimony against the superstitious keeping of the day. Different +circumstances will dictate different action on such a point. + +I may often be the _occasion_ of evil when I am not responsible for +it. Many innocent acts _occasion_ evil, and in such case all I am +bound to ask myself before doing such _innocent act_, is, "Shall I +occasion, on the whole, more harm or good." There are many cases +where doing a duty even, we shall occasion evil and sin in others. +To save a slaveholder from drowning, when we know he has made a will +freeing his slaves, would put off, perhaps forever, their +emancipation, but of course that is not my fault. This making a man +responsible for all the evil his acts, _incidentally_, without his +will, occasion, reminds me of that principle of Turkish law which +Dr. Clarke mentions, in his travels, and which they call "homicide +by an intermediate cause." The case he relates is this: A young man +in love poisoned himself, because the girl's father refused his +consent to the marriage. The Cadi sentenced the father to pay a fine +of $80, saying "if you had not had a daughter, this young man had +not loved; if he had not loved, he had never been disappointed; if +not disappointed, he would never have taken poison." It was the same +Cadi possibly, who sentenced the island of Samos to pay for the +wrecking of a vessel, on the principle that "if the island had not +been in the way, the vessel would never have been wrecked!" + +Then of taxes on imports. Buying and selling, and carrying from +country to country, is good and innocent. But government, if I trade +here, will take occasion to squeeze money out of me. Very well. I +shall deliberate whether I will cease trading, and deprive them of +the opportunity, or go on and use my wealth to reform them. 'Tis a +question of expediency, not of right, which my judgment, not my +conscience, must settle. An act of mine, innocent in itself, and +done from right motives, no after act of another's can make a sin. +To import, is rightful. After-taxation, against my consent, cannot +make it wrong. Neither am I obliged to smuggle, in order to avoid it. +I include in these remarks, all taxes, whether on property, or +imports, or railroads. + +A chemist, hundreds of years ago, finds out how to temper steel. The +art is useful for making knives, lancets, and machinery. But he +knows that the bad will abuse it by making swords and daggers. Is he +responsible? Certainly not. + +Similar to this is trading in America,--knowing government will thus +have an opportunity to increase its revenue. + +But suppose the chemist to see two men fighting, one has the other +down,--to the first our chemist presents a finely tempered dagger. + +Such is voting under the United States Constitution--appointing an +officer to help the oppressor. + +The difference between voting and tax-paying is simply this: I may do +an act right in itself, though I know some evil will result. Paul was +bound to preach the gospel to the Jews, though he knew some of them +would thereby be led to add to their sins by cursing and mobbing him. + +So I may locate property in Philadelphia, trade there, and ride on +its railroads, though I know government will, without my consent, +thereby enrich itself. Other things being equal, of course I shall +not allow it the opportunity. But the advantages and good results of +my doing so, _may be_ such as would make it my duty there to live +and trade, even subject to such an evil. + +But on the other hand, I may not do an act wrong in itself to secure +any amount of fancied good. + +Now, appointing a man by my vote to a pro-slavery office, (and such +is every one under the United States Constitution,) is wrong in +itself, and no other good deeds which such officer may do, will +justify an abolitionist in so appointing him. + +Let it not be said, that this reasoning will apply to voting--that +voting is the right of every human being, (which I grant only for +the sake of argument,) and innocent in itself. + +Voting _under our_ Constitution is appointing a man to swear to +protect, and actually to protect slavery. Now, appointing agents +generally is the right of every man, and innocent in itself, but +appointing an agent to commit a murder is sin. + +I trade, and government taxes me; do I authorize it? No. + +I vote, and the marshal whom my agent appoints, returns a slave to +South Carolina. Do I authorize it? _Yes_. I knew it would be his +_sworn duty_, when I voted; and I assented to it, by voting under +the Constitution which makes it his duty. If I trade, it is said, I +may foresee that government will be helped by the taxes I pay, +therefore I ought not to trade. But I do not trade _for the purpose_ +of paying taxes! And if I am to be charged with all the foreseen +results of my actions, then Garrison is responsible for the Boston +mob! + +The reason why I am responsible for the pro-slavery act of a United +States officer, for whom I have voted, is this: I must be supposed +to have _intended_ that which my agent is _bound_ by his contract +with me (that is, his oath of office) to do. + +Allow me to request our opposers to keep distinctly in view the +precise point in debate. This is not whether Massachusetts can +rightfully trade and make treaties with South Carolina, although she +knows that such a course will result in strengthening a wrongdoer. +Such are most of the cases which they consider parallel to ours, and +for permitting which they charge us with inconsistency. But the +question really is, whether Massachusetts can join hands and +strength with South Carolina, for the express and avowed purpose of +sustaining Slavery. This she does in the Constitution. For he who +swears to support an instrument of twelve clauses, swears to support +one as well as another,--and though one only be immoral,--still he +swears to do an immoral act. Now, my conviction is, "which fire will +not burn out of me," that to return fugitive slaves is sin--to +promise so to do, and not do it, is, if possible, baser still; and +that any conjunction of circumstances which makes either necessary, +is of the Devil, and not of God. + + +OBJECTION XIV. + +Duty requires of a non-voter to quit the country, and go where his +taxes will not help to build up slavery. + +ANSWER. God gave me my birth here. Because bad men about me +"play such tricks before high Heaven, as make the angels weep," does +it oblige me to quit? I have as good right here as they. If they +choose to leave, let them--I Shall remain. 'Twould be a pretty thing, +indeed, if, as often as I found myself next door to a bad man, who +would bring up his children to steal my apples and break my windows, +I were obliged to take the temptation away by cutting down all my +apple trees and moving my house further west, into the wilderness. +This would be, in good John Wesley's phrase, "giving up all the good +times to the devil," with a witness. + + +OBJECTION XV. + +"Society has the right to prescribe the terms, upon the expressed or +implied agreement to comply with which a person may reside within +its limits." + +ANSWER. This principle I utterly deny. All that Society has a right +to demand is peaceful submission to its exactions:--_consent_ they +have neither the power nor the right to exact or to imply. Twenty +men live on a lone island. Nineteen set up a government and say, +every man who lives there shall worship idols. The twentieth submits +to all their laws, but refuses to commit idolatry. Have they the +_right_ to say, "Do so, or quit;" or, to say, "If you stay, we +will consider you as impliedly worshipping idols?" Doubtless they +have the _power_, but the majority have no _rights_, except those +which justice sanctions. Will the objector show me the justice of +his principle? I was born here. I ask no man's permission to remain. +All that any man or body of men have a right to infer from my +staying here, is that, in doing this _innocent act_, I think, that on +the whole, I am effecting more good than harm. Lawyers say, I cannot +find this right laid down in the books. That will not trouble me. +Some old play has a character in it who never ties his neckcloth +without a warrant from Mr. Justice Overdo. I claim no relationship +to that very scrupulous individual. + + +OBJECTION XVI. + +These clauses, to which you refer, are inconsistent with the +Preamble of the Constitution, which describes it as made "to +establish justice" and "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves +and our posterity:" And as, when two clauses of the same instrument +are inconsistent, one must yield and be held void--we hold these +three clauses void. + +ANSWER. A _specific_ clause is not to be held void on account of +general terms, such as those of the preamble. It is rather to be +taken as an exception, allowed and admitted at the time, to those +general terms. + +Again. You say they are inconsistent. But the Courts and the People +do not think so. Now they, being the majority, settle the law. The +question then is, whether the law being settled,--and according to +your belief settled immorally,--you will _volunteer_ your services +to execute it and carry it into effect? This you do by becoming an +officeholder. It seems to me this question can receive but one +answer from honest men. + + +LAST OF ALL, THE OBJECTOR CRIES OUT, + +The Constitution may be _amended_, and I shall vote to have it +changed. + +ANSWER. But at present it is necessary to swear to support it +_as it is_. What the Constitution may become, a century hence, we +know not; we speak of it _as it is_, and repudiate it _as it is_. +How long may one promise to do evil, in hope some time or other to +get the power to do good? We will not brand the Constitution of the +United States as pro-slavery, after--it had ceased to be so! This +objection reminds me of Miss Martineau's story of the little boy, +who hurt himself, and sat crying on the sidewalk. "Don't cry!" said +a friend, "it won't hurt you tomorrow."--"Well then," said the child, +"I won't cry tomorrow." + +We come then, it seems to me, back to our original conclusion: that +the man who swears to support the Constitution, swears to support +the whole of it, pro-slavery clauses and all,--that he swears to +support it _as it is_, not as it hereafter may become,--that he +swears to support it in the sense given to it by the Courts and the +Nation, not as he chooses to understand it,--and that the Courts and +the Nation expect such an one in office to do his share toward the +suppression of slave, as well as other, insurrections, and to aid +the return of fugitive slaves. After an _abolitionist_ has taken +such an oath, or by his vote sent another to take it for him, I do +not see how he can look his own principles in the face. + +Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou lie? + +We who call upon the slaveholder to do right, no matter what the +consequences or the cost, are certainly bound to look well to our +own example. At least we can hardly expect to win the master to do +justice by _setting him an example of perjury_. It is almost an +insult in an abolitionist, while not willing to sacrifice even a +petty ballot for his principles, to demand of the slaveholder that +he give up wealth, home, old prejudices and social position at their +call. + + + +EXTRACTS FROM J.Q. ADAMS. + + +The benefits of the Constitution of the United States, were the +restoration of credit and reputation, to the country--the revival of +commerce, navigation, and ship building--the acquisition of the +means of discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection +and encouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the +country. All this, however, as is now well ascertained, was +insufficient to propitiate the rulers of the Southern States to +the adoption of the Constitution. What they specially wanted was +_protection_. Protection from the powerful and savage tribes of +Indians within their borders, and who were harassing them with the +most terrible of wars--and protection from their own +negroes--protection from their insurrections--protection from their +escape--protection even to the trade by which they were brought into +this country--protection, shall I not blush to say, protection to +the very bondage by which they were held. Yes! it cannot be +denied--the slaveholding lords of the South prescribed, as a +condition of their assent to the Constitution, three special +provisions to secure the perpetuity of their dominion over their +slaves. The first was the immunity for twenty years of preserving +the African slave-trade; the second was the stipulation to surrender +fugitive slaves--an engagement positively prohibited by the laws of +God, delivered from Sinai; and thirdly, the exaction, fatal to the +principles of popular representation, of a representation for +slaves--for articles of merchandise, under the name of persons. + +In outward show, it is a representation of persons in bondage; in +fact, it is a representation of their masters,--the oppressor +representing the oppressed.--Is it in the compass of human +imagination to devise a more perfect exemplification of the art of +committing the lamb to the tender custody of the wolf?--The +representative is thus constituted, not the friend, agent and trustee +of the person whom he represents, but the most inveterate of his foes. +To call government thus constituted a democracy, is to insult the +understanding of mankind. It is doubly tainted with the infection of +riches and of slavery. _There is no name in the language of national +jurisprudence that can define it_--no model in the records of +ancient history, or in the political theories of Aristotle, with +which it can be likened. Here is one class of men, consisting of not +more than one-fortieth part of the whole people, not more than +one-thirtieth part of the free population, exclusively devoted to +their personal interests identified with their own as slaveholders +of the same associated wealth, and wielding by their votes, upon +every question of government or of public policy, two-fifths of the +whole power of the House. In the Senate of the Union, the proportion +of the slaveholding power is yet greater. Its operation upon the +government of the nation is, to establish an artificial majority in +the slave representation over that of the free people, in the +American Congress, and thereby to make the PRESERVATION, PROPAGATION, +AND PERPETUATION OF SLAVERY THE VITAL AND ANIMATING SPIRIT OF THE +NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.--The result is seen in the fact that, at this +day, the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, +the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and five out of nine of +the Judges of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the United States, are +not only citizens of slaveholding States, but individual slaveholders +themselves. So are, and constantly have been, with scarcely an +exception, all the members of both Houses of Congress from the +slaveholding States; and so are, in immensely disproportionate +numbers, the commanding officers of the army and navy; the officers +of the customs; the registers and receivers of the land offices, and +the post-masters throughout the slaveholding States. + +Fellow-citizens,--with a body of men thus composed, for legislators +and executors of the laws, what will, what must be, what has been +your legislation? The numbers of freemen constituting your nation +are much greater than those of the slaveholding States, bond and free. +You have at least three-fifths of the whole population of the Union. +Your influence on the legislation and the administration of the +Government ought to be in the proportion of three to two. But how +stands the fact? Besides the legitimate portion of influence +exercised by the slaveholding States by the measure of their numbers, +here is an intrusive influence in every department, by a +representation, nominally of persons, but really of property, +ostensibly of slaves, but effectively of their masters, overbalancing +your superiority of numbers, adding two-fifths of supplementary +power to the two-fifths fairly secured to them by the compact, +CONTROLLING AND OVERRULING THE WHOLE ACTION OF YOUR GOVERNMENT AND +HOME AND ABROAD, and warping it to the sordid private interest and +oppressive policy of 300,000 owners of slaves. + +In the Articles of Confederation, there was no guaranty for the +property of the slaveholder--no double representation of him in the +Federal councils--no power of taxation--no stipulation for the +recovery of fugitive slaves. But when the powers of _government_ came +to be delegated to the Union, the South--that is, South Carolina and +Georgia--refused their subscription to the parchment, till it should +be saturated with the infection of slavery, which no fumigation +could purify, no quarantine could extinguish. The freemen of the +North gave way, and the deadly venom of slavery was infused into the +Constitution of freedom. Its first consequence has been to invert +the first principle of Democracy, that the will of the majority +shall rule the land. By means of the double representation, the +minority command the whole, and a KNOT OF SLAVEHOLDERS GIVE THE LAW +AND PRESCRIBE THE POLICY OF THE COUNTRY. + + + +THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. + + ADDRESS TO THE FRIENDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY, + ON THE VIOLATION BY THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES + OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION AT THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE + OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. + + +NEW YORK: +PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, +NO. 143 NASSAU STREET. + +1840. + +This No. contains 1 sheet.--Postage, under 100 miles, 1-1/2 ct. +over 100, 2-1/2 cts. Please Read and circulate. + + +ADDRESS. + + TO THE FRIENDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY:-- + +There was a time, fellow citizens, when the above address would have +included the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. But, alas! the freedom of +the press, freedom of speech, and the right of petition, are now +hated and dreaded by our Southern citizens, as hostile to the +perpetuity of human bondage; while, by their political influence in +the Federal Government, they have induced numbers at the North to +unite with them in their sacrilegious crusade against these +inestimable privileges. + +On the 28th January last, the House of Representatives, on motion of +Mr. Johnson, from Maryland, made it a standing RULE of the House +that "no petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper, praying the +abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any State or +Territory of the United States, in which it now exists, SHALL BE +RECEIVED BY THE HOUSE, OR ENTERTAINED IN ANY WAY WHATEVER." + +Thus has the RIGHT OF PETITION been immolated in the very Temple of +Liberty, and offered up, a propitiatory sacrifice to the demon of +slavery. Never before has an outrage so unblushingly profligate been +perpetrated upon the Federal Constitution. Yet, while we mourn the +degeneracy which this transaction evinces, we behold, in its +attending circumstances, joyful omens of the triumph which awaits +our struggle with the hateful power that now perverts the General +Government into an engine of cruelty and loathsome oppression. + +Before we congratulate you on these omens, let us recall to your +recollection the steps by which the enemies of human rights have +advanced to their present rash and insolent defiance of moral and +constitutional obligation. + +In 1831, a newspaper was established in Boston, for the purpose of +disseminating facts and arguments in favor of the duty and policy of +immediate emancipation. The Legislature of Georgia, with all the +recklessness of despotism, passed a law, offering a reward of $5000, +for the abduction of the Editor, and his delivery in Georgia. As +there was no law, by which a citizen of Massachusetts could be tried +in Georgia, for expressing his opinions in the capital of his own +State, this reward was intended as the price of BLOOD. Do you start +at the suggestion? Remember the several sums of $25,000, of $50,000, +and of $100,000, offered in Southern papers for kidnapping certain +abolitionists. Remember the horrible inflictions by Southern Lynch +clubs. Remember the declaration, in the United States Senate, by the +brazen-fronted Preston, that, should an abolitionist be caught in +Carolina, he would be HANGED. But, as the Slaveholders could not +destroy the lives of the Abolitionists, they determined to murder +their characters. Hence, the President of the United States was +induced, in his Message of 1835, to Congress, to charge them with +plotting the massacre of the Southern planters; and even to stultify +himself, by affirming that, for this purpose, they were engaged in +sending, by _mail_, inflammatory appeals to the _slaves_--sending +papers to men who could not read them, and by a conveyance through +which they could not receive them! He well knew that the papers +alluded to were appeals on the immorality of converting men, women, +and children, into beasts of burden, and were sent to the masters, +for _their_ consideration. The masters in Charleston, dreading the +moral influence of these appeals on the conscience of the +slaveholding community, forced the Post Office, and made a bonfire +of the papers. The Post Master General, with the sanction of the +President, also hastened to their relief, and, in violation of oaths, +and laws, and the constitution, established ten thousand censors of +the press, each one of whom was authorized to abstract from the mail +every paper which _he_ might think too favorable to the rights of man. + +For more than twenty years, petitions have been presented to Congress, +for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. The right +to present them, and the power of Congress to grant their prayer, +were, until recently, unquestioned. But the rapid multiplication of +these petitions alarmed the slaveholders, and, knowing that they +tended to keep alive at the North, an interest in the slave, they +deemed it good policy to discourage and, if possible, suppress all +such applications. Hence Mr. Pinckney's famous resolution, in 1836, +declaring, "that all petitions, or papers, relating _in any way, or +to any extent_ whatever to the _subject of slavery_, shall, without +being printed or referred, be laid on the table; and no further +action, whatever shall be had thereon!" + +The peculiar atrocity of this resolution was, that it not merely +trampled upon the rights of the petitioners, but took from each +member of the House his undoubted privilege, as a legislator of the +District, to introduce any proposition he might think proper, for the +protection of the slaves. In every Slave State there are laws +affording, at least, some nominal protection to these unhappy beings; +but, according to this resolution, slaves might be flayed alive in +the streets of Washington, and no representative of the people could +offer even a resolution for inquiry. And this vile outrage upon +constitutional liberty was avowedly perpetrated "to repress agitation, +to allay excitement, and re-establish harmony and tranquillity among +the various sections of the Union!!" + +But this strange opiate did not produce the stupefying effects +anticipated from it. In 1836, the petitioners were only 37,000--the +next session they numbered 110,000. Mr. Hawes, of Ky., now essayed +to restore tranquillity, by gagging the uneasy multitude; but, alas! +at the next Congress, more than 300,000 petitioners carried new +terror to the hearts of the slaveholders. The next anodyne was +prescribed by Mr. Patton, of Va., but its effect was to rouse from +their stupor some of the Northern Legislatures, and to induce them +to denounce his remedy as "a usurpation of power, a violation of the +Constitution, subversive of the fundamental principles of the +government, and at war with the prerogatives of the people."[105] It +was now supposed that the people most be drugged by a _northern_ man, +and _Atherton_ was found a fit instrument for this vile purpose; but +the dose proved only the more nauseous and exciting from the foul +hands by which it was administered. + +[Footnote 105: Resolutions of Massachusetts and Connecticut, April and +May, 1838.] + + +In these various outrages, although all action on the petitions was +prohibited, the papers themselves were received and laid on the table, +and _therefore_ it was contended, that the right of petition had +been preserved inviolate. But the slaveholders, maddened by the +failure of all their devices, and fearing the influence which the +mere sight of thousands and tens of thousands of petitions in behalf +of liberty, would exert, and, taking advantage of the approaching +presidential election to operate upon the selfishness of some +northern members, have succeeded in crushing the right of petition +itself. + +That you may be the more sensible, fellow citizens, of the exceeding +profligacy of the late RULE and of its palpable violation of both the +spirit and the letter of the Constitution, which those who voted for +it had sworn to support, suffer us to recall to your recollection a +few historical facts. + +The framers of the Federal Constitution supposed the right of +petition too firmly established in the habits and affections of the +people, to need a constitutional guarantee. Their omission to notice +it, roused the jealousy of some of the State conventions, called to +pass upon the constitution. The _Virginia_ convention proposed, +as an amendment, "that every _freeman_ has a right to petition, +or apply to the Legislature, for a redress of grievances." And this +amendment, with others, was ordered to be forwarded to the different +States, for their consideration. The Conventions of North Carolina, +New York, and Rhode Island, were held subsequently, and, of course, +had before them the Virginia amendment. The North Carolina Convention +adopted a declaration of rights, embracing the very words of the +proposed amendment; and this declaration was ordered to be submitted +to Congress, before that State would enter the Union. The Conventions +of New York and of Rhode Island incorporated in their _certificates +of ratification_, the assertion that "Every _person_ has a right to +petition or apply to the legislature for a redress of +grievances"--using the Virginia phraseology, merely substituting the +word _person_ for _freeman_, thus claiming the right of petition even +for slaves; while Virginia and North Carolina confined it to freemen. + +The first Congress, assembled under the Constitution, gave effect to +the wishes thus emphatically expressed, by proposing, as an amendment, +that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of +religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or _abridging_ +the freedom of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to +assemble, and _to petition Government_ for a redress of grievances." +This amendment was duly ratified by the States, and when members of +Congress swear to support the Constitution of the United States, +they are as much bound by their oath to refrain from abridging the +right of petition, as they are to fulfil any other constitutional +obligation. And will the slaveholders and their abettors, dare to +maintain that they have not foresworn themselves, because they have +abridged the right of the people to petition for a redress of +grievances, by a RULE of the House, and not by a _law_? If so, they +may by a RULE require every member, on taking his seat, to subscribe +the creed of a particular church, and then call their Maker to +witness that they are guiltless of making a _law_ "respecting an +establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." + +The right to petition is one thing, and the disposition of a petition +after it is received, is another. But the new rule makes no +disposition of the petitions; it PROHIBITS THEIR RECEPTION; they may +not be brought into the legislative chamber. Hundreds of thousands +of the people are debarred all access to their representatives, for +the purpose of offering them a prayer. + +It is said that the manifold abominations perpetrated in the District +are no grievances to the petitioners, and _therefore_ they have no +right to ask for their removal. But the right guaranteed by the +Constitution, is a right to ask for the redress of _grievances_, +whether personal, social, or moral. And who, except a slaveholder, +will dare to contend that it is no grievance that our agents, our +representatives, our servants, in our name and by our authority, +enact laws erecting and licensing markets in the Capital of the +Republic, for the sale of human beings, and converting free men into +slaves, for no other crime, than that of being too poor to pay +United States' officers the JAIL FEES accruing from an iniquitous +imprisonment? + +Again, it is pretended that the objects prayed for, are palpably +unconstitutional, and that _therefore_ the petitions ought not to be +received. And by what authority are the people deprived of their +right to petition for any object which a majority of either +House of Congress, for the time being, may please to regard as +unconstitutional? If this usurpation be submitted to, it will not be +confined to abolition petitions. It is well known that most of the +slaveholders _now_ insist, that all protecting duties are +unconstitutional, and that on account of the tariff the Union was +nearly rent by the very men who are now horrified by the danger to +which it is exposed by these _petitions_! Should our Northern +Manufacturers again presume to ask Congress to protect them from +foreign competition, the Southern members will find a precedent, +sanctioned by Northern votes, for a rule that "no petition, memorial, +resolution, or other paper, praying for the IMPOSITION OF DUTIES FOR +THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF MANUFACTURES, shall be received by the House, +or entertained in any way whatever." + +It does indeed, require Southern arrogance, to maintain that, +although Congress is invested by the Constitution with "exclusive +jurisdiction, in all cases whatsoever," over the District of Columbia, +yet that it would be so palpably unconstitutional to abolish the +slave-trade, and to emancipate the slaves in the District, that +petitions for these objects ought not to be received. Yet this is +asserted in that very House, on whose minutes is recorded a +resolution, in 1816, appointing a committee, with power to send for +persons and papers, "to inquire into the existence of an inhuman and +illegal traffic in slaves, carried on, in and through the District +of Columbia, and report whether any, and what means are necessary +for putting a stop to the same:" and another, in 1829, instructing +the Committee on the District of Columbia to inquire into the +expediency of providing by law, "for the gradual abolition of +slavery in the District." + +In the very first Congress assembled under the Federal Constitution, +petitions were presented, asking its interposition for the +mitigation of the evils, and final abolition of the African +slave-trade, and also praying it, as far as it possessed the power, +to take measures for the abolition of slavery. These petitions +excited the wrath and indignation of many of the slave-holding +members, yet no one thought of refusing to receive them. They were +referred to a select committee, at the instance of Mr. Madison, +himself, who "entered into a critical review of the circumstances +respecting the adoption of the Constitution, and the ideas upon the +limitation of the powers of Congress to interfere in the regulation +of the commerce of slaves, and showed that they undoubtedly were not +precluded from interposing in their importation; and generally to +regulate the mode in which every species of business shall be +transacted. He adverted to the western country, and the Cession of +Georgia, in which Congress have certainly the power to _regulate the +subject of slavery_; which shows that gentlemen are mistaken in +supposing, that Congress cannot constitutionally interfere in the +business, in any degree, whatever. He was in favor of committing the +petition, and justified the measure by repeated precedents in the +proceedings of the House."--_U.S. Gazette, 17th Feb._, 1790. + +Here we find one of the earliest and ablest expounders of the +Constitution, maintaining the power of Congress to "regulate the +subject of slavery" in the national territories, and urging the +reference of abolition petitions to a special committee. + +The committee made a report; for which, after a long debate, was +substituted a declaration, by the House, that Congress could not +abolish the slave trade prior to the year 1808, but had a right so +to regulate it as to provide for the humane treatment of the slaves +on the passage; and that Congress could not interfere in the +emancipation or treatment of slaves in the _States_. + +This declaration gave entire satisfaction, and no farther abolition +petitions were presented, till after the District of Columbia had +been placed under the "exclusive jurisdiction" of the General +Government. + +You all remember, fellow citizens, the wide-spread excitement which +a few years since prevailed on the subject of SUNDAY MAILS. Instead +of attempting to quiet the agitation, by outraging the rights of the +petitioners, Congress referred the petitions to a committee, and +made no attempt to stifle discussion. + +Why, then, we ask, with such authorities and precedents before them, +do the slaveholders in Congress, regardless of their oaths, strive to +gag the friends of freedom, under _pretence_ of allaying agitation? +Because conscience does make cowards of them all--because they know +the accursed system they are upholding will not bear the +light--because they fear, if these petitions are discussed, the +abominations of the American slave trade, the secrets of the +prison-houses in Washington and Alexandria, and the horrors of the +human shambles licensed by the authority of Congress, will be +exposed to the score and indignation of the civilized world. + +Unquestionably the late RULE surpasses, in its profligate contempt of +constitutional obligation, any act in the annals of the Federal +Government. As such it might well strike every patriot with dismay, +were it not that attending circumstances teach us that it is the +expiring effort of desperation. When we reflect on the past +subserviency of our northern representatives to the mandates of the +slaveholders, we may well raise, on the present occasion, the shout +of triumph, and hail the vote on the recent RULE as the pledge of a +glorious victory. Suffer us to recall to your recollection the +majorities by which the successive attempts to crush the right of +petition and the freedom of debate have been carried. + + +Pinckney's Gag was passed May, 1836, by a majority of 51 +Hawes's Jan. 1837, 58 +Patton's Dec. 1837, 48 +Atherton's Dec. 1838, 48 +JOHNSON's Jan. 1840, 6 + + +Surely, when we find the majority against us reduced from 58 to +6, we need no new incentive to perseverance. + +Another circumstance which marks the progress of constitutional +liberty, is the gradual diminution in the number of our northern +_serviles_. The votes from the free States in favor of the several +gags were as follows:-- + + +For Pinckney's 62 +For Hawes's 70 +For Patton's 52 +For Atherton's 49 +For JOHNSON's 28 + + +There is also another cheering fact connected with the passage of +the RULE which deserves to be noticed. Heretofore the slaveholders +have uniformly, by enforcing the previous question, imposed their +several gags by a silent vote. On the present occasion they were +twice baffled in their efforts to stifle debate, and were, for days +together, compelled to listen to speeches on a subject which they +have so often declared should not be discussed. + +A base strife for southern votes has hitherto, to no small extent, +enlisted both the political parties at the north in the service of +the slaveholders. The late unwonted independence of northern +politicians, and the deference paid by them to the wishes of their +own constituents, in preference to those of their southern colleagues, +indicates the advance of public opinion. No less than 49 northern +members of the administration party voted for the Atherton gag, +while only 27 dared to record their names in favor of Johnson's; and +of the representation of SIX States, _every vote_ was given _against_ +the rule, without distinction of party. The tone in which opposite +political journals denounce the late outrage may warn the +slaveholders that they will not much longer hold the north in bonds. +The leading administration paper in the city of New York regards the +RULE with "utter abhorrence;" while the official paper of the +opposition, edited by the state printer, trusts that the names of +the recreant northerners who voted for it may be "handed down to +eternal infamy and execration." + +The advocates of abolition are no longer consigned to unmitigated +contempt and obloquy. Passing by the various living illustrations of +our remark, we appeal for our proofs to the dead. The late WILLIAM +LEGGETT, the editor of a Democratic Journal in the city of New York, +was denounced, in 1835, by the "Democratic Republican General +Committee," for his abolition doctrines. Far from faltering in his +course, on account of the censure of his own party, he exclaimed, +with a presentiment almost amounting to prophecy, "The stream of +public opinion now sets against us, but it is about to turn, and the +regurgitation will be tremendous. Proud in that day may well be the +man who can float in triumph on the first refluent wave, swept +onward by the deluge which he himself, in advance of his fellows, +had largely shared in occasioning. Such be my fate; and, living or +dying, it will in some measure be mine. I have written my name in +ineffaceable letters on the abolition record." And he did live to +behold the first swelling of the refluent wave. The denounced +abolitionist was honored by a democratic President with a diplomatic +mission; and since his death, the resolution condemning him has been +EXPUNGED from the minutes of the democratic committee. + +Of the many victims of the recent awful calamity in our waters, what +name has been most frequently uttered by the pulpit and the press in +the accents of lamentation and panegyric? On whose tomb have freedom, +philanthropy, and letters been invoked to strew their funeral wreaths? +All who have heard of the loss of the Lexington are familiar with +the name of CHARLES FOLLEN. And who was he? One of the men +officially denounced by President Jackson as a gang of miscreants, +plotting insurrection and murder--and, recently, a member of the +Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society. + +Let us then, fellow citizens, in view of all these things, thank God +and take courage. We are now contending, not merely for the +emancipation of our unhappy fellow men, kept in bondage under the +authority of our own representatives--not merely for the overthrow +of the human shambles erected by Congress on the national +domain--but also for the preservation of those great constitutional +rights which were acquired by our fathers, and are now assailed by +the slaveholders and their northern auxiliaries. That you may +remember these auxiliaries and avoid giving them new opportunities +of betraying your rights, we annex a list of their dishonored names. + +The following twenty-eight members from the Free States voted in the +affirmative on the recent GAG RULE. + + + MAINE. + + Virgil D. Parris + Albert Smith + + NEW HAMPSHIRE. + + Charles G. Atherton + Edmund Burke + Ira A. Eastman + Tristram Shaw + + NEW YORK. + + Nehemiah H. Earle + John Fine + Nathaniel Jones + Governeur Kemble + James de la Montayne + John H. Prentiss + Theron R. Strong + + PENNSYLVANIA. + + John Davis + Joseph Fornance + James Gerry + George M'Cullough + David Petriken + William S. Ramsey + + OHIO. + + D.P. Leadbetter + William Medill + Isaac Parrish + George Sweeney + Jonathan Taylor + John B. Weller + + INDIANA. + + John Davis + George H. Proffit + + ILLINOIS. + + John Reynolds. + + +Let us turn to our more immediate representatives, and we trust more +faithful servants. Our State Legislatures will not refuse to hear +our prayers. Let us petition them immediately to rebuke the treason +by which the Constitution has been surrendered into the hands of the +slaveholders--let us implore them to demand from Congress, in the +name of the free States, that they shall neither destroy nor abridge +the right of petition--a right without which our government would be +converted into a despotism. + +We call on you, fellow citizens of every religious faith and party +name, to unite with us in guarding the citadel of our country's +freedom. If there are any who will not co-operate with us in +laboring for the emancipation of the slave, surely there are none +who will stand aloof from us while contending for the liberty of +themselves, their children, and their children's children. + +To the rescue, then, fellow citizens! and, trusting in HIM without +whom all human effort is weakness, let us not doubt that our faithful +endeavors to preserve the rights HE has given us will, through HIS +blessing, be crowned with success. + + + ARTHUR TAPPAN, + JAMES G. BIRNEY, + JOSHUA LEAVITT, + LEWIS TAPPAN, + SAMUEL E. CORNISH, + SIMEON S. JOCELYN, + LA ROY SUNDERLAND, + THEODORE S. WRIGHT, + DUNCAN DUNBAR, + JAMES S. GIBBONS, + HENRY B. STANTON + + _Executive Committee + of the + American + Anti-Slavery Society_. + + + + +_New York, February_ 13, 1840. + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Part 4 of 4 +by American Anti-Slavery Society + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 11274 *** diff --git a/11274-h/11274-h.htm b/11274-h/11274-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1b3b4f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/11274-h/11274-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,9060 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> +<html> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" +content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> +<title>THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER, Part 4 of 4</title> +<STYLE TYPE="text/css">.centered {text-align: center;}</STYLE> +<style type="text/css"> + <!-- + * { font-family: Times;} + P { margin-top: .75em; + font-size: 12pt; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; } + HR { width: 33%; } + PRE { font-family: Courier, monospaced; } + + // --> +</style> +</head> +<body> +<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 11274 ***</div> + +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h1 class="maintitle">THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER Part 4 of 4</h1> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p>By The American Anti-Slavery Society 1839</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<div class="contents"> +<ol> +<li><a href="#AE12" class="ref">No. 12. Chattel Principle The Abhorrence of Jesus Christ and the Apostles; Or No Refuge for American Slavery in the New Testament.</a></li> +<li><a href="#AE13cond" class="ref">On the Condition of the Free People of Color in the United States.</a></li> +<li><a href="#AE13vote" class="ref">No. 13. Can Abolitionists Vote or Take Office Under the United States Constitution?</a></li> +<li><a href="#AE_addr" class="ref">Address to the Friends of Constitutional Liberty, on the Violation by the United States House of Representatives of the Right of Petition at the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society.</a></li> +</ol> +</div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h1 class="centered"> +<a name="AE12"></a> +No. 12. +<br> +ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. +<br> +<br> +CHATTEL PRINCIPLE +<br> +<br> +THE ABHORRENCE OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES; OR, +<br> +NO REFUGE FOR AMERICAN SLAVERY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. +<br> +</h1> +<p class="centered"> +<b>BY BERIAH GREEN. </b> +</p> +<p class="centered"> +NEW YORK +</p> +<p class="centered"> +PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, +<br> +NO. 143 NASSAU STREET +</p> +<p class="centered"> +1839 +</p> +<p> +This No. contains 4-1/2 sheet—Postage under 100 miles, 7 cts. over +100, 10 cts. +</p> +<p> +Please Read and circulate. +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +THE NEW TESTAMENT AGAINST SLAVERY. +</h2> +<blockquote> +<p> +"THE SON OF MAN IS COME TO SEEK AND TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST." +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? In 1776 THOMAS +JEFFERSON, supported by a noble band of patriots and surrounded by +the American people, opened his lips in the authoritative declaration: +"We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are +created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain +inalienable rights; that among these are life, LIBERTY, and the +pursuit of happiness." And from the inmost heart of the multitudes +around, and in a strong and clear voice, broke forth the unanimous +and decisive answer: Amen—such truths we do indeed hold to be +self-evident. And animated and sustained by a declaration, so +inspiring and sublime, they rushed to arms, and as the result of +agonizing efforts and dreadful sufferings, achieved under God the +independence of their country. The great truth, whence they derived +light and strength to assert and defend their rights, they made the +foundation of their republic. And in the midst of this republic, +must we prove, that He, who was the Truth, did not contradict +"the truths" which He Himself; as their Creator, had made +self-evident to mankind? +</p> +<p> +Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? What, according to +those laws which make it what it is, is American slavery? In the +Statute-book of South Carolina thus it is written:[<a name="rnote12-1"></a><a href="#note12-1">1</a>] "Slaves shall +be deemed, held, taken, reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels +personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their +executors, administrators and assigns, to all intents, construction +and purposes whatever." The very root of American slavery consists +in the assumption, that law has reduced men to chattels. But this +assumption is, and must be, a gross falsehood. Men and cattle are +separated from each other by the Creator, immutably, eternally, and +by an impassable gulf. To confound or identify men and cattle must +be to lie most wantonly, impudently, and maliciously. And must we +prove, that Jesus Christ is not in favor of palpable, monstrous +falsehood? +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-1"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-1">1</a>: Stroud's Slave Laws, p. 23.] +</p> +<p> +Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? How can a system, +built upon a stout and impudent denial of self-evident truth—a +system of treating men like cattle—operate? Thomas Jefferson shall +answer. Hear him. "The whole commerce between master and slave is a +perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most +unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on +the other. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the +lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller +slaves, gives loose to his worst passions, and thus nursed, educated, +and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with +odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy, who can retain his +manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances."[<a name="rnote12-2"></a><a href="#note12-2">2</a>] Such is the +practical operation of a system, which puts men and cattle into the +same family and treats them alike. And must we prove, that Jesus +Christ is not in favor of a school where the worst vices in their +most hateful forms are systematically and efficiently taught and +practiced? Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? What, in +1818, did the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church affirm +respecting its nature and operation? "Slavery creates a paradox in +the moral system—it exhibits rational, accountable, and immortal +beings, in such circumstances as scarcely to leave them the power of +moral action. It exhibits them as dependent on the will of others, +whether they shall receive religious instruction; whether they shall +know and worship the true God; whether they shall enjoy the +ordinances of the gospel; whether they shall perform the duties and +cherish the endearments of husbands and wives, parents and children, +neighbors and friends; whether they shall preserve their chastity +and purity, or regard the dictates of justice and humanity. Such are +some of the consequences of slavery; consequences not imaginary, but +which connect themselves with its very existence. The evils to which +the slave is <i>always</i> exposed, <i>often take place</i> in their very +worst degree and form; and where all of them do not take place, +still the slave is deprived of his natural rights, degraded as a +human being, and exposed to the danger of passing into the hands of +a master who may inflict upon him all the hardship and injuries +which inhumanity and avarice may suggest."[<a name="rnote12-3"></a><a href="#note12-3">3</a>] Must we prove, that +Jesus Christ is not in favor of such things? +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-2"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-2">2</a>: Notes on Virginia, Boston Ed. 1832, pp. 169, 170.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-3"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-3">3</a>: Minutes of the General assembly for 1818, p. 29.] +</p> +<p> +Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? It is already widely +felt and openly acknowledged at the South, that they cannot support +slavery without sustaining the opposition of universal Christendom. +And Thomas Jefferson declared, "I tremble for my country when I +reflect that God is just; that his justice can not sleep forever; +that considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a +revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is +among possible events; that it may become practicable by +supernatural influences! The Almighty has no attribute which can +take sides with us in such a contest."[<a name="rnote12-4"></a><a href="#note12-4">4</a>] And must we prove, that +Jesus Christ is not in favor of what universal Christendom is +impelled to abhor, denounce, and oppose; is not in favor of what +every attribute of Almighty God is armed against? +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-4"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-4">4</a>: Notes on Virginia, Boston Ed. 1832, pp. 170, 171.] +</p> +<p class="centered"> +"YE HAVE DESPISED THE POOR." +</p> +<p> +It is no man of straw, with whom, in making out such proof, we are +called to contend. Would to God we had no other antagonist! Would to +God that our labor of love could be regarded as a work of +supererogation! But we may well be ashamed and grieved to find it +necessary to "stop the mouths" of grave and learned ecclesiastics, +who from the heights of Zion have undertaken to defend the +institution of slavery. We speak not now of those, who amidst the +monuments of oppression are engaged in the sacred vocation; who, as +ministers of the Gospel, can "prophesy smooth things" to such as +pollute the altar of Jehovah with human sacrifices; nay, who +themselves bind the victim and kindle the sacrifice. That they +should put their Savior to the torture, to wring from his lips +something in favor of slavery, is not to be wondered at. They +consent to the murder of the children; can they respect the rights +of the Father? But what shall we say of distinguished theologians of +the north—professors of sacred literature at our oldest divinity +schools—who stand up to defend, both by argument and authority, +southern slavery! And from the Bible! Who, Balaam-like, try a +thousand expedients to force from the mouth of Jehovah a sentence +which they know the heart of Jehovah abhors! Surely we have here +something more mischievous and formidable than a man of straw. More +than two years ago, and just before the meeting of the General +Assembly of the Presbyterian church, appeared an article in the +Biblical Repertory,[<a name="rnote12-5"></a><a href="#note12-5">5</a>] understood to be from the pen of the +Professor of Sacred Literature at Princeton, in which an effort is +made to show, that slavery, whatever may be said of any abuses of +it, is not a violation of the precepts of the Gospel. This article, +we are informed, was industriously and extensively distributed among +the members of the General Assembly—a body of men, who by a +frightful majority seemed already too much disposed to wink at the +horrors of slavery. The effect of the Princeton Apology on the +southern mind, we have high authority for saying, has been most +decisive and injurious. It has contributed greatly to turn the +public eye off from the sin—from the inherent and necessary evils +of slavery to incidental evils, which the abuse of it might be +expected to occasion. And how few can be brought to admit, that +whatever abuses may prevail nobody knows where or how, any such +thing is chargeable upon them! Thus our Princeton prophet has done +what he could to lay the southern conscience asleep upon ingenious +perversions of the sacred volume! +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-5"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-5">5</a>: For April, 1836. The General Assembly of the +Presbyterian Church met in the following May, at Pittsburgh, where, +in pamphlet form, this article was distributed. The following +appeared upon the title page: +<br> +PITTSBURGH: +<br> +1836. +<br> +<i>For gratuitous distribution.</i> +<br> +] +</p> +<p> +About a year after this, an effort in the same direction was jointly +made by Dr. Fisk and Professor Stuart. In a letter to a Methodist +clergyman, Mr. Merrit, published in Zion's Herald, Dr. Fisk gives +utterance to such things as the following:— +</p> +<p> +"But that you and the public may see and feel, that you have the +ablest and those who are among the honestest men of this age, +arrayed against you, be pleased to notice the following letter from +Prof. Stuart. I wrote to him, knowing as I did his integrity of +purpose, his unflinching regard for truth, as well as his deserved +reputation as a scholar and biblical critic, proposing the following +questions:—" +</p> +<p> +1. Does the New Testament directly or indirectly teach, that slavery +existed in the primitive church? +</p> +<p> +2. In 1 Tim. vi. 2, And they that have believing masters, &c., what +is the relation expressed or implied between "they" (servants) and +"believing masters?" And what are your reasons for the construction +of the passage? +</p> +<p> +3. What was the character of ancient and eastern slavery?— +Especially what (legal) power did this relation give the master over +the slave? +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +PROFESSOR STUART'S REPLY. +</h2> + +<blockquote> +<p> +ANDOVER, 10th Apr., 1837 +</p> + +<p> +REV. AND DEAR SIR,—Yours is before me. A sickness of three +month's standing (typhus fever) in which I have just escaped death, +and which still confines me to my house, renders it impossible for me +to answer your letter at large. +</p> +<p> +1. The precepts of the New Testament respecting the demeanor of +slaves and of their masters, beyond all question, recognize the +existence of slavery. The masters are in part "believing masters," so +that a precept to them, how they are to behave as masters, +recognizes that the relation may still exist, <i>salva fide et salva +ecclesia</i>, ("without violating the Christian faith or the church.") +Otherwise, Paul had nothing to do but to cut the band asunder at once. +He could not lawfully and properly temporize with a <i>malum in se</i>, +("that which is in itself sin.") +</p> +<p> +If any one doubts, let him take the case of Paul's sending Onesimus +back to Philemon, with an apology for his running away, and sending +him back to be his servant for life. The relation did exist, may +exist. The <i>abuse</i> of it is the essential and fundamental wrong. +Not that the theory of slavery is in itself right. No; "Love thy +neighbor as thyself," "Do unto others that which ye would that others +should do unto you," decide against this. But the relation once +constituted and continued, is not such a <i>malum in se</i> as calls +for immediate and violent disruption at all hazards. So Paul did not +counsel. +</p> +<p> +2. 1 Tim. vi. 2, expresses the sentiment, that slaves, who are +Christians and have Christian masters, are not, on that account, and +because <i>as Christians they are brethren</i>, to forego the reverence +due to them as masters. That is, the relation of master and slave +is not, as a matter of course, abrogated between all Christians. Nay, +servants should in such a case, <i>a fortiori</i>, do their duty +cheerfully. This sentiment lies on the very face of the case. What +the master's duty in such a case may be in respect to <i>liberation</i>, +is another question, and one which the apostle does not here treat of. +</p> +<p> +3. Every one knows, who is acquainted with Greek or Latin antiquities, +that slavery among heathen nations has ever been more unqualified +and at looser ends than among Christian nations. Slaves were +<i>property</i> in Greece and Rome. That decides all questions about +their <i>relation</i>. Their treatment depended, as it does now, on the +temper of their masters. The power of the master over the slave was, +for a long time, that of <i>life and death</i>. Horrible cruelties at +length mitigated it. In the apostle's day, it was at least as great +as among us. +</p> +<p> +After all the spouting and vehemence on this subject, which have been +exhibited, the <i>good old Book</i> remains the same. Paul's conduct +and advice are still safe guides. Paul knew well that Christianity +would ultimately destroy slavery, as it certainly will. He knew, +too, that it would destroy monarchy and aristocracy from the earth: +for it is fundamentally a doctrine of <i>true liberty and equality</i>. +Yet Paul did not expect slavery or anarchy to be ousted in a day; and +gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor <i>ad interim</i>. +</p> +<p class="center"> +With sincere and paternal regard, +</p> +<p class="center"> +Your friend and brother, +</p> +<p class="center"> +M. STUART. +</p> +</blockquote> +<blockquote> +<p> +—This, sir, is doctrine that will stand, because it is <i>Bible +doctrine</i>. The abolitionists, then, are on a wrong course. They have +traveled out of the record; and if they would succeed, they must +take a different position, and approach the subject in a different +manner. +</p> +<p class="center"> +Respectfully yours, +</p> +<p class="center"> +W. FISK" +</p> +</blockquote> +<h2 class="centered"> + "SO THEY WRAP [SNARL] IT UP." +</h2> +<p> +What are we taught here? That in the ecclesiastical organizations +which grew up under the hands of the apostles, slavery was admitted +as a relation that did not violate the Christian faith; that the +relation may now in like manner exist; that "the abuse of it is the +essential and fundamental wrong;" and of course, that American +Christians may hold their own brethren in slavery without incurring +guilt or inflicting injury. Thus, according to Prof. Stuart, Jesus +Christ has not a word to say against "the peculiar institutions" of +the South. If our brethren there do not "abuse" the privilege of +enacting unpaid labor, they may multiply their slaves to their +hearts' content, without exposing themselves to the frown of the +Savior or laying their Christian character open to the least +suspicion. Could any trafficker in human flesh ask for greater +latitude! And to such doctrines, Dr. Fisk eagerly and earnestly +subscribes. He goes further. He urges it on the attention of his +brethren, as containing important truth, which they ought to embrace. +According to him, it is "<i>Bible doctrine</i>," showing, that "the +abolitionists are on a wrong course," and must, "if they would +succeed, take a different position." +</p> +<p> +We now refer to such distinguished names, to show, that in attempting +to prove that Jesus Christ is not in favor of American slavery, we +contend with something else than a man of straw. The ungrateful task, +which a particular examination of Professor Stuart's letter lays +upon us, we hope fairly to dispose of in due season. Enough has now +been said to make it clear and certain, that American slavery has its +apologists and advocates in the northern pulpit; advocates and +apologists, who fall behind few if any of their brethren in the +reputation they have acquired, the stations they occupy, and the +general influence they are supposed to exert. +</p> +<p> +Is it so? Did slavery exist in Judea, and among the Jews, in its +worst form, during the Savior's incarnation? If the Jews held slaves, +they must have done in open and flagrant violation of the letter and +the spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Whoever has any doubts of +this may well resolve his doubts in the light of the Argument +entitled "The Bible against Slavery." If, after a careful and +thorough examination of that article, he can believe that +slaveholding prevailed during the ministry of Jesus Christ among the +Jews and in accordance with the authority of Moses, he would do the +reading public an important service to record the grounds of his +belief—especially in a fair and full refutation of that Argument. +Till that is done, we hold ourselves excused from attempting to +prove what we now repeat, that if the Jews during our Savior's +incarnation held slaves, they must have done so in open and flagrant +violation of the letter and spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Could +Christ and the Apostles every where among their countrymen come in +contact with slaveholding, being as it was a gross violation of that +law which their office and their profession required them to honor +and enforce, without exposing and condemning it? +</p> +<p> +In its worst forms, we are told, slavery prevailed over the whole +world, not excepting Judea. As, according to such ecclesiastics as +Stuart, Hodge and Fisk, slavery in itself is not bad at all, the term +"<i>worst</i>" could be applied only to "<i>abuses</i>" of this innocent +relation. Slavery accordingly existed among the Jews, disfigured and +disgraced by the "worst abuses" to which it is liable. These abuses +in the ancient world, Professor Stuart describes as "horrible +cruelties." And in our own country, such abuses have grown so rank, +as to lead a distinguished eye-witness—no less a philosopher and +statesman than Thomas Jefferson—to say, that they had armed against +us every attribute of the Almighty. With these things the Savior +every where came in contact, among the people to whose improvement +and salvation he devoted his living powers, and yet not a word, not +a syllable, in exposure and condemnation of such "horrible cruelties" +escaped his lips! He saw—among the "covenant people" of Jehovah he +saw, the babe plucked from the bosom of its mother; the wife torn +from the embrace of her husband; the daughter driven to the market +by the scourge of her own father;—he saw the word of God sealed up +from those who, of all men, were especially entitled to its +enlightening, quickening influence;—nay, he saw men beaten for +kneeling before the throne of heavenly mercy;—such things he saw +without a word of admonition or reproof! No sympathy with them who +suffered wrong—no indignation at them who inflicted wrong, moved +his heart! +</p> +<p> +From the alleged silence of the Savior, when in contact with slavery +among the Jews, our divines infer, that it is quite consistent with +Christianity. And they affirm, that he saw it in its worst forms; +that is, he witnessed what Professor Stuart ventures to call +"horrible cruelties." But what right have these interpreters of the +sacred volume to regard any form of slavery which the Savior found, +as "worst," or even bad? According to their inference—which they +would thrust gag-wise into the mouths of abolitionists—his silence +should seal up their lips. They ought to hold their tongues. They +have no right to call any form of slavery bad—an abuse; much less, +horribly cruel! Their inference is broad enough to protect the most +brutal driver amidst his deadliest inflictions! +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS; +<br> +I AM NOT COME TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFIL." +</h2> +<p> +And did the Head of the new dispensation, then, fall so far behind +the prophets of the old in a hearty and effective regard for +suffering humanity? The forms of oppression which they witnessed, +excited their compassion and aroused their indignation. In terms the +most pointed and powerful, they exposed, denounced, threatened. They +could not endure the creatures, "who used their neighbors' service +without wages, and gave him not for his work;"[<a name="rnote12-6"></a><a href="#note12-6">6</a>] who imposed +"heavy burdens"[<a name="rnote12-7"></a><a href="#note12-7">7</a>] upon their fellows, and loaded them with +"the bands of wickedness;" who, "hiding themselves from their own +flesh," disowned their own mothers' children. Professions of piety +joined with the oppression of the poor, they held up to universal +scorn and execration, as the dregs of hypocrisy. They warned the +creature of such professions, that he could escape the wrath of +Jehovah only by heart-felt repentance. And yet, according to the +ecclesiastics with whom we have to do, the Lord of these prophets +passed by in silence just such enormities as he commanded them to +expose and denounce! Every where, he came in contact with slavery in +its worst forms—"horrible cruelties" forced themselves upon his +notice; but not a word of rebuke or warning did he utter. He saw +"a boy given for a harlot, and a girl sold for wine, that they might +drink,"[<a name="rnote12-8"></a><a href="#note12-8">8</a>] without the slightest feeling of displeasure, or any mark +of disapprobation! To such disgusting and horrible conclusions, do +the arguings which, from the haunts of sacred literature, are +inflicted on our churches, lead us! According to them, Jesus Christ, +instead of shining as the light of the world, extinguished the +torches which his own prophets had kindled, and plunged mankind into +the palpable darkness of a starless midnight! O savior, in pity to +thy suffering people, let thy temple be no longer used as a +"den of thieves!" +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-6"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-6">6</a>: Jeremiah, xxii. 13.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-7"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-7">7</a>: Isaiah, lviii. 6, 7.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-8"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-8">8</a>: Joel, iii. 3.] +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"THOU THOUGHTEST THAT I WAS ALTOGETHER SUCH AN ONE AS THYSELF." +</h2> +<p> +In passing by the worst forms of slavery, with which he every where +came in contact among the Jews, the Savior must have been +inconsistent with himself. He was commissioned to preach glad +tidings to the poor; to heal the broken-hearted; to preach +deliverance to the captives; to set at liberty them that are bruised; +to preach the year of Jubilee. In accordance with this commission, +he bound himself, from the earliest date of his incarnation, to the +poor, by the strongest ties; himself "had not where to lay his head;" +he exposed himself to misrepresentation and abuse for his +affectionate intercourse with the outcasts of society; he stood up +as the advocate of the widow, denouncing and dooming the heartless +ecclesiastics, who had made her bereavement a source of gain; and in +describing the scenes of the final judgment, he selected the very +personification of poverty, disease and oppression, as the test by +which our regard for him should be determined. To the poor and +wretched; to the degraded and despised, his arms were ever open. +They had his tenderest sympathies. They had his warmest love. His +heart's blood he poured out upon the ground for the human family, +reduced to the deepest degradation, and exposed to the heaviest +inflictions, as the slaves of the grand usurper. And yet, according +to our ecclesiastics, that class of sufferers who had been reduced +immeasurably below every other shape and form of degradation and +distress; who had been most rudely thrust out of the family of Adam, +and forced to herd with swine; who, without the slightest offence, +had been made the footstool of the worst criminals; whose "tears +were their meat night and day," while, under nameless insults and +killing injuries they were continually crying, O Lord, O Lord:—this +class of sufferers, and this alone, our biblical expositors, +occupying the high places of sacred literature, would make us +believe the compassionate Savior coldly overlooked. Not an emotion +of pity; not a look of sympathy; not a word of consolation, did his +gracious heart prompt him to bestow upon them! He denounces +damnation upon the devourer of the widow's house. But the monster, +whose trade it is to make widows and devour them and their babes, he +can calmly endure! O Savior, when wilt thou stop the mouths of such +blasphemers! +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH." +</h2> +<p> +It seems that though, according to our Princeton professor, +"the subject" of slavery "is hardly alluded to by Christ in any +of his personal instructions,"[<a name="rnote12-9"></a><a href="#note12-9">9</a>] he had a way of "treating it." +What was that? Why, "he taught the true nature, DIGNITY, EQUALITY, +and destiny of men," and "inculcated the principles of justice and +love."[<a name="rnote12-10"></a><a href="#note12-10">10</a>] And according to Professor Stuart, the maxims which our +Savior furnished, "decide against" "the theory of slavery." All, then, +that these ecclesiastical apologists for slavery can make of the +Savior's alleged silence is, that he did not, in his personal +instructions, "<i>apply his own principles to this particular form of +wickedness</i>." For wicked that must be, which the maxims of the +Savior decide against, and which our Princeton professor assures +us the principles of the gospel, duly acted on, would speedily +extinguish.[<a name="rnote12-11"></a><a href="#note12-11">11</a>] How remarkable it is, that a teacher should +"hardly allude to a subject in any of his personal instructions," +and yet inculcate principles which have a direct and vital bearing +upon it!—should so conduct, as to justify the inference, that +"slaveholding is not a crime,"[<a name="rnote12-12"></a><a href="#note12-12">12</a>] and at the same time lend its +authority for its "speedy extinction!" +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-9"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-9">9</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, (already alluded to,) p. 9.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-10"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-10">10</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-11"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-11">11</a>: The same, p. 34.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-12"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-12">12</a>: The same, p. 13.] +</p> +<p> +Higher authority than sustains +<i>self-evident truths</i> there cannot be. As forms of reason, they are +rays from the face of Jehovah. Not only are their presence and power +self-manifested, but they also shed a strong and clear light around +them. In their light, other truths are visible. Luminaries themselves, +it is their office to enlighten. To their authority, in every department +of thought, the same mind bows promptly, gratefully, fully. And by their +authority, he explains, proves, and disposes of whatever engages his +attention and engrosses his powers as a reasonable and reasoning +creature. For what, when thus employed and when most successful, is +the utmost he can accomplish? Why, to make the conclusions which he +would establish and commend, <i>clear in the light of reason</i>;—in +other words, to evince that <i>they are reasonable</i>. He expects that +those with whom he has to do will acknowledge the authority of +principle—will see whatever is exhibited in the light of reason. If +they require him to go further, and, in order to convince them, to +do something more than show that the doctrines he maintains, and the +methods he proposes, are accordant with reason—are illustrated and +supported with "self-evident truths"—they are plainly "beside +themselves." They have lost the use of reason. They are not to be +argued with. They belong to the mad-house. +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"COME NOW, LET US REASON TOGETHER, SAITH THE LORD." +</h2> +<p> +Are we to honor the Bible, which Professor Stuart quaintly calls +"the good old book," by turning away from "self-evident truths" to +receive its instructions? Can these truths be contradicted or denied +there? Do we search for something there to obscure their clearness, +or break their force, or reduce their authority? Do we long to find +something there, in the form of premises or conclusions, of arguing +or of inference, in broad statement or blind hints, creed-wise or +fact-wise, which may set us free from the light and power of first +principles? And what if we were to discover what we were thus in +search of?—something directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly +prejudicial to the principles, which reason, placing us under the +authority of, makes self-evident? In what estimation, in that case, +should we be constrained to hold the Bible? Could we longer honor +it as the book of God? <i>The book of God opposed to the authority of</i> +REASON! Why, before what tribunal do we dispose of the claims of the +sacred volume to divine authority? The tribunal of reason. <i>This +every one acknowledges the moment he begins to reason on the subject</i>. +And what must reason do with a book, which reduces the authority of +its own principles—breaks the force of self-evident truths? Is he +not, by way of eminence, the apostle of infidelity, who, as a +minister of the gospel or a professor of sacred literature, exerts +himself, with whatever arts of ingenuity or show of piety, to exalt +the Bible at the expense of reason? Let such arts succeed and such +piety prevail, and Jesus Christ is "crucified afresh and put to an +open shame." +</p> +<p> +What saith the Princeton professor? Why, in spite of "general +principles," and "clear as we may think the arguments against +DESPOTISM, there have been thousands of ENLIGHTENED <i>and good men</i>, +who <i>honestly</i> believe it to be of all forms of government the best +and most acceptable to God."[<a name="rnote12-13"></a><a href="#note12-13">13</a>] Now these "good men" must have been +thus warmly in favor of despotism, in consequence of, or in +opposition to, their being "enlightened." In other words, the light, +which in such abundance they enjoyed, conducted them to the position +in favor of despotism, where the Princeton professor so heartily +shook hands with them, or they must have forced their way there in +despite of its hallowed influence. Either in accordance with, or in +resistance to the light, they became what he found them—the +advocates of despotism. If in resistance to the light—and he says +they were "enlightened men"—what, so far as the subject with which +alone he and we are now concerned, becomes of their "honesty" and +"goodness?" Good and honest resisters of the light, which was freely +poured around them! Of such, what says Professor Stuart's "good old +Book?" Their authority, where "general principles" command the least +respect, must be small indeed. But if in accordance with the light, +they have become the advocates of despotism, then is despotism +"the best form of government and most acceptable to God." It is +sustained by the authority of reason, by the word of Jehovah, by the +will of Heaven! If this be the doctrine which prevails at certain +theological seminaries, it must be easy to account for the spirit +which they breathe, and the general influence which they exert. Why +did not the Princeton professor place this "general principle" as a +shield, heaven-wrought and reason approved, over that cherished form +of despotism which prevails among the churches of the South, and +leave the "peculiar institutions" he is so forward to defend, under +its protection? +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-13"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-13">13</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 12.] +</p> +<p> +What is the "general principle" to which, whatever may become of +despotism, with its "honest" admirers and "enlightened" supporters, +human governments should be universally and carefully adjusted? +Clearly this—<i>that as capable of, man is entitled to, self +government</i>. And this is a specific form of a still more +general principle, which may well be pronounced self-evident—<i>that +every thing should be treated according to its nature</i>. The +mind that can doubt this, must be incapable of rational conviction. +Man, then,—it is the dictate of reason, it is the voice of +Jehovah—must be treated as <i>a man</i>. What is he? What are his +distinctive attributes? The Creator impressed his own image on him. +In this were found the grand peculiarities of his character. Here +shone his glory. Here REASON manifests its laws. Here the WILL puts +forth its volitions. Here is the crown of IMMORTALITY. Why such +endowments? Thus furnished—the image of Jehovah—is he not capable +of self-government? And is he not to be so treated? <i>Within the +sphere where the laws of reason place him</i>, may he not act according +to his choice—carry out his own volitions?—may he not enjoy life, +exult in freedom, and pursue as he will the path of blessedness? If +not, why was he so created and endowed? Why the mysterious, awful +attribute of will? To be a source, profound as the depths of hell, +of exquisite misery, of keen anguish, of insufferable torment! Was man, +formed "according to the image of Jehovah," to be crossed, thwarted, +counteracted; to be forced in upon himself; to be the sport of +endless contradictions; to be driven back and forth forever between +mutually repellant forces; and all, all "<i>at the discretion of +another</i>!"[<a name="rnote12-14"></a><a href="#note12-14">14</a>] How can man be treated according to his nature, as +endowed with reason or will, if excluded from the powers and +privileges of self-government?—if "despotism" be let loose upon +him, to "deprive him of personal liberty, oblige him to serve at the +discretion of another" and with the power of "transferring" such +"authority" over him and such claim upon him, to "another master?" +If "thousands of enlightened and good men" can so easily be found, +who are forward to support "despotism" as "of all governments the +best and most acceptable to God," we need not wonder at the +testimony of universal history, that "the whole creation groaneth +and travaileth in pain together until now." Groans and travail pangs +must continue to be the order of the day throughout "the whole +creation," till the rod of despotism be broken, and man be treated +as man—as capable of, and entitled to, self-government. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-14"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-14">14</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 12.] +</p> +<p> +But what is the despotism whose horrid features our smooth professor +tries to hide beneath an array of cunningly selected words and +nicely-adjusted sentences? It is the despotism of American +slavery—which crushes the very life of humanity out of its victims, +and transforms them to cattle! At its touch, they sink from men to +things! "Slaves," saith Professor Stuart, "were <i>property</i> in Greece +and Rome. That decides all questions about their <i>relation</i>." Yes, +truly. And slaves in republican America are <i>property</i>; and as that +easily, clearly, and definitely settles "all questions about their +<i>relation</i>," why should the Princeton professor have put himself +to the trouble of weaving a definition equally ingenious and +inadequate—at once subtle and deceitful. Ah, why? Was he willing thus +to conceal the wrongs of his mother's children even from himself? If +among the figments of his brain, he could fashion slaves, and make +them something else than property, he knew full well that a very +different pattern was in use among the southern patriarchs. Why did +he not, in plain words and sober earnest, and good faith, describe +the thing as it was, instead of employing honied words and courtly +phrases, to set forth with all becoming vagueness and ambiguity, +what might possibly be supposed to exist in the regions of fancy. +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"FOR RULERS ARE NOT A TERROR TO GOOD WORKS, BUT TO THE EVIL." +</h2> +<p> +But are we, in maintaining the principle of self-government, to +overlook the unripe, or neglected, or broken powers of any of our +fellow-men with whom we may be connected?—or the strong passions, +vicious propensities, or criminal pursuits of others? Certainly not. +But in providing for their welfare, we are to exert influences and +impose restraints suited to their character. In wielding those +prerogatives which the social of our nature authorizes us to employ +for their benefit, we are to regard them as they are in truth, not +things, not cattle, not articles of merchandize, but men, our +fellow-men—reflecting, from however battered and broken a surface, +reflecting with us the image of a common Father. And the great +principle of self-government is to be the basis, to which the whole +structure of discipline under which they may be placed, should be +adapted. From the nursery and village school on to the work-house +and state-prison, this principle is ever and in all things to be +before the eyes, present in the thoughts, warm on the heart. +Otherwise, God is insulted, while his image is despised and abused. +Yes, indeed; we remember, that in carrying out the principle of +self-government, multiplied embarrassments and obstructions grow out +of wickedness on the one hand and passion on the other. Such +difficulties and obstacles we are far enough from overlooking. But +where are they to be found? Are imbecility and wickedness, bad +hearts and bad heads, confined to the bottom of society? Alas, the +weakest of the weak, and the desperately wicked, often occupy the +high places of the earth, reducing every thing within their reach to +subserviency to the foulest purposes. Nay, the very power they have +usurped, has often been the chief instrument of turning their heads, +inflaming their passions, corrupting their hearts. All the world +knows, that the possession of arbitrary power has a strong tendency +to make men shamelessly wicked and insufferably mischievous. And +this, whether the vassals over whom they domineer, be few or many. +If you cannot trust man with himself, will you put his fellows +under his control?—and flee from the inconveniences incident to +self-government, to the horrors of despotism? +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"THOU THAT PREACHEST A MAN SHOULD NOT STEAL, DOST THOU STEAL." +</h2> +<p> +Is the slaveholder, the most absolute and shameless of all despots, +to be entrusted with the discipline of the injured men who he +himself has reduced to cattle?—with the discipline with which they +are to be prepared to wield the powers and enjoy the privileges of +freemen? Alas, of such discipline as <i>he</i> can furnish, in the +relation of owner to property, they have had enough. From this +sprang the very ignorance and vice, which in the view of many, lie +in the way of their immediate enfranchisement. He it is, who has +darkened their eyes and crippled their powers. And are they to look +to him for illumination and renewed vigor!—and expect "grapes from +thorns and figs from thistles!" Heaven forbid! When, according to +arrangements which had usurped the sacred name of law, he consented +to receive and use them as property, he forfeited all claims to the +esteem and confidence, not only of the helpless sufferers themselves, +but also of every philanthropist. In becoming a slaveholder, he +became the enemy of mankind. The very act was a declaration of war +upon human nature. What less can be made of the process of turning +men to cattle? It is rank absurdity—it is the height of madness, to +propose to employ <i>him</i> to train, for the places of freemen, those +whom he has wantonly robbed of every right—whom he has stolen from +themselves. Sooner place Burke, who used to murder for the sake of +selling bodies to the dissector, at the head of a hospital. Why, +what have our slaveholders been about these two hundred years? Have +they not been constantly and earnestly engaged in the work of +education?—training up their human cattle? And how? Thomas +Jefferson shall answer. "The whole commerce between master and slave, +is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most +unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on +the other." Is this the way to fit the unprepared for the duties and +privileges of American citizens? Will the evils of the dreadful +process be diminished by adding to its length? What, in 1818, was +the unanimous testimony of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian +Church? Why, after describing a variety of influences growing out of +slavery, most fatal to mental and moral improvement, the General +Assembly assure us, that such "consequences are not imaginary, but +connect themselves WITH THE VERY EXISTENCE[<a name="rnote12-15"></a><a href="#note12-15">15</a>] of slavery. The evils to +which the slave is <i>always</i> exposed, <i>often</i> take place in fact, and +IN THEIR VERY WORST DEGREE AND FORM; and where all of them do not +take place," "still the slave is deprived of his natural right, +degraded as a human being, and exposed to the danger of passing into +the hands of a master who may inflict upon him all the hardships and +injuries which inhumanity and avarice may suggest." Is this the +condition in which our ecclesiastics would keep the slave, at least +a little longer, to fit him to be restored to himself? +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-15"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-15">15</a>: The words here marked as emphatic, were so distinguished +by ourselves.] +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"AND THEY STOPPED THEIR EARS." +</h2> +<p> +The methods of discipline under which, as slaveholders; the Southrons +now place their human cattle, they with one consent and in great +wrath, forbid us to examine. The statesman and the priest unite in +the assurance, that these methods are none of our business. Nay, they +give us distinctly to understand, that if we come among them to take +observations, and make inquiries, and discuss questions, they will +dispose of us as outlaws. Nothing will avail to protect us from +speedy and deadly violence! What inference does all this warrant? +Surely, not that the methods which they employ are happy and worthy +of universal application. If so, why do they not take the praise, +and give us the benefit of their wisdom, enterprise, and success? Who, +that has nothing to hide, practices concealment? "He that doeth +truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest, that they +are wrought in God." Is this the way of slaveholders? Darkness they +court—they will have darkness. Doubtless "because their deeds are +evil." Can we confide in methods for the benefit of our enslaved +brethren, which it is death for us to examine? What good ever came, +what good can we expect, from deeds of darkness? +</p> +<p> +Did the influence of the masters contribute any thing in the West +Indies to prepare the apprentices for enfranchisement? Nay, verily. +All the world knows better. They did what in them lay, to turn back +the tide of blessings, which, through emancipation, was pouring in +upon the famishing around them. Are not the best minds and hearts in +England now thoroughly convinced, that slavery, under no modification, +can be a school for freedom? +</p> +<p> +We say such things to the many who allege, that slaves cannot at +once be entrusted with the powers and privileges of self-government. +However this may be, they cannot be better qualified under the +<i>influence of slavery</i>. <i>That must be broken up</i> from which their +ignorance, and viciousness, and wretchedness proceeded. That which +can only do what it has always done, pollute and degrade, must not +be employed to purify and elevate. <i>The lower their character and +condition, the louder, clearer, sterner, the just demand for +immediate emancipation</i>. The plague-smitten sufferer can derive no +benefit from breathing a little longer an infected atmosphere. +</p> +<p> +In thus referring to elemental principles—in thus availing ourselves +of the light of self-evident truths—we bow to the authority and tread +in the foot-prints of the great Teacher. He chid those around him for +refusing to make the same use of their reason in promoting their +spiritual, as they made in promoting their temporal welfare. He gives +them distinctly to understand, that they need not go out of themselves +to form a just estimation of their position, duties, and prospects, +as standing in the presence of the Messiah. "Why, EVEN OF YOURSELVES," +he demands of them, "judge ye not what is <i>right</i>?"[<a name="rnote12-16"></a><a href="#note12-16">16</a>] How could +they, unless they had a clear light, and an infallible standard <i>within +them</i>, whereby, amidst the relations they sustained and the interests +they had to provide for, they might discriminate between truth and +falsehood, right and wrong, what they ought to attempt and what they +ought to eschew? From this pointed, significant appeal of the Savior, +it is clear and certain, that in human consciousness may be found +self-evident truths, self-manifested principles; that every man, +studying his own consciousness, is bound to recognize their presence +and authority, and in sober earnest and good faith to apply them to +the highest practical concerns of "life and godliness." It is in +obedience to the Bible, that we apply self-evident truths, and walk +in the light of general principles. When our fathers proclaimed +these truths, and at the hazard of their property, reputation, and +life, stood up in their defence, they did homage to the sacred +Scriptures—they honored the Bible. In that volume, not a syllable +can be found to justify that form of infidelity, which in the abused +name of piety, reproaches us for practising the lessons which nature +teacheth. These lessons, the Bible requires us [<a name="rnote12-17"></a><a href="#note12-17">17</a>] reverently to listen +to, earnestly to appropriate, and most diligently and faithfully to +act upon in every direction, and on all occasions. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-16"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-16">16</a>: Luke, xii. 57.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-17"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-17">17</a>: Cor. xi. 14.] +</p> +<p> +Why, our Savior goes so far in doing honor to reason, as to encourage +men universally to dispose of the characteristic peculiarities and +distinctive features of the Gospel in the light of its principles. +"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether +it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."[<a name="rnote12-18"></a><a href="#note12-18">18</a>] Natural religion—the +principles which nature reveals, and the lessons which nature teaches—he +thus makes a test of the truth and authority of revealed religion. So +far was he, as a teacher, from shrinking from the clearest and most +piercing rays of reason—from calling off the attention of those around +him from the import, bearings, and practical application of general +principles. And those who would have us escape from the pressure of +self-evident truths, by betaking ourselves to the doctrines and precepts +of Christianity, whatever airs of piety they may put on, do foul dishonor +to the Savior of mankind. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-18"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-18">18</a>: John, vii. 17.] +</p> +<p> +And what shall we say of the Golden Rule, which, according to the +Savior, comprehends all the precepts of the Bible? "Whatsoever ye +would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is +the law and the prophets." +</p> +<p> +According to this maxim, in human consciousness, universally, may be +found, +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. The standard whereby, in all the relations and circumstances of +life, we may determine what Heaven demands and expects of us. +</li> +<li> +2. The just application of this standard, is practicable for, and +obligatory upon, every child of Adam. +</li> +<li> +3. The qualification requisite to a just application of this rule to +all the cases in which we can be concerned, is simply this—<i>to +regard all the members of the human family as our brethren, our +equals</i>. +</li> +</ul> +<p> +In other words, the Savior here teaches us, that in the principles +and laws of reason, we have an infallible guide in all the relations +and circumstances of life; that nothing can hinder our following +this guide, but the bias of <i>selfishness</i>; and that the moment, in +deciding any moral question, we place <i>ourselves in the room of our +brother</i>, before the bar of reason, we shall see what decision ought +to be pronounced. Does this, in the Savior, look like fleeing +self-evident truths!—like decrying the authority of general +principles!—like exalting himself at the expense of reason!—like +opening a refuge in the Gospel for those whose practice is at +variance with the dictates of humanity! +</p> +<p> +What then is the just application of the Golden Rule—that +fundamental maxim of the Gospel, giving character to, and shedding +light upon, all its precepts and arrangements—to the subject of +slavery?—<i>that we must "do to" slaves as we would be done by</i>, AS +SLAVES, <i>the</i> RELATION <i>itself being justified and continued</i>? Surely +not. A little reflection will enable us to see, that the Golden Rule +reaches farther in its demands, and strikes deeper in its influences +and operations. The <i>natural equality</i> of mankind lies at the very +basis of this great precept. It obviously requires <i>every man to +acknowledge another self in every other man</i>. With my powers and +resources, and in my appropriate circumstances, I am to recognize in +any child of Adam who may address me, another self in his +appropriate circumstances and with his powers and resources. This is +the natural equality of mankind; and this the Golden Rule requires +us to admit, defend, and maintain. +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"WHY DO YE NOT UNDERSTAND MY SPEECH; EVEN BECAUSE YE CANNOT HEAR MY WORD." +</h2> +<p> +They strangely misunderstand and grossly misrepresent this doctrine, +who charge upon it the absurdities and mischiefs which <i>any +"levelling system"</i> cannot but produce. In all its bearings, +tendencies, and effects, it is directly contrary and powerfully +hostile to any such system. EQUALITY OF RIGHTS, the doctrine asserts; +and this necessarily opens the way for <i>variety of condition</i>. In +other words, every child of Adam has, from the Creator, the +inalienable right of wielding, within reasonable limits, his own +powers, and employing his own resources, according to his own choice;—the +right, while he respects his social relations, to promote as +he will his own welfare. But mark—HIS OWN powers and resources, and +NOT ANOTHER'S, are thus inalienably put under his control. The +Creator makes every man free, in whatever he may do, to exert HIMSELF, +and not <i>another</i>. Here no man may lawfully cripple or embarrass +another. The feeble may not hinder the strong, nor may the strong +crush the feeble. Every man may make the most of himself, in his own +proper sphere. Now, as in the constitutional endowments; and natural +opportunities, and lawful acquisitions of mankind, infinite variety +prevails, so in exerting each HIMSELF, in his own sphere, according +to his own choice, the variety of human condition can be little less +than infinite. Thus equality of rights opens the way for variety of +condition. +</p> +<p> +But with all this variety of make, means, and condition, considered +individually, the children of Adam are bound together by strong ties +which can never be dissolved. They are mutually united by the social +of their nature. Hence mutual dependence and mutual claims. While +each is inalienably entitled to assert and enjoy his own personality +as a man, each sustains to all and all to each, various relations. +While each owns and honors the individual, all are to own and honor +the social of their nature. Now, the Golden Rule distinctly +recognizes, lays its requisitions upon, and extends its obligations +to, the whole nature of man, in his individual capacities and social +relations. What higher honor could it do to man, as <i>an individual</i>, +than to constitute him the judge, by whose decision, when fairly +rendered, all the claims of his fellows should be authoritatively +and definitely disposed of? "Whatsoever YE WOULD" have done to you, +so do ye to others. Every member of the family of Adam, placing +himself in the position here pointed out, is competent and +authorized to pass judgment on all the cases in social life in which +he may be concerned. Could higher responsibilities or greater +confidence be reposed in men individually? And then, how are their +<i>claims upon each other</i> herein magnified! What inherent worth and +solid dignity are ascribed to the social of their nature! In every +man with whom I may have to do, I am to recognize the presence of +<i>another self</i>, whose case I am to make <i>my own</i>. And thus I am to +dispose of whatever claims he may urge upon me. +</p> +<p> +Thus, in accordance with the Golden Rule, mankind are naturally +brought, in the voluntary use of their powers and resources, to +promote each other's welfare. As his contribution to this great +object, it is the inalienable birthright of every child of Adam, +to consecrate whatever he may possess. With exalted powers and large +resources, he has a natural claim to a correspondent field of effort. +If his "abilities" are small, his task must be easy and his burden +light. Thus the Golden Rule requires mankind mutually to serve each +other. In this service, each is to exert <i>himself</i>—employ <i>his own</i> +powers, lay out his own resources, improve his own opportunities. A +division of labor is the natural result. One is remarkable for his +intellectual endowments and acquisitions; another, for his wealth; +and a third, for power and skill in using his muscles. Such +attributes, endlessly varied and diversified, proceed from the basis +of a <i>common character</i>, by virtue of which all men and each—one as +truly as another—are entitled, as a birthright, to "life, liberty, +and the pursuit of happiness." Each and all, one as well as another, +may choose his own modes of contributing his share to the general +welfare, in which his own is involved and identified. Under one +great law of mutual dependence and mutual responsibility, all are +placed—the strong as well as the weak, the rich as much as the poor, +the learned no less than the unlearned. All bring their wares, the +products of their enterprise, skill and industry, to the same market, +where mutual exchanges are freely effected. The fruits of muscular +exertion procure the fruits of mental effort. John serves Thomas +with his hands, and Thomas serves John with his money. Peter wields +the axe for James, and James wields the pen for Peter. Moses, Joshua, +and Caleb, employ their wisdom, courage, and experience, in the +service of the community, and the community serve Moses, Joshua, and +Caleb, in furnishing them with food and raiment, and making them +partakers of the general prosperity. And all this by mutual +understanding and voluntary arrangement. And all this according to +the Golden Rule. +</p> +<p> +What then becomes of <i>slavery</i>—a system of arrangements in which +one man treats his fellow, not as another self, but as a thing—a +chattel—an article of merchandize, which is not to be consulted in +any disposition which may be made of it;—a system which is built on +the annihilation of the attributes of our common nature—in which +man doth to others what he would sooner die than have done to himself? +The Golden Rule and slavery are mutually subversive of each other. If +one stands, the other must fall. The one strikes at the very root of +the other. The Golden Rule aims at the abolition of THE RELATION +ITSELF, in which slavery consists. It lays its demands upon every +thing within the scope of <i>human action</i>. To "whatever MEN DO," it +extends its authority. And the relation itself, in which slavery +consists, is the work of human hands. It is what men have done to +each other—contrary to nature and most injurious to the general +welfare. This RELATION, therefore, the Golden Rule condemns. +Wherever its authority prevails, this relation must be annihilated. +Mutual service and slavery—like light and darkness, life and +death—are directly opposed to, and subversive of, each other. The +one the Golden Rule cannot endure; the other it requires, honors, +and blesses. +</p> +<h2 class="center"> +"LOVE WORKETH NO ILL TO HIS NEIGHBOR." +</h2> +<p> +Like unto the Golden Rule is the second great commandment—"<i>Thou +shalt love thy neighbor as thyself</i>." "A certain lawyer," who seems +to have been fond of applying the doctrine of limitation of human +obligations, once demanded of the Savior, within what limits the +meaning of the word "neighbor" ought to be confined. "And who is my +neighbor?" The parable of the good Samaritan set that matter in the +clearest light, and made it manifest and certain, that every man +whom we could reach with our sympathy and assistance, was our +neighbor, entitled to the same regard which we cherished for +ourselves. Consistently with such obligations, can <i>slavery, +as a</i> RELATION, be maintained? Is it then a <i>labor of love</i>—such +love as we cherish for ourselves—to strip a child of Adam of all +the prerogatives and privileges which are his inalienable birthright? +To obscure his reason, crush his will, and trample on his immortality?—To +strike home to the inmost of his being, and break the heart of +his heart?—To thrust him out of the human family, and dispose of +him as a chattel—as a thing in the hands of an owner, a beast under +the lash of a driver? All this, apart from every thing incidental +and extraordinary, belongs to the RELATION, in which slavery, as such, +consists. All this—well fed or ill fed, underwrought or overwrought, +clothed or naked, caressed or kicked, whether idle songs break from +his thoughtless tongue or "tears be his meat night and day," fondly +cherished or cruelly murdered;—<i>all this</i> ENTERS VITALLY INTO THE +RELATION ITSELF, <i>by which every slave</i>, AS A SLAVE, <i>is set apart +from the rest of the human family</i>. Is it an exercise of love, to +place our "neighbor" under the crushing weight, the killing power, +of such a relation?—to apply the murderous steel to the very vitals +of his humanity? +</p> +<h2 class="center"> +"YE THEREFORE APPLAUD AND DELIGHT IN THE DEEDS OF YOUR FATHERS; +</h2> +<h2 class="center"> +FOR THEY KILLED THEM, AND YE BUILD THEIR SEPULCHRES."[<a name="rnote12-19"></a><a href="#note12-19">19</a>] +</h2> +<p> +The slaveholder may eagerly and loudly deny, that any such thing is +chargeable upon him. He may confidently and earnestly allege, that +he is not responsible for the state of society in which he is placed. +Slavery was established before he began to breathe. It was his +inheritance. His slaves are his property by birth or testament. But +why will he thus deceive himself? Why will he permit the cunning and +rapacious spiders, which in the very sanctuary of ethics and +religion are laboriously weaving webs from their own bowels, to +catch him with their wretched sophistries?—and devour him, body, +soul, and substance? Let him know, as he must one day with shame and +terror own, that whoever holds slaves is himself responsible for +<i>the relation</i>, into which, whether reluctantly or willingly, he +thus enters. <i>The relation cannot be forced upon him</i>. What though +Elizabeth countenanced John Hawkins in stealing the natives of Africa?—what +though James, and Charles, and George, opened a market for +them in the English colonies?—what though modern Dracos have +"framed mischief by law," in legalizing man-stealing and slaveholding?—what +though your ancestors, in preparing to go "to their own place," +constituted you the owner of the "neighbors" whom they had used as +cattle?—what of all this, and as much more like this, as can be +drawn from the history of that dreadful process by which men are +"deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be <i>chattels +personal</i>?" Can all this force you to put the cap upon the +climax—to clinch the nail by doing that, without which nothing in +the work of slave-making would be attempted? <i>The slaveholder is the +soul of the whole system</i>. Without him, the chattel principle is a +lifeless abstraction. Without him, charters, and markets, and laws, +and testaments, are empty names. And does <i>he</i> think to escape +responsibility? Why, kidnappers, and soul-drivers, and law-makers, +are nothing but his <i>agents</i>. He is the guilty <i>principal</i>. Let him +look to it. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-19"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-19">19</a>: You join with them in their bloody work. They murder, +and you bury the victims.] +</p> +<p> +But what can he do? Do? Keep his hands off his "neighbor's" throat. +Let him refuse to finish and ratify the process by which the chattel +principle is carried into effect. Let him refuse, in the face of +derision, and reproach, and opposition. Though poverty should fasten +its bony hand upon him, and persecution shoot forth its forked tongue; +whatever may betide him—scorn, flight, flames—let him promptly and +steadfastly refuse. Better the spite and hate of men than the wrath +of Heaven! "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it +from thee; for it is profitable for thee, that one of thy members +should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." +</p> +<p> +Professor Stewart admits, that the Golden Rule and the second great +commandment "decide against the theory of slavery, as being in +itself right." What, then, is their relation to the particular +precepts, institutions, and usages, which are authorized and +enjoined in the New Testament? Of all these, they are the summary +expression—the comprehensive description. No precept in the Bible, +enforcing our mutual obligations, can be more or less than <i>the +application of these injunctions to specific relations or particular +occasions and conditions</i>. Neither in the Old Testament nor the New, +do prophets teach or laws enjoin, any thing which the Golden Rule +and the second great command do not contain. Whatever they forbid, +no other precept can require; and whatever they require, no other +precept can forbid. What, then, does he attempt, who turns over the +sacred pages to find something in the way of permission or command, +which may set him free from the obligations of the Golden Rule? What +must his objects, methods, spirit be, to force him to enter upon +such inquiries?—to compel him to search the Bible for such a purpose? +Can he have good intentions, or be well employed? Is his frame of +mind adapted to the study of the Bible?—to make its meaning plain +and welcome? What must he think of God, to search his word in quest +of gross inconsistencies, and grave contradictions! Inconsistent +legislation in Jehovah! Contradictory commands! Permissions at war +with prohibitions! General requirements at variance with particular +arrangements! +</p> +<p> +What must be the moral character of any institution which the Golden +Rule decides against?—which the second great command condemns? +<i>It cannot but be wicked</i>, whether newly established or long +maintained. However it may be shaped, turned, colored—under every +modification and at all times—<i>wickedness must be its proper +character. It must be</i>, IN ITSELF, <i>apart from its circumstances</i>, +IN ITS ESSENCE, <i>apart from its incidents</i>, SINFUL. +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"THINK NOT TO SAY WITHIN YOURSELVES, +</h2> +<h2 class="centered"> +WE HAVE ABRAHAM FOR OUR FATHER." +</h2> +<p> +In disposing of those precepts and exhortations which have a +specific bearing upon the subject of slavery, it is greatly important, +nay, absolutely essential, that we look forth upon the objects +around us from the right post of observation. Our stand we must take +at some central point, amidst the general maxims and fundamental +precepts, the known circumstances and characteristic arrangements, +of primitive Christianity. Otherwise, wrong views and false +conclusions will be the result of our studies. We cannot, therefore, +be too earnest in trying to catch the general features and prevalent +spirit of the New Testament institutions and arrangements. For to +what conclusions must we come, if we unwittingly pursue our +inquiries under the bias of the prejudice, that the general maxims +of social life which now prevail in this country, were current, on +the authority of the Savior, among the primitive Christians! That, +for instance, wealth, station, talents, are the standard by which +our claims upon, and our regard for, others, should be modified?—That +those who are pinched by poverty, worn by disease, tasked in +menial labors, or marked by features offensive to the taste of the +artificial and capricious, are to be excluded from those refreshing +and elevating influences which intelligence and refinement may be +expected to exert; that thus they are to constitute a class by +themselves, and to be made to know and keep their place at the very +bottom of society? Or, what if we should think and speak of the +primitive Christians, as if they had the same pecuniary resources as +Heaven has lavished upon the American churches?—as if they were as +remarkable for affluence, elegance, and splendor? Or, as if they had +as high a position and as extensive an influence in politics and +literature?—having directly or indirectly, the control over the +high places of learning and of power? +</p> +<p> +If we should pursue our studies and arrange our arguments—if we +should explain words and interpret language—under such a bias, what +must inevitably be the results? What would be the worth of our +conclusions? What confidence could be reposed in any instruction we +might undertake to furnish? And is not this the way in which the +advocates and apologists of slavery dispose of the bearing which +primitive Christianity has upon it? They first ascribe, unwittingly, +perhaps, to the primitive churches; the character, relations, and +condition of American Christianity, and amidst the deep darkness and +strange confusion thus produced, set about interpreting the language +and explaining the usages of the New Testament! +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"SO THAT YE ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE." +</h2> +<p> +Among the lessons of instruction which our Savior imparted, having a +general bearing on the subject of slavery, that in which he sets up +the <i>true standard of greatness</i>, deserves particular attention. In +repressing the ambition of his disciples, he held up before them the +methods by which alone healthful aspirations for eminence could be +gratified, and thus set the elements of true greatness in the +clearest light. "Ye know, that they which are accounted to rule over +the Gentiles, exercise lordship over them; and their great ones +exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you; but +whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister; <i>and +whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all</i>." In +other words, through the selfishness and pride of mankind, the maxim +widely prevails in the world, that it is the privilege, prerogative, +and mark of greatness, TO EXACT SERVICE; that our superiority to +others, while it authorizes us to relax the exertion of our own +powers, gives us a fair title to the use of theirs; that "might," +while it exempts us from serving, "gives the right" to be served. +The instructions of the Savior open the way to greatness for us in +the opposite direction. Superiority to others, in whatever it may +consist, gives us a claim to a wider field of exertion, and demands +of us a larger amount of service. We can be great only as we <i>are +useful</i>. And "might gives right" to bless our fellow men, by +improving every opportunity and employing every faculty, +affectionately, earnestly, and unweariedly, in their service. Thus +the greater the man, the more active, faithful, and useful the +servant. +</p> +<p> +The Savior has himself taught us how this doctrine must be applied. +He bids us improve every opportunity and employ every power, even +through the most menial services, in blessing the human family. And +to make this lesson shine upon our understandings and move our hearts, +he embodied in it a most instructive and attractive example. On a +memorable occasion, and just before his crucifixion, he discharged +for his disciples the most menial of all offices—taking, <i>in +washing their feet</i>, the place of the lowest servant. He took great +pains to make them understand, that only by imitating this example +could they honor their relations to him as their Master; that thus +only would they find themselves blessed. By what possibility could +slavery exist under the influence of such a lesson, set home by such +an example? <i>Was it while washing the disciples' feet, that our +Savior authorized one man to make a chattel of another</i>? +</p> +<p> +To refuse to provide for ourselves by useful labor, the apostle Paul +teaches us to regard as a grave offence. After reminding the +Thessalonian Christians, that in addition to all his official +exertions he had with his own muscles earned his own bread, he calls +their attention to an arrangement which was supported by apostolical +authority, "that if any would not work, neither should he eat." In +the most earnest and solemn manner, and as a minister of the Lord +Jesus Christ, he commanded and exhorted those who neglected useful +labor, "<i>with quietness to work and eat their own bread.</i>" What must +be the bearing of all this upon slavery? Could slavery be maintained +where every man eat the bread which himself had earned?—where +idleness was esteemed so great a crime, as to be reckoned worthy of +starvation as a punishment? How could unrequited labor be exacted, +or used, or needed? Must not every one in such a community +contribute his share to the general welfare?—and mutual service and +mutual support be the natural result? +</p> +<p> +The same apostle, in writing to another church, describes the true +source whence the means of liberality ought to be derived. "Let him +that stole steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his +hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that +needeth." Let this lesson, as from the lips of Jehovah, be proclaimed +throughout the length and breadth of South Carolina. Let it be +universally welcomed and reduced to practice. Let thieves give up +what they had stolen to the lawful proprietors, cease stealing, and +begin at once to "labor, working with their hands," for necessary +and charitable purposes. Could slavery, in such a case, continue to +exist? Surely not! Instead of exacting unpaid services from others, +every man would be busy, exerting himself not only to provide for +his own wants, but also to accumulate funds, "that he might have to +give to" the needy. Slavery must disappear, root and branch, at once +and forever. +</p> +<p> +In describing the source whence his ministers should expect their +support, the Savior furnished a general principle, which has an +obvious and powerful bearing on the subject of slavery. He would +have them remember, while exerting themselves for the benefit of +their fellow men, that "the laborer is worthy of his hire." He has +thus united wages with work. Whoever renders the one is entitled to +the other. And this manifestly according to a mutual understanding +and a voluntary arrangement. For the doctrine that I may force you +to work for me for whatever consideration I may please to fix upon, +fairly opens the way for the doctrine, that you, in turn, may force +me to render you whatever wages you may choose to exact for any +services you may see fit to render. Thus slavery, even as +involuntary servitude, is cut up by the root. Even the Princeton +professor seems to regard it as a violation of the principle which +unites work with wages. +</p> +<p> +The apostle James applies this principle to the claims of manual +laborers—of those who hold the plough and thrust in the sickle. He +calls the rich lordlings who exacted sweat and withheld wages, to +"weeping and howling," assuring them that the complaints of +the injured laborer had entered into the ear of the Lord of Hosts, +and that, as a result of their oppression, their riches were +corrupted, and their garments moth-eaten; their gold and silver were +cankered; that the rust of them should be a witness against them, +and should eat their flesh as it were fire; that, in one word, they +had heaped treasures together for the last days, when "miseries were +coming upon them," the prospect of which might well drench them in +tears and fill them with terror. If these admonitions and warnings +were heeded there, would not "the South" break forth into "weeping +and wailing, and gnashing of teeth?" What else are its rich men about, +but withholding by a system of fraud, his wages from the laborer, +who is wearing himself out under the impulse of fear, in cultivating +their fields and producing their luxuries! Encouragement and support +do they derive from James, in maintaining the "peculiar institution" +which they call patriarchal, and boast of as the "corner-stone" of +the republic? +</p> +<p> +In the New Testament, we have, moreover, the general injunction, +"<i>Honor all men</i>." Under this broad precept, every form of humanity +may justly claim protection and respect. The invasion of any human +right must do dishonor to humanity, and be a transgression of this +command. How then, in the light of such obligations, must slavery be +regarded? Are those men honored, who are rudely excluded from a +place in the human family, and shut up to the deep degradation and +nameless horrors of chattelship? <i>Can they be held as slaves, and at +the same time be honored as men?</i> +</p> +<p> +How far, in obeying this command, we are to go, we may infer from +the admonitions and instructions which James applies to the +arrangements and usages of religious assemblies. Into these he can +not allow "respect of persons" to enter. "My brethren," he exclaims, +"have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, +with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a +man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel; and there come in also +a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth +the gay clothing, and say unto him, sit thou here in a good place; +and say to the poor, stand thou there, or sit here under my +footstool; are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become +judges of evil thoughts?" <i>If ye have respect to persons, ye commit +sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors</i>. On this general +principle, then, religious assemblies ought to be regulated—that +every man is to be estimated, not according to his +<i>circumstances</i>—not according to anything incidental to his +<i>condition</i>; but according to his <i>moral worth</i>—according to the +essential features and vital elements of his <i>character</i>. Gold rings +and gay clothing, as they qualify no man for, can entitle no man to, +a "good place" in the church. Nor can the "vile raiment of the poor +man," fairly exclude him from any sphere, however exalted, which his +heart and head may fit him to fill. To deny this, in theory or +practice, is to degrade a man below a thing; for what are gold rings, +or gay clothing, or vile raiment, but things, "which perish with the +using?" And this must be "to commit sin, and be convinced of the law +as transgressor." +</p> +<p> +In slavery, we have "respect of persons," strongly marked, and +reduced to system. Here men are despised not merely for "the vile +raiment," which may cover their scarred bodies. This is bad enough. +But the deepest contempt of humanity here grows out of birth or +complexion. Vile raiment may be, often is, the result of indolence, +or improvidence, or extravagance. It may be, often is, an index of +character. But how can I be responsible for the incidents of my birth?—how +for my complexion? To despise or honor me for these, is to be +guilty of "respect of persons" in its grossest form, and with its +worst effects. It is to reward or punish me for what I had nothing +to do with; for which, therefore, I cannot, without the greatest +injustice, be held responsible. It is to poison the very fountains +of justice, by confounding all moral distinctions. What, then, so +far as the authority of the New Testament is concerned, becomes of +slavery, which cannot be maintained under any form nor for a single +moment, without "respect of persons" the most aggravated and +unendurable? And what would become of that most pitiful, silly, and +wicked arrangement in so many of our churches, in which worshippers +of a dark complexion are to be sent up to the negro pew? [<a name="rnote12-20"></a><a href="#note12-20">20</a>] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-20"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-20">20</a>: In Carlyle's Review of the Memoirs of Mirabeau, we +have the following anecdote illustrative of the character of a +"grandmother" of the Count. "Fancy the dame Mirabeau sailing stately +towards the church font; another dame striking in to take precedence +of her; the dame Mirabeau despatching this latter with a box on the +ear, and these words, '<i>Here, as in the army</i>, THE BAGGAGE <i>goes +last</i>!'" Let those who justify the negro-pew arrangement, throw +a stone at this proud woman—if they dare.] +</p> +<p> +Nor are we permitted to confine this principle to <i>religious</i> +assemblies. It is to pervade social life everywhere. Even where +plenty, intelligence and refinement, diffuse their brightest rays, +the poor are to be welcomed with especial favor. "Then said he to +him that bade him, when thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not +thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich +neighbors, lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made +thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor and the maimed, +the lame and the blind, and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot +recompense thee, but thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection +of the just." +</p> +<p> +In the high places of social life then—in the parlor, the +drawing-room, the saloon—special reference should be had, in every +arrangement, to the comfort and improvement of those who are least +able to provide for the cheapest rites of hospitality. For these, +ample accommodations must be made, whatever may become of our +kinsmen and rich neighbors. And for this good reason, that while +such occasions signify little to the latter, to the former they are +pregnant with good—raising their drooping spirits, cheering their +desponding hearts, inspiring them with life, and hope, and joy. The +rich and the poor thus meeting joyfully together, cannot but +mutually contribute to each other's benefit; the rich will be led to +moderation, sobriety, and circumspection, and the poor to industry, +providence, and contentment. The recompense must be great and sure. +</p> +<p> +A most beautiful and instructive commentary on the text in which +these things are taught, the Savior furnished in his own conduct. He +freely mingled with those who were reduced to the very bottom of +society. At the tables of the outcasts of society he did not +hesitate to be a cheerful guest, surrounded by publicans and sinners. +And when flouted and reproached by smooth and lofty ecclesiastics, +as an ultraist and leveler, he explained and justified himself by +observing, that he had only done what his office demanded. It was +his to seek the lost, to heal the sick, to pity the wretched;—in a +word, to bestow just such benefits as the various necessities of +mankind made appropriate and welcome. In his great heart, there was +room enough for those who had been excluded from the sympathy of +little souls. In its spirit and design, the gospel overlooked +none—least of all, the outcasts of a selfish world. +</p> +<p> +Can slavery, however modified, be consistent with such a gospel?—a +gospel which requires us, even amidst the highest forms of social +life, to exert ourselves to raise the depressed by giving our +warmest sympathies to those who have the smallest share in the favor +of the world? +</p> +<p> +Those who are in "bonds" are set before us as deserving an especial +remembrance. Their claims upon us are described as a modification of +the Golden Rule—as one of the many forms to which its obligations +are reducible. To them we are to extend the same affectionate regard +as we would covet for ourselves, if the chains upon their limbs were +fastened upon ours. To the benefits of this precept, the enslaved +have a natural claim of the greatest strength. The wrongs they +suffer spring from a persecution which can hardly be surpassed in +malignancy. Their birth and complexion are the occasion of the +insults and injuries which they can neither endure nor escape. It is +for <i>the work of God</i>, and not their own deserts, that they are +loaded with chains. <i>This is persecution</i>. +</p> +<p> +Can I regard the slave as another self—can I put myself in his +place—and be indifferent to his wrongs? Especially, can I, thus +affected, take sides with the oppressor? Could I, in such a state of +mind as the gospel requires me to cherish, reduce him to slavery or +keep him in bonds? Is not the precept under hand naturally +subversive of every system and every form of slavery? +</p> +<p> +The <i>general descriptions</i> of the church, which are found here and +there in the New Testament, are highly instructive in their bearing +on the subject of slavery. In one connection, the following words +meet the eye: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond +nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in +Christ Jesus."[<a name="rnote12-21">21</a><a href="#note12-21">21</a>] Here we have— +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. A clear and strong description of the doctrine of <i>human equality</i>. +"Ye are all ONE;"—so much alike, so truly placed on common ground, +all wielding each his own powers with such freedom, <i>that one is the +same as another</i>. +</li> +<li> +2. This doctrine, self-evident in the light of reason, is affirmed on +divine authority. "IN CHRIST JESUS, <i>ye are all one</i>." The natural +equality of the human family is a part of the gospel. For— +</li> +<li> +3. All the human family are included in this description. Whether +men or women, whether bond or free, whether Jews or Gentiles, all +are alike entitled to the benefit of this doctrine. Whether +Christianity prevails, the <i>artificial</i> distinctions which grow out +of birth, condition, sex, are done away. <i>Natural distinctions</i> are +not destroyed. <i>They</i> are recognized, hallowed, confirmed. The +gospel does not abolish the sexes, forbid a division of labor, or +extinguish patriotism. It takes woman from beneath the feet, and +places her by the side of man; delivers the manual laborer from +"the yoke," and gives him wages for his work; and brings the Jew and +the Gentile to embrace each other with fraternal love and confidence. +Thus it raises all to a common level, gives to each the free use of +his own powers and resources, binds all together in one dear and +loving brotherhood. Such, according to the description of the apostle, +was the influence, and such the effect of primitive Christianity. +"Behold the picture!" Is it like American slavery, which, in all its +tendencies and effects, is destructive of all oneness among brethren? +</li> +</ul> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-21"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-21">21</a>: Gal. iii. 28.] +</p> +<p> +"Where the spirit of the Lord is," exclaims the same apostle, with +his eye upon the condition and relations of the church, "<i>where the +spirit of the Lord is</i>, THERE IS LIBERTY." Where, then, may we +reverently recognize the presence, and bow before the manifested +power, of this spirit? <i>There</i>, where the laborer may not choose how +he shall be employed!—in what way his wants shall be supplied!—with +whom he shall associate!—who shall have the fruit of his +exertions! <i>There</i>, where he is not free to enjoy his wife and +children! <i>There</i>, where his body and his soul, his very "destiny," +[<a name="rnote12-22"></a><a href="#note12-22">22</a>] are placed altogether beyond his control! <i>There</i>, where every +power is crippled, every energy blasted, every hope crushed! <i>There</i>, +where in all the relations and concerns of life, he is legally +treated as if he had nothing to do with the laws of reason, the +light of immortality, or the exercise of will! Is the spirit of the +Lord <i>there</i>, where liberty is decried and denounced, mocked at and +spit upon, betrayed and crucified! In the midst of a church which +justified slavery, which derived its support from slavery, which +carried on its enterprises by means of slavery, would the apostle +have found the fruits of the Spirit of the Lord! Let that Spirit +exert his influences, and assert his authority, and wield his power, +and slavery must vanish at once and for ever. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-22"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-22">22</a>: "The legislature (of South Carolina) from time to time, +has passed many restricted and penal acts, with a view to bring +under direct control and subjection the DESTINY <i>of the black +population</i>." See the Remonstrance of James S. Pope and 352 others +against home missionary efforts for the benefit of the enslaved—a +most instructive paper.] +</p> +<p> +In more than one connection, the apostle James describes Christianity +as "<i>the law of liberty</i>." It is, in other words, the law under +which liberty cannot but live and flourish—the law in which liberty +is clearly defined, strongly asserted, and well protected. As the law +of liberty, how can it be consistent with the law of slavery? The +presence and the power of this law are felt wherever the light of +reason shines. They are felt in the uneasiness and conscious +degradation of the slave, and in the shame and remorse which the +master betrays in his reluctant and desperate efforts to defend +himself. This law it is which has armed human nature against the +oppressor. Wherever it is obeyed, "every yoke is broken." +</p> +<p> +In these references to the New Testament we have a <i>general +description</i> of the primitive church, and the <i>principles</i> on which +it was founded and fashioned. These principles bear the same +relation to Christian <i>history</i> as to Christian <i>character</i>, since +the former is occupied with the development of the latter. What then +is Christian character but Christian principle <i>realized</i>, acted out, +bodied forth, and animated? Christian principle is the soul, of +which Christian character is the expression—the manifestation. It +comprehends in itself, as a living seed, such Christian character, +under every form, modification, and complexion. The former is, +therefore, the test and interpreter of the latter. In the light of +Christian principle, and in that light only, we can judge of and +explain Christian character. Christian history is occupied with the +forms, modifications, and various aspects of Christian character. +The facts which are there recorded serve to show, how Christian +principle has fared in this world—how it has appeared, what it has +done, how it has been treated. In these facts we have the various +institutions, usages, designs, doings, and sufferings of the church +of Christ. And all these have of necessity, the closest relation to +Christian principle. They are the production of its power. Through +them, it is revealed and manifested. In its light, they are to be +studied, explained, and understood. Without it they must be as +unintelligible and insignificant as the letters of a book scattered +on the wind. +</p> +<p> +In the principles of Christianity, then, we have a comprehensive and +faithful account of its objects, institutions, and usages—of how it +must behave, and act, and suffer, in a world of sin and misery. For +between the principles which God reveals, on the one hand, and the +precepts he enjoins, the institutions he establishes, and the usages +he approves, on the other, there must be consistency and harmony. +Otherwise we impute to God what we must abhor in man—practice at war +with principle. Does the Savior, then, lay down the <i>principle</i> that +our standing in the church must depend upon the habits formed within +us, of readily and heartily subserving the welfare of others; and +permit us <i>in practice</i> to invade the rights and trample on the +happiness of our fellows, by reducing them to slavery. Does he, +<i>in principle</i> and by example, require us to go all lengths in +rendering mutual service, or comprehending offices the most menial, +as well as the most honorable; and permit us <i>in practice</i> to EXACT +service of our brethren, as if they were nothing better than +"articles of merchandize!" Does he require us <i>in principle</i> +"to work with quietness and eat our own bread;" and permit us +<i>in practice</i> to wrest from our brethren the fruits of their +unrequited toil? Does he <i>in principle</i> require us, abstaining from +every form of theft, to employ our powers in useful labor, not only +to provide for ourselves but also to relieve the indigence of others; +and permit us <i>in practice</i>, abstaining from every form of labor, to +enrich and aggrandize ourselves with the fruits of man-stealing? +Does he require us <i>in principle</i> to regard "the laborer as worthy +of his hire"; and permit us <i>in practice</i> to defraud him of his wages? +Does he require us <i>in principle</i> to honor ALL men; and permit us +<i>in practice</i> to treat multitudes like cattle? Does he <i>in +principle</i> prohibit "respect of persons;" and permit us <i>in practice</i> +to place the feet of the rich upon the necks of the poor? Does he +<i>in principle</i> require us to sympathize with the bondman as +another self; and permit us <i>in practice</i> to leave him unpitied and +unhelped in the hands of the oppressor? <i>In principle</i>, "where the +Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;" <i>in practice</i>, is <i>slavery</i> +the fruit of the Spirit? <i>In principle</i>, Christianity is the law of +liberty; <i>in practice</i>, it is the law of slavery? Bring practice in +these various respects into harmony with principle, and what becomes +of slavery? And if, where the divine government is concerned, +practice is the expression of principle, and principle the standard +and interpreter of practice, such harmony cannot but be maintained +and must be asserted. In studying, therefore, fragments of history +and sketches of biography—in disposing of references to institutions, +usages, and facts in the New Testament, this necessary harmony +between principle and practice in the government <i>of God</i>, should be +continually present to the thoughts of the interpreter. Principles +assert what practice must be. Whatever principle condemns, God +condemns. It belongs to those weeds of the dung-hill which, planted +by "an enemy," his hand will assuredly "root up." It is most certain +then, that if slavery prevailed in the first ages of Christianity, +it could nowhere have prevailed under its influence and with its +sanction. +</p> +<hr> +<p> +The condition in which in its efforts to bless mankind, the +primitive church was placed, must have greatly assisted the early +Christians in understanding and applying the principles of the gospel. +Their <i>Master</i> was born in great obscurity, lived in the deepest +poverty, and died the most ignominious death. The place of his +residence, his familiarity with the outcasts of society, his +welcoming assistance and support from female hands, his casting his +beloved mother, when he hung upon the cross, upon the charity of a +disciple—such things evince the depth of his poverty, and show to +what derision and contempt he must have been exposed. Could such an +one, "despised and rejected of men—a man of sorrows and acquainted +with grief," play the oppressor, or smile on those who made +merchandize of the poor! +</p> +<p> +And what was the history of the <i>apostles</i>, but an illustration of +the doctrine, that "it is enough for the disciple, that he be as his +Master?" Were they lordly ecclesiastics, abounding with wealth, +shining with splendor, bloated with luxury! Were they ambitious of +distinction, fleecing, and trampling, and devouring "the flocks," +that they themselves might "have the pre-eminence!" Were they +slaveholding bishops! Or did they derive their support from the +wages of iniquity and the price of blood! Can such inferences be +drawn from the account of their condition, which the most gifted and +enterprising of their number has put upon record? "Even unto this +present hour, we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and <i>are +buffetted</i>, and have <i>no certain dwelling place, and labor working +with our own hands</i>. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we +suffer it; being defamed, we entreat; we are made as <i>the filth of +the world</i>, and are THE OFFSCOURING OF ALL THINGS unto this day."[<a name="rnote12-23"></a><a href="#note12-23">23</a>] +Are these the men who practised or countenanced slavery? <i>With +such a temper, they</i> WOULD NOT; <i>in such circumstances, they</i> COULD +NOT. Exposed to "tribulation, distress, and persecution;" subject to +famine and nakedness, to peril and the sword; "killed all the day +long; accounted as sheep for the slaughter,"[<a name="rnote12-24"></a><a href="#note12-24">24</a>] they would have made +but a sorry figure at the <i>great-house</i> or slave-market. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-23"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-23">23</a>: 1 Cor. iv. 11-13.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-24"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-24">24</a>: Rom. viii. 35, 36.] +</p> +<p> +Nor was the condition of the brethren, generally, better than that of the +apostles. The position of the apostles doubtless entitled them to +the strongest opposition, the heaviest reproaches, the fiercest +persecution. But derision and contempt must have been the lot of +Christians generally. Surely we cannot think so ill of primitive +Christianity as to suppose that believers, generally, refused to +share in the trials and sufferings of their leaders; as to suppose +that while the leaders submitted to manual labor, to buffeting, to be +reckoned the filth of the world, to be accounted as sheep for the +slaughter, his brethren lived in affluence, ease, and honor! +despising manual labor and living upon the sweat of unrequited toil! +But on this point we are not left to mere inference and conjecture. +The apostle Paul in the plainest language explains the ordination of +Heaven. "But <i>God hath</i> CHOSEN the foolish things of the world to +confound the wise; and God hath CHOSEN the weak things of the world +to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, +and things which are despised hath God CHOSEN, yea, and THINGS WHICH +ARE NOT, to bring to nought things that are."[<a name="rnote12-25"></a><a href="#note12-25">25</a>] Here we may well notice, +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. That it was not by <i>accident</i>, that the primitive churches were +made up of such elements, but the result of the DIVINE CHOICE—an +arrangement of His wise and gracious Providence. The inference is +natural, that this ordination was co-extensive with the triumphs of +Christianity. It was nothing new or strange, that Jehovah had +concealed his glory "from the wise and prudent, and had revealed it +unto babes," or that "the common people heard him gladly," while +"not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, +had been called." +</li> +<li> +2. The description of character, which the apostle records, could be +adapted only to what are reckoned the <i>very dregs of humanity</i>. The +foolish and the weak, the base and the contemptible, in the +estimation of worldly pride and wisdom—these were they whose broken +hearts were reached, and moulded, and refreshed by the gospel; these +were they whom the apostle took to his bosom as his own brethren. +</li> +</ul> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-25"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-25">25</a>: 1 Cor. i. 27, 28.] +</p> +<p> +That <i>slaves</i> abounded at Corinth, may easily be admitted. <i>They</i> +have a place in the enumeration of elements of which, according to +the apostle, the church there was composed. The most remarkable +class found there, consisted of "THINGS WHICH ARE NOT"—mere nobodies, +not admitted to the privileges of men, but degraded to a level with +"goods and chattels;" of whom <i>no account</i> was made in such +arrangements of society as subserved the improvement, and dignity, +and happiness of MANKIND. How accurately the description applies to +those who are crushed under the chattel principle! +</p> +<p> +The reference which the apostle makes to the "deep poverty of the +churches of Macedonia,"[<a name="rnote12-26"></a><a href="#note12-26">26</a>] and this to stir up the sluggish +liberality of his Corinthian brethren, naturally leaves the +impression, that the latter were by no means inferior to the former +in the gifts of Providence. But, pressed with want and pinched by +poverty as were the believers in "Macedonia and Achaia, it pleased +them to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which were +at Jerusalem."[<a name="rnote12-27"></a><a href="#note12-27">27</a>] Thus it appears, that Christians everywhere were +familiar with contempt and indigence, so much so, that the apostle +would dissuade such as had no families from assuming the +responsibilities of the conjugal relation![<a name="rnote12-28"></a><a href="#note12-28">28</a>] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-26"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-26">26</a>: 2 Cor. viii. 2.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-27"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-27">27</a>: Rom. xv. 26.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-28"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-28">28</a>: Cor. vii. 26, 27.] +</p> +<p> +Now, how did these good people treat each other? Did the few among +them, who were esteemed wise, mighty, or noble, exert their +influence and employ their power in oppressing the weak, in disposing +of the "things that are not," as marketable commodities!—kneeling +with them in prayer in the evening, and putting them up at auction +the next morning! Did the church sell any of the members to swell +the "certain contribution for the poor saints at Jerusalem!" Far +other wise—as far as possible! In those Christian communities where +the influence of the apostles was most powerful, and where the +arrangements drew forth their highest commendations, believers +treated each other as <i>brethren</i>, in the strongest sense of that +sweet word. So warm was their mutual love, so strong the public +spirit, so open-handed and abundant the general liberality, that +they are set forth as "<i>having all things common.</i>" [<a name="rnote12-29"></a><a href="#note12-29">29</a>] Slaves and +their holders here? Neither the one nor the other could, in that +relation to each other, have breathed such an atmosphere. The appeal +of the kneeling bondman, "Am I not a man and a brother," must here +have met with a prompt and powerful response. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-29"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-29">29</a>: Acts, iv. 32.] +</p> +<p> +The <i>tests</i> by which our Savior tries the character of his professed +disciples, shed a strong light upon the genius of the gospel. In one +connection,[<a name="rnote12-30"></a><a href="#note12-30">30</a>] an inquirer demands of the Savior, "What good thing +shall I do that I may have eternal life?" After being reminded of the +obligations which his social nature imposed upon him, he ventured, +while claiming to be free from guilt in his relations to mankind, to +demand, "what lack I yet?" The radical deficiency under which his +character labored, the Savior was not long or obscure in pointing out. +"If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the +poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me." +On this passage it is natural to suggest— +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. That we have here a <i>test of universal application</i>. The rectitude +and benevolence of our Savior's character forbid us to suppose, that +he would subject this inquirer, especially as he was highly amiable, +to a trial, where eternal life was at stake, <i>peculiarly</i> severe. +Indeed, the test seems to have been only a fair exposition of the +second great command, and of course it must be applicable to all who +are placed under the obligations of that precept. Those who cannot +stand this test, as their character is radically imperfect and +unsound, must, with the inquirer to whom our Lord applied it, be +pronounced unfit for the kingdom of heaven. +</li> +<li> +2. The least that our Savior can in that passage be understood to +demand is, that we disinterestedly and heartily devote ourselves to +the welfare of mankind, "the poor" especially. We are to put +ourselves on a level with <i>them</i>, as we must do "in selling that we +have" for their benefit—in other words, in employing our powers and +resources to elevate their character, condition, and prospects. This +our Savior did; and if we refuse to enter into sympathy and +co-operation with him, how can we be his <i>followers</i>? Apply this +test to the slaveholder. Instead of "selling that he hath" for the +benefit of the poor, he BUYS THE POOR, and exacts their sweat with +stripes, to enable him to "clothe himself in purple and fine linen, +and fare sumptuously every day;" or, HE SELLS THE POOR to support +the gospel and convert the heathen! +</li> +</ul> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-30"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-30">30</a>: Luke, xviii. 18-25.] +</p> +<p> +What, in describing the scenes of the final judgment, does our Savior +teach us? <i>By what standard</i> must our character be estimated, and the +retributions of eternity be awarded? A standard, which both the +righteous and the wicked will be surprised to see erected. From the +"offscouring of all things," the meanest specimen of humanity will +be selected—a "stranger" in the hands of the oppressor, naked, +hungry, sickly; and this stranger, placed in the midst of the +assembled universe, by the side of the sovereign Judge, will be +openly acknowledged as his representative. "Glory, honor, and +immortality," will be the reward of those who had recognized and +cheered their Lord through his outraged poor. And tribulation, +anguish, and despair, will seize on "every soul of man" who had +neglected or despised them. But whom, within the limits of our +country, are we to regard especially as the representatives of our +final Judge? Every feature of the Savior's picture finds its +appropriate original in our enslaved countrymen. +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. They are the LEAST of his brethren. +</li> +<li> +2. They are subject to thirst and hunger, unable to command a cup of water +or a crumb of bread. +</li> +<li> +3. They are exposed to wasting sickness, without the ability to +procure a nurse or employ a physician. +</li> +<li> +4. They are emphatically "in prison," restrained by chains, goaded +with whips, tasked, and under keepers. Not a wretch groans in any +cell of the prisons of our country, who is exposed to a confinement +so vigorous and heartbreaking as the law allows theirs to be +continually and permanently. +</li> +<li> +5. And then they are emphatically, and peculiarly, and exclusively, +STRANGERS—<i>strangers</i> in the land which gave them birth. Whom +else do we constrain to remain aliens in the midst of our free +institutions? The Welch, the Swiss, the Irish? The Jews even? Alas, +it is the <i>negro</i> only, who may not strike his roots into our +soil. Every where we have conspired to treat him as a stranger—every +where he is forced to feel himself a stranger. In the stage and +steamboat, in the parlor and at our tables, in the scenes of business +and in the scenes of amusement—even in the church of God and at the +communion table, he is regarded as a stranger. The intelligent and +religious are generally disgusted and horror-struck at the thought of +his becoming identified with the citizens of our republic—so much so, +that thousands of them have entered into a conspiracy to send him off +"out of sight," to find a home on a foreign shore!—and justify +themselves by openly alleging, that a "single drop" of his blood, in +the veins of any human creature, must make him hateful to his fellow +citizens!—That nothing but banishment from "our coasts," can redeem +him from the scorn and contempt to which his "stranger" blood has +reduced him among his own mother's children! +</li> +</ul> +<p> +Who, then, in this land "of milk and honey," is "hungry and athirst," +but the man from whom the law takes away the last crumb of bread and +the smallest drop of water? +</p> +<p> +Who "naked," but the man whom the law strips of the last rag of +clothing? +</p> +<p> +Who "sick," but the man whom the law deprives of the power of +procuring medicine or sending for a physician? +</p> +<p> +Who "in prison," but the man who, all his life, is under the control +of merciless masters and cruel keepers! +</p> +<p> +Who a "stranger," but the man who is scornfully denied the cheapest +courtesies of life—who is treated as an alien in his native country? +</p> +<p> +There is one point in this awful description which deserves +particular attention. Those who are doomed to the left hand of the +Judge, are not charged with inflicting <i>positive</i> injuries on their +helpless, needy, and oppressed brother. Theirs was what is often +called <i>negative</i> character. What they <i>had done</i> is not described +in the indictment. Their <i>neglect</i> of duty, what they <i>had</i> NOT +<i>done</i>, was the ground of their "everlasting punishment." The +representative of their Judge, they had seen a hungered and they +gave him no meat, thirsty and they gave him no drink, a stranger and +they took him not in, naked and they clothed him not, sick and in +prison and they visited him not. In as much as they did NOT yield to +the claims of suffering humanity—did NOT exert themselves to bless +the meanest of the human family, they were driven away in their +wickedness. But what if the indictment had run thus: I was a +hungered and ye snatched away the crust which might have saved me +from starvation; I was thirsty and ye dashed to the ground the +"cup of cold water," which might have moistened my parched lips; I +was a stranger and ye drove me from the hovel which might have +sheltered me from the piercing wind; I was sick and ye scourged me +to my task; in prison and you sold me for my jail-fees—to what +depths of hell must not those who were convicted under such charges +be consigned! And what is the history of American slavery but one +long indictment, describing under ever-varying forms and hues just +such injuries! +</p> +<p> +Nor should it be forgotten, that those who incurred the displeasure +of their Judge, took far other views than he, of their own past +history. The charges which he brought against them, they heard with +great surprise. They were sure that they had never thus turned away +from his necessities. Indeed, when had they seen him thus subject to +poverty, insult, and oppression? Never. And as to that poor +friendless creature, whom they left unpitied and unhelped in the +hands of the oppressor, and whom their Judge now presented as his +own representative, they never once supposed, that <i>he</i> had any +claims on their compassion and assistance. Had they known, that he +was destined to so prominent a place at the final judgment, they +would have treated him as a human being, in despite of any social, +pecuniary, or political considerations. But neither their <i>negative +virtue</i> nor their <i>voluntary ignorance</i> could shield them from the +penal fire which their selfishness had kindled. +</p> +<p> +Now amidst the general maxims, the leading principles, the "great +commandments" of the gospel; amidst its comprehensive descriptions +and authorized tests of Christian character, we should take our +position in disposing of any particular allusions to such forms and +usages of the primitive churches as are supported by divine authority. +The latter must be interpreted and understood in the light of the +former. But how do the apologists and defenders of slavery proceed? +Placing themselves amidst the arrangements and usages which grew out +of the <i>corruptions</i> of Christianity, they make these the standard +by which the gospel is to be explained and understood! Some Recorder +or Justice. without the light of inquiry or the aid of a jury, +consigns the negro whom the kidnapper has dragged into his presence +to the horrors of slavery. As the poor wretch shrieks and faints, +Humanity shudders and demands why such atrocities are endured. Some +"priest" or "Levite," "passing by on the other side," quite +self-possessed and all complacent, reads in reply from his broad +phylactery, <i>Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon</i>! Yes, echoes the +negro-hating mob, made up of "gentlemen of property and standing" +together with equally gentle-men reeking from the gutter; <i>Yes—Paul +sent back Onesimus to Philemon</i>! And Humanity, brow-beaten, stunned +with noise and tumult, is pushed aside by the crowd! A fair specimen +this of the manner in which modern usages are made to interpret the +sacred Scriptures? +</p> +<p> +Of the particular passages in the New Testament on which the +apologists for slavery especially rely, the epistle to Philemon +first demands our attention. +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. This letter was written by the apostle Paul while a "prisoner of +Jesus Christ" at Rome. +</li> +<li> +2. Philemon was a benevolent and trustworthy member of the church at +Colosse, at whose house the disciples of Christ held their assemblies, +and who owed his conversion, under God, directly or indirectly to +the ministry of Paul. +</li> +<li> +3. Onesimus was the servant of Philemon; under a relation which it +is difficult with accuracy and certainty to define. His condition, +though servile, could not have been like that of an American slave; +as, in that case, however he might have "wronged" Philemon, he could +not also have "<i>owed him ought.</i>"[<a name="rnote12-31"></a><a href="#note12-31">31</a> The American slave is, according +to law, as much the property of his master as any other chattel; and +can no more "owe" his master than can a sheep or a horse. The basis +of all pecuniary obligations lies in some "value received." How can +"an article of merchandise" stand on this basis and sustain +commercial relations to its owner? There is no <i>person</i> to offer or +promise. <i>Personality is swallowed up in American slavery</i>! +</li> +<li> +4. How Onesimus found his way to Rome it is not easy to determine. +He and Philemon appear to have parted from each other on ill terms. +The general character of Onesimus, certainly, in his relation to +Philemon, had been far from attractive, and he seems to have left +him without repairing the wrongs he had done him or paying the debts +which he owed him. At Rome, by the blessing of God upon the +exertions of the apostle, he was brought to reflection and repentance. +</li> +<li> +5. In reviewing his history in the light of Christian truth, he +became painfully aware of the injuries he had inflicted on Philemon. +He longed for an opportunity for frank confession and full +restitution. Having, however, parted with Philemon on ill terms, he +knew not how to appear in his presence. Under such embarrassments, +he naturally sought sympathy and advice of Paul. <i>His</i> influence +upon Philemon, Onesimus knew must be powerful, especially as an +apostle. +</li> +<li> +6. A letter in behalf of Onesimus was therefore written by the +apostle to Philemon. After such salutations, benedictions, and +thanksgiving as the good character and useful life of Philemon +naturally drew from the heart of Paul, he proceeds to the object of +the letter. He admits that Onesimus had behaved ill in the service +of Philemon; not in running away, for how they had parted with each +other is not explained; but in being unprofitable and in refusing to +pay the debts [<a name="rnote12-32"></a><a href="#note12-32">32</a>] which +he had contracted. But his character had +undergone a radical change. Thenceforward fidelity and usefulness +would be his aim and mark his course. And as to any pecuniary +obligations which he had violated, the apostle authorized Philemon +to put them on his account.[<a name="rnote12-33"></a><a href="#note12-33">33</a>] Thus a way was fairly opened to the +heart of Philemon. And now what does the apostles ask? +</li> +<li> +7. He asks that Philemon would receive Onesimus, How? "Not as a +<i>servant</i>, but <i>above</i> a servant."[<a name="rnote12-34"></a><a href="#note12-34">34</a>] How much above? Philemon was +to receive him as "a son" of the apostle—"as a brother +beloved"—nay, if he counted Paul a partner, an equal, he was to receive +Onesimus as he would receive <i>the apostle himself</i>.[<a name="rnote12-35"></a><a href="#rnote12-35">35</a>] <i>So much</i> +above a servant was he to receive him! +</li> +<li> +8. But was not this request to be so interpreted and complied with +as to put Onesimus in the hands of Philemon as "an article of +merchandise," CARNALLY, while it raised him to the dignity of a +"brother beloved," SPIRITUALLY? In other words, might not Philemon +consistently with the request of Paul have reduced Onesimus to a +chattel, as A MAN, while he admitted him fraternally to his bosom, +as a CHRISTIAN? Such gibberish in an apostolic epistle! Never. As if, +however to guard against such folly, the natural product of mist and +moonshine, the apostle would have Onesimus raised above a servant to +the dignity of a brother beloved, "BOTH IN THE FLESH AND IN THE LORD;"[<a name="rnote12-36"></a><a href="#note12-36">36</a>] as a man and Christian, in all the relations, circumstances, and +responsibilities of life. +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-31"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-31">31</a>: Philemon, 18.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-32"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-32">32</a>: Verse 11, 18.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-33"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-33">33</a>: Verse 18.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-34"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-34">34</a>: Verse 16.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-35"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-35">35</a>: Verse 10, 16, 17.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-36"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-36">36</a>: Verse 16.] +</p> +<p> +It is easy now with definiteness and certainty to determine in what +sense the apostle in such connections uses the word "<i>brother</i>". It +describes a relation inconsistent with and opposite to the <i>servile</i>. +It is "NOT" the relation of a "SERVANT." It elevates its subject +"above" the servile condition. It raises him to full equality with +the master, to the same equality, on which Paul and Philemon stood +side by side as brothers; and this, not in some vague, undefined, +spiritual sense, affecting the soul and leaving the body in bonds, +but in every way, "both in the FLESH and in the Lord." This matter +deserves particular and earnest attention. It sheds a strong light +on other lessons of apostolic instruction. +</p> +</li> +<li> +9. It is greatly to our purpose, moreover, to observe that the +apostle clearly defines the <i>moral character</i> of his request. It was +fit, proper, right, suited to the nature and relation of things—a +thing which <i>ought</i> to be done.[<a name="rnote12-37"></a><a href="#note12-37">37</a>] On this account, he might have +urged it upon Philemon in the form of an <i>injunction</i>, on apostolic +authority and with great boldness.[<a name="rnote12-38"></a><a href="#note12-38">37</a>] <i>The very nature</i> of the +request made it obligatory on Philemon. He was sacredly bound, out +of regard to the fitness of things, to admit Onesimus to full +equality with himself—to treat him as a brother both in the Lord +and as having flesh—as a fellow man. Thus were the inalienable +rights and birthright privileges of Onesimus, as a member of the +human family, defined and protected by apostolic authority. +</li> +<li> +10. The apostle preferred a request instead of imposing a command, +on the ground of CHARITY.[<a name="rnote12-39"></a><a href="#note12-39">39</a>] He would give Philemon an opportunity +of discharging his obligations under the impulse of love. To this +impulse, he was confident Philemon would promptly and fully yield. +How could he do otherwise? The thing itself was right. The request +respecting it came from a benefactor, to whom, under God, he was +under the highest obligations.[<a name="rnote12-40"></a><a href="#note12-40">40</a>] That benefactor, now an old man, +and in the hands of persecutors, manifested a deep and tender +interest in the matter and had the strongest persuasion that +Philemon was more ready to grant than himself to entreat. The result, +as he was soon to visit Collosse, and had commissioned Philemon to +prepare a lodging for him, must come under the eye of the apostle. +The request was so manifestly reasonable and obligatory, that the +apostle, after all, described a compliance with it, by the strong +word "<i>obedience</i>."[<a name="rnote12-41"></a><a href="#note12-41">41</a>] +</li> +</ul> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-37"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-37">37</a>: Verse 8. To [Greek: anaekon]. See Robinson's New +Testament Lexicon; "<i>it is fit, proper, becoming, it ought</i>." In +what sense King James' translators used the word "convenient" any +one may see who will read Rom. i. 28 and Eph. v. 3, 4.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-38"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-38">38</a>: Verse 8.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-39"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-39">39</a>: Verse 9—[Greek: dia taen agapaen]] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-40"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-40">40</a>: Verse 19.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-41"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-41">41</a>: Verse 21.] +</p> +<p> +Now, how must all this have been understood by the church at +Colosse?—a church, doubtless, made up of such materials as the +church at Corinth, that is, of members chiefly from the humblest walks +of life. Many of them had probably felt the degradation and tasted +the bitterness of the servile condition. Would they have been likely +to interpret the apostle's letter under the bias of feelings friendly +to slavery!—And put the slaveholder's construction on its +contents! Would their past experience or present sufferings—for +doubtless some of them were still "under the yoke"—have +suggested to their thoughts such glosses as some of our theological +professors venture to put upon the words of the apostle! Far +otherwise. The Spirit of the Lord was there, and the epistle was read +in the light of "<i>liberty</i>." It contained the principles of holy +freedom, faithfully and affectionately applied. This must have made +it precious in the eyes of such men "of low degree" as were most of +the believers, and welcome to a place in the sacred canon. There let +it remain as a luminous and powerful defence of the cause of +emancipation! +</p> +<p> +But what saith Professor Stuart? "If any one doubts, let him take +the case of Paul's sending Onesimus back to Philemon, with an apology +for his running away, and sending him back to be his servant for life."[<a name="rnote12-42"></a><a href="#note12-42">42</a>] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-42"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-42">42</a>: See his letter to Dr. Fisk, supra pp. 7, 8] +</p> +<p> +"Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon." By what process? Did the +apostle, a prisoner at Rome, seize upon the fugitive, and drag him +before some heartless and perfidious "Judge," for authority to send +him back to Colosse? Did he hurry his victim away from the presence +of the fat and supple magistrate, to be driven under chains and the +lash to the field of unrequited toil, whence he had escaped? Had the +apostle been like some teachers in the American churches, he might, +as a professor of sacred literature in one of our seminaries, or a +preacher of the gospel to the rich in some of our cities, have consented +thus to subserve the "peculiar" interests of a dear slaveholding brother. +But the venerable champion of truth and freedom was himself under +bonds in the imperial city, waiting for the crown of martyrdom. He +wrote a letter to the church a Colosse, which was accustomed to meet +at the house of Philemon, and another letter to that magnanimous +disciple, and sent them by the hand of Onesimus. So much for <i>the way</i> +in which Onesimus was sent back to his master. +</p> +<p> +A slave escapes from a patriarch in Georgia, and seeks a refuge in +the parish of the Connecticut doctor of Divinity, who once gave +public notice that he saw no reason for caring for the servitude of +his fellow men.[<a name="rnote12-43"></a><a href="#note12-43">43</a>] Under his influence, Caesar becomes a Christian +convert. Burning with love for the son whom he hath begotten in the +gospel, our doctor resolves to send him back to his master. +Accordingly, he writes a letter, gives it to Caesar, and bids him +return, staff in hand, to the "corner-stone of our republican +institutions." Now, what would my Caesar do, who had ever felt a +link of slavery's chain? As he left his <i>spiritual father</i>, should +we be surprised to hear him say to himself, What, return of my own +accord to the man who, with the hand of a robber, plucked me from my +mother's bosom!—for whom I have been so often drenched in the sweat +of unrequited toil!—whose violence so often cut my flesh and +scarred my limbs!—who shut out every ray of light from my mind!—who +laid claim to those honors to which my Creator and Redeemer +only are entitled! And for what am I to return? To be cursed, and +smitten, and sold! To be tempted, and torn, and destroyed! I cannot +thus throw myself away—thus rush upon my own destruction. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-43"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-43">43</a>: "Why should I care?"] +</p> +<p> +Who ever heard of the voluntary return of a fugitive from American +oppression? Do you think that the doctor and his friends could +persuade one to carry a letter to the patriarch from whom he had +escaped? And must we believe this of Onesimus? +</p> +<p> +"Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon." On what occasion?—"If," +writes the apostle, "he hath wronged thee, or oweth the aught, put +that on my account." Alive to the claims of duty, Onesimus would +"restore" whatever he "had taken away." He would honestly pay his +debts. This resolution the apostle warmly approved. He was ready, at +whatever expense, to help his young disciple in carrying it into +full effect. Of this he assured Philemon, in language the most +explicit and emphatic. Here we find one reason for the conduct of +Paul in sending Onesimus to Philemon. +</p> +<p> +If a fugitive slave of the Rev. Dr. Smylie, of Mississippi, should +return to him with a letter from a doctor of divinity in New York, +containing such an assurance, how would the reverend slaveholder +dispose of it? What, he exclaims, have we here? "If Cato has not +been upright in his pecuniary intercourse with you—if he owes you +any thing—put that on my account." What ignorance of southern +institutions! What mockery, to talk of pecuniary intercourse between +a slave and his master! <i>The slave himself, with all he is and has, +is an article of merchandise</i>. What can <i>he</i> owe his master? A +rustic may lay a wager with his mule, and give the creature the peck +of oats which he has permitted it to win. But who, in sober earnest, +would call this a pecuniary transaction? +</p> +<p> +"TO BE HIS SERVANT FOR LIFE!" From what part of the epistle could +the expositor have evolved a thought so soothing to tyrants—so +revolting to every man who loves his own nature? From this? +"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldst +receive him for ever." Receive him how? <i>As a servant</i>, exclaims our +commentator. But what wrote the apostle? "NOT <i>now as a servant, but +above a servant</i>, a brother beloved, especially to me, but how much +more unto thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord." Who authorized +the professor to bereave the word "<i>not</i>" of its negative influence? +According to Paul, Philemon was to receive Onesimus "<i>not</i> as a +servant;"—according to Stuart, he was to receive him "<i>as a servant</i>!" +If the professor will apply the same rules of exposition to the +writings of the abolitionists, all difference between him and them +must in his view presently vanish away. The harmonizing process +would be equally simple and effectual. He has only to understand +them as affirming what they deny, and as denying what they affirm. +</p> +<p> +Suppose that Professor Stuart had a son residing, at the South. His +slave, having stolen money of his master, effected his escape. He +fled to Andover, to find a refuge among the "sons of the prophets." +There he finds his way to Professor Stuart's house, and offers to +render any service which the professor, dangerously ill "of a typhus +fever," might require. He is soon found to be a most active, skilful, +faithful nurse. He spares no pains, night and day, to make himself +useful to the venerable sufferer. He anticipates every want. In the +most delicate and tender manner, he tries to sooth every pain. He +fastens himself strongly on the heart of the reverend object of his +care. Touched with the heavenly spirit, the meek demeanor, the +submissive frame, which the sick bed exhibits, Archy becomes a +Christian. A new bond now ties him and his convalescent teacher +together. As soon as he is able to write, the professor sends Archy +with the following letter to the South, to Isaac Stuart, Esq.:— +</p> +<p> +"MY DEAR SON,—With a hand enfeebled by a distressing and dangerous +illness, from which I am slowly recovering, I address you on a +subject which lies very near my heart. I have a request to urge, +which our mutual relation to each other, and your strong obligations +to me, will, I cannot doubt, make you eager fully to grant. I say a +request, though the thing I ask is, in its very nature and on the +principles of the gospel, obligatory upon you. I might, therefore, +boldly demand, what I earnestly entreat. But I know how generous, +magnanimous, and Christ-like you are, and how readily you will "do +even more than I say"—I, your own father, an old man, almost +exhausted with multiplied exertions for the benefit of my family and +my country and now just rising, emaciated and broken, from the brink +of the grave. I write in behalf of Archy, whom I regard with the +affection of a father, and whom, indeed, 'I have forgotten in my +sickness.' Gladly would I have retained him, to be <i>an Isaac</i> to me; +for how often did not his soothing voice, and skilful hand, and +unwearied attention to my wants remind me of you! But I chose to +give you an opportunity of manifesting, voluntarily, the goodness of +your heart; as, if I had retained him with me, you might seem to +have been forced to grant what you will gratefully bestow. His +temporary absence from you may have opened the way for his permanent +continuance with you. Not now as a slave. Heaven forbid! But +superior to a slave. Superior, did I say? Take him to your bosom, as +a beloved brother; for I own him as a son, and regard him as such, +in all the relations of life, both as a man and a Christian. +'Receive him as myself.' And that nothing may hinder you from +complying with my request at once, I hereby promise, without +adverting to your many and great obligations to me, to pay you every +cent which he took from your drawer. Any preparation which my +comfort with you may require, you will make without much delay, when +you learn, that I intend, as soon as I shall be able 'to perform the +journey,' to make you a visit." +</p> +<p> +And what if Dr. Baxter, in giving an account of this letter should +publicly declare that Professor Stuart, of Andover regarded +slaveholding as lawful; for that "he had sent Archy back to his son +Isaac, with an apology for his running away" to be held in perpetual +slavery? With what propriety might not the professor exclaim: False, +every syllable false. I sent him back, NOT TO BE HELD AS A SLAVE, +<i>but recognized as a dear brother, in all respects, under every +relation, civil and ecclesiastical</i>. I bade my son receive <i>Archy as +myself</i>. If this was not equivalent to a requisition to set him +fully and most honorably free, and that, too, on the ground of +natural obligation and Christian principle, then I know not how to +frame such a requisition. +</p> +<p> +I am well aware that my supposition is by no means strong enough +fully to illustrate the case to which it is applied. Professor Stuart +lacks apostolical authority. Isaac Stuart is not a leading member of +a church consisting, as the early churches chiefly consisted, of +what the world regard as the dregs of society—"the offscouring of +all things." Nor was slavery at Colosse, it seems, supported by such +barbarous usages, such horrid laws as disgrace the South. +</p> +<p> +But it is time to turn to another passage which, in its bearing on +the subject in hand, is, in our view, as well as in the view of +Dr. Fisk. and Prof. Stuart, in the highest degree authoritative and +instructive. "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their +own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his +doctrines 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." [<a name="rnote12-44"></a><a href="#note12-44">44</a>] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-44"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-44">44</a>: 1 Tim. vi. 1. 2. The following exposition of this +passage is from the pen of ELIZUR WRIGHT, JR.:— +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"This word [Greek: antilambanesthai] in our humble opinion, has been +so unfairly used by the commentators, that we feel constrained to +take its part. Our excellent translators, in rendering the clause +'partakers of the benefit,' evidently lost sight of the component +preposition, which expresses the <i>opposition of reciprocity</i>, rather +than the <i>connection of participation</i>. They have given it exactly +the sense of [Greek: metalambanein], (2 Tim. ii. 6.) Had the apostle +intended such a sense, he would have used the latter verb, or one of +the more common words, [Greek: metochoi, koinonomtes, &c.] (See Heb. +iii. 1, and 1 Tim. v. 22, where the latter word is used in the clause, +'neither be partaker of other men's sins.' Had the verb in our text +been used, it might have been rendered, 'neither be the <i>part-taker</i> +of other men's sins.') The primary sense of [Greek: antilambans] is +<i>to take in return</i>—<i>to take instead of, &c.</i> Hence, in the middle +with the genitive, it signifies <i>assist</i>, or <i>do one's part towards</i> +the person or thing expressed by that genitive. In this sense only +is the word used in the New Testament,—(See Luke i. 54, and Acts, xx. +35.) If this be true, the word [Greek: emsgesai] cannot signify the +benefit conferred by the gospel, as our common version would make it, +but the <i>well doing</i> of the servants, who should continue to serve +their believing masters, while they were no longer under the <i>yoke</i> +of compulsion. This word is used elsewhere in the New Testament but +once (Acts. iv. 3.) in relation to the '<i>good deed</i>' done to the +impotent man. The plain import of the clause, unmystified by the +commentators, is, that beleiving masters would not fail to <i>do their part +towards</i>, or encouraged by suitable returns, the <i>free</i> service of +those who had once been under the <i>yoke</i>."] +</p> +</blockquote> +<ul> +<li> +1. The apostle addresses himself here to two classes of servants, +with instructions to each respectively appropriate. Both the one +class and the other, in Professor Stuart's eye, were <i>slaves</i>. This +he assumes, and thus begs the very question in dispute. The term +servant is <i>generic</i>, as used by the sacred writers. It comprehends +all the various offices which men discharge for the benefit of each +other, however honorable, or however menial; from that of an apostle[<a name="rnote12-45"></a><a href="#note12-45">45</a>] opening the path to heaven, to that of washing "one another's +feet."[<a name="rnote12-46"></a><a href="#note12-46">46</a>] A general term it is, comprehending every office which +belongs to human relations and Christian character.[<a name="rnote12-47"></a><a href="#note12-47">47</a>] +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-45"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-45">45</a>: Cor. iv. 5.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-46"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-46">46</a>: John, xiii, 14.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-47"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-47">47</a>: Mat, xx, 26-28.] +</p> +<p> +A leading signification gives us the <i>manual laborer</i>, to whom, in +the division of labor, muscular exertion was allotted. As in his +exertions the bodily powers are especially employed—such powers as +belong to man in common with mere animals—his sphere has generally +been considered low and humble. And as intellectual power is +superior to bodily, the manual laborer has always been exposed in +very numerous ways and in various degrees to oppression. Cunning, +intrigue, the oily tongue, have, through extended and powerful +conspiracies, brought the resources of society under the control of +the few, who stood aloof from his homely toil. Hence his dependence +upon them. Hence the multiplied injuries which have fallen so +heavily upon him. Hence the reduction of his wages from one degree +to another, till at length, in the case of millions, fraud and +violence strip him of his all, blot his name from the record of +<i>mankind</i>, and, putting a yoke upon his neck, drive him away +to toil among the cattle. <i>Here you find the slave</i>. To reduce +the servant to his condition, requires abuses altogether +monstrous—injuries reaching the very vitals of man—stabs upon the +very heart of humanity. Now, what right has Professor Stuart to make +the word "<i>servants</i>," comprehending, even as manual laborers, so +many and such various meanings, signify "<i>slaves</i>," especially where +different classes are concerned? Such a right he could never have +derived from humanity, or philosophy, or hermeneutics. It is his by +sympathy with the oppressor? +</p> +<p> +Yes, different classes. This is implied in the term "as many,"[<a name="rnote12-48"></a><a href="#note12-48">48</a>] which sets apart the class now to be addressed. From these he +proceeds to others, who are introduced by a particle,[<a name="rnote12-49"></a><a href="#note12-49">49</a>] whose +natural meaning indicates the presence of another and a different +subject. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-48"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-48">48</a>: [Greek: Ochli] See Passow's Schneider.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-49"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-49">49</a>: [Greek: Dd.] See Passow.] +</p> +</li> +<li> +2. The first class are described as "<i>under the yoke</i>"—a yoke from +which they were, according to the apostle, to make their escape if +possible.[<a name="rnote12-50"></a><a href="#note12-50">50</a>] If not, they must in every way regard the master with +respect—bowing to his authority, working his will, subserving his +interests so far as might be consistent with Christian character.[<a name="rnote12-51"></a><a href="#note12-51">51</a>] And this, to prevent blasphemy—to prevent the pagan master from +heaping profane reproaches upon the name of God and the doctrines of +the gospel. They should beware of rousing his passions, which, as his +helpless victims, they might be unable to allay or withstand. +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-50"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-50">50</a>: See 1 Cor. vii, +21—[Greek: All' ei kai dunasai eleuphoros genesthai].] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-51"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-51">51</a>: See 1 Cor. vii, +23—[Greek: Mae ginesthe doulos anthroton].] +</p> +<p> +But all the servants whom the apostle addressed were not "<i>under the +yoke</i>"[<a name="rnote12-52"></a><a href="#note12-52">52</a>]—an instrument appropriate to cattle and to slaves. These +he distinguishes from another class, who instead of a "yoke"—the +badge of a slave—had "<i>believing masters</i>." <i>To have a "believing +master," then, was equivalent to freedom from "the yoke</i>." These +servants were exhorted not <i>to despise</i> their masters. What need of +such an exhortation, if their masters had been slaveholders, holding +them as property, wielding them as mere instruments, disposing of +them as "articles of merchandise." But this was not consistent with +believing. Faith, "breaking every yoke," united master and servants +in the bonds of brotherhood. Brethren they were, joined in a +relation which, excluding the yoke,[<a name="rnote12-53"></a><a href="#note12-53">53</a>] placed them side by side on +the ground of equality, where, each in his appropriate sphere, they +might exert themselves freely and usefully, to the mutual benefit of +each other. Here, servants might need to be cautioned against getting +above their appropriate business, putting on airs, despising their +masters, and thus declining or neglecting their service.[<a name="rnote12-54"></a><a href="#note12-54">54</a>] +Instead of this, they should be, as emancipated slaves often +have been, [<a name="rnote12-55"></a><a href="#note12-55">55</a>] models of enterprise, fidelity, activity, and +usefulness—especially as their masters were "worthy of their +confidence and love," their helpers in this well-doing. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-52"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-52">52</a>: See Lev. xxvi. 13; Isa lviii. 6, 9.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-53"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-53">53</a>53: Supra p. 44.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-54"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-54">54</a>54: See Mat. vi. 24.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-55"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-55">55</a>: Those, for instance, set free by that "believing master" James G. Birney.] +</p> +</li> +</ul> +<p> +Such, then, is the relation between those who, in the view of +Professor Stuart, were Christian masters and Christian slaves[<a name="rnote12-56"></a><a href="#note12-56">56</a>]—the relation of "brethren," which, excluding "the yoke," and of +course conferring freedom, placed them side by side on the common +ground of mutual service, both retaining, for convenience sake, the +one while giving and the other while receiving employment, the +correlative name, <i>as is usual in such cases</i>, under which they had +been known. Such was the instruction which Timothy was required, as +a Christian minister, to give. Was it friendly to slaveholding? +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-56"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-56">56</a>: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra, p. 7.] +</p> +<p> +And on what ground, according to the Princeton professor, did these +masters and these servants stand in their relation to each other? On +that <i>of a "perfect religious equality."</i>[<a name="rnote12-57"></a><a href="#note12-57">57</a>] In all the relations, +duties, and privileges—in all the objects, interests, and prospects, +which belong to the province of Christianity, servants were as free +as their master. The powers of the one, were allowed as wide a range +and as free an exercise, with as warm encouragements, as active aids, +and as high results, as the other. Here, the relation of a servant +to his master imposed no restrictions, involved no embarrassments, +occasioned no injury. All this, clearly and certainly, is implied in +"<i>perfect religious equality</i>," which the Princeton professor +accords to servants in relation to their master. Might the <i>master</i>, +then, in order more fully to attain the great ends for which he was +created and redeemed, freely exert himself to increase his +acquaintance with his own powers, and relations, and resources—with +his prospects, opportunities, and advantages? So might his <i>servants</i>. +Was <i>he</i> at liberty to "study to approve himself to God," to submit +to his will and bow to his authority, as the sole standard of +affection and exertion? So were <i>they</i>. Was <i>he</i> at liberty to +sanctify the Sabbath, and frequent the "solemn assembly?" So were +<i>they</i>. Was <i>he</i> at liberty so to honor the filial, conjugal, and +paternal relations, as to find in them that spring of activity and +that source of enjoyment, which they are capable of yielding? So +were <i>they</i>. In every department of interest and exertion, they +might use their capacities, and wield their powers, and improve +their opportunities, and employ their resources, as freely as he, in +glorifying God, in blessing mankind, and in laying up imperishable +treasures for themselves! Give perfect religious equality to the +American slave, and the most eager abolitionist must be satisfied. +Such equality would, like the breath of the Almighty, dissolve the +last link of the chain of servitude. Dare those who, for the benefit +of slavery, have given so wide and active a circulation to the +Pittsburg pamphlet, make the experiment? +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-57"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-57">57</a>: Pittsburg Pamphlet, p. 9.] +</p> +<p> +In the epistle to the Colossians, the following passage deserves +earnest attention:—"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: and whatsoever ye do, do it +heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing, that of the +Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance; for ye serve +the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong +which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.—Masters, +give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that +ye have a Master in heaven."[<a name="rnote12-58"></a><a href="#note12-58">58</a>] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-58"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-58">58</a>: Col. iii. 22 to iv. 1.] +</p> +<p> +Here it is natural to remark— +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. That in maintaining the relation, which mutually united them, +both masters and servants were to act in conformity with the +principles of the divine government. Whatever <i>they</i> did, servants +were to do in hearty obedience to the Lord, by whose authority they +were to be controlled and by whose hand they were to be rewarded. To +the same Lord, and according to the same law, was the <i>master</i> to +hold himself responsible. <i>Both the one and the other were of course +equally at liberty and alike required to study and apply the standard, +by which they were to be governed and judged.</i> +</li> +<li> +2. The basis of the government under which they thus were placed, +was <i>righteousness</i>—strict, stern, impartial. Nothing here of bias +or antipathy. Birth, wealth, station,—the dust of the balance not +so light! Both master and servants were hastening to a tribunal, +where nothing of "respect of persons" could be feared or hoped for. +There the wrong-doer, whoever he might be, and whether from the top +or bottom of society, must be dealt with according to his deservings. +</li> +<li> +3. Under this government, servants were to be universally and +heartily obedient; and both in the presence and absence of the master, +faithfully to discharge their obligations. The master on his part, +in his relations to the servants, was to make JUSTICE AND EQUALITY +the <i>standard of his conduct</i>. Under the authority of such +instructions, slavery falls discountenanced, condemned, abhorred. It +is flagrantly at war with the government of God, consists in +"respect of persons" the most shameless and outrageous, treads +justice and equality under foot, and in its natural tendency and +practical effects is nothing else than a system of wrong-doing. What +have <i>they</i> to do with the just and the equal who in their "respect of +persons" proceed to such a pitch as to treat one brother as a thing +because he is a servant, and place him, without the least regard to +his welfare here, or his prospects hereafter, absolutely at the +disposal of another brother, under the name of master, in the relation +of owner to property? Justice and equality on the one hand, and the +chattel principle on the other, are naturally subversive of each +other—proof clear and decisive that the correlates, masters and +servants, cannot here be rendered slaves and owners, without the +grossest absurdity and the greatest violence. +</li> +<li> +"Servants, be obedient to them that are <i>your</i> 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; with good +will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that +whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the +Lord, whether <i>he be</i> bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same +things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master +also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."[<a name="rnote12-59"></a><a href="#note12-59">59</a>] +</li> +</ul> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-59"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-59">59</a>: Ephesians, vi. 5-9.] +</p> +<p> +Without repeating here what has already been offered in exposition +of kindred passages, it may be sufficient to say:— +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. That the relation of the servants here addressed, to their master, +was adapted to make him the object of their heart-felt attachment. +Otherwise they could not have been required to render him an +affectionate service. +</li> +<li> +2. This relation demanded a perfect reciprocity of benefits. It had +its soul in <i>good-will</i>, mutually cherished and properly expressed. +Hence "THE SAME THINGS," the same in principle, the same in substance, +the same in their mutual bearing upon the welfare of the master and +the servants, was to be rendered back and forth by the one and the +other. It was clearly the relation of mutual service. Do we here +find the chattel principle? +</li> +<li> +3. Of course, the servants might not be slack, time-serving, +unfaithful. Of course, the master must "FORBEAR THREATENING." Slavery +without threatening! Impossible. Wherever maintained, it is of +necessity a <i>system of threatening</i>, injecting into the bosom of the +slave such terrors, as never cease for a moment to haunt and torment +him. Take from the chattel principle the support, which it derives +from "threatening," and you annihilate it at once and forever. +</li> +<li> +4. This relation was to be maintained in accordance with the +principles of the divine government, where "RESPECT OF PERSONS" +could not be admitted. It was, therefore, totally inconsistent with, +and submissive of, the chattel principle, which in American slavery +is developed in a system of "respect of persons," equally gross and +hurtful. No Abolitionist, however eager and determined in his +opposition to slavery, could ask for more than these precepts, once +obeyed, would be sure to confer. +</li> +</ul> +<p> +"The relation of slavery," according to Professor Stuart, is recognized +in "the precepts of the New Testament," as one which "may still +exist without violating the Christian faith or the church."[<a name="rnote12-60"></a><a href="#note12-60">60</a>] +Slavery and the chattel principle! So our professor thinks; +otherwise his reference has nothing to do with the subject—with the +slavery which the abolitionist, whom he derides, stands opposed to. +How gross and hurtful is the mistake into which he allows himself to +fall. The relation recognized in the precepts of the New Testament +had its basis and support in "justice and equality;" the very +opposite of the chattel principle; a relation which may exist as +long as justice and equality remain, and thus escape the destruction +to which, in the view of Professor Stuart, slavery is doomed. The +description of Paul obliterates every feature of American slavery, +raising the servant to equality with his master, and placing his +rights under the protection of justice; yet the eye of Professor +Stuart can see nothing in his master and servant but a slave and his +owner. With this relation he is so thoroughly possessed, that, like +an evil angel, it haunts him even when he enters the temple of +justice! +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-60"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-60">60</a>: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra p. 7.] +</p> +<p> +"It is remarkable," saith the Princeton professor, "that there is +not even an exhortation" in the writings of the apostles "to masters +to liberate their slaves, much less is it urged as an imperative and +immediate duty."[<a name="rnote12-61"></a><a href="#note12-61">61</a>] It would be remarkable, indeed, if they were +chargeable with a defect so great and glaring. And so they have +nothing to say upon the subject? <i>That</i> not even the Princeton +professor has the assurance to affirm. He admits that KINDNESS, MERCY, +AND JUSTICE, were enjoined with a <i>distinct reference to the +government of God</i>.[<a name="rnote12-62"></a><a href="#note12-62">62</a>] "Without respect of persons," they were to be +God-like in doing justice. They were to act the part of kind and +merciful "brethren." And whither would this lead them? Could they +stop short of restoring to every man his natural, inalienable rights?—of +doing what they could to redress the wrongs, sooth the sorrows, +improve the character, and raise the condition of the degraded and +oppressed? Especially, if oppressed and degraded by any agency of +theirs. Could it be kind, merciful, or just to keep the chains of +slavery on their helpless, unoffending brother? Would this be to +honor the Golden Rule, or obey the second great command of "their +Master in Heaven?" Could the apostles have subserved the cause of +freedom more directly, intelligibly, and effectually, than <i>to +enjoin the principles, and sentiments, and habits, in which +freedom consists—constituting its living root and fruitful germ</i>! +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-61"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-61">61</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-62"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-62">62</a>: The same, p. 10.] +</p> +<p> +The Princeton professor himself, in the very paper which the South +has so warmly welcomed and so loudly applauded as a scriptural +defence of "the peculiar institution," maintains, that the "GENERAL +PRINCIPLES OF THE GOSPEL <i>have</i> DESTROYED SLAVERY <i>throughout the +greater part of Christendom</i>"[<a name="rnote12-63"></a><a href="#note12-63">63</a>]—"THAT CHRISTIANITY HAS ABOLISHED +BOTH POLITICAL AND DOMESTIC BONDAGE WHEREVER IT HAS HAD FREE SCOPE—<i>that +it</i> ENJOINS <i>a fair compensation for labor; insists on the +mental and intellectual improvement of</i> ALL <i>classes of men; condemns</i> +ALL <i>infractions of marital or parental rights; requires, in short, +not only that</i> FREE SCOPE <i>should be allowed to human improvement, +but that</i> ALL SUITABLE MEANS <i>should be employed for the attainment +of that end</i>."[<a name="rnote12-64"></a><a href="#note12-64">64</a>] It is indeed "remarkable," that while neither +Christ nor his apostles ever gave "an exhortation to masters to +liberate their slaves," they enjoined such "general principles as +have destroyed domestic slavery throughout the greater part of +Christendom;" that while Christianity forbears "to urge" +emancipation "as an imperative and immediate duty," it throws a +barrier, heaven high, around every domestic circle; protects all the +rights of the husband and the father; gives every laborer a fair +compensation; and makes the moral and intellectual improvement of +all classes, with free scope and all suitable means, the object +of its tender solicitude and high authority. This is not only +"remarkable," but inexplicable. Yes and no—hot and cold, in one and +the same breath! And yet these things stand prominent in what is +reckoned an acute, ingenious, effective defence of slavery! +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-63"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-63">63</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 18, 19.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-64"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-64">64</a>: The same, p. 31.] +</p> +<p> +In his letter to the Corinthian church, the apostle Paul furnishes +another lesson of instruction, expressive of his views and feelings +on the subject of slavery. "Let every man abide in the same calling +wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for +it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 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. Ye are +bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men."[<a name="rnote12-65"></a><a href="#note12-65">65</a>] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-65"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-65">65</a>: 1 Cor. vii. 20-23.] +</p> +<p> +In explaining and applying this passage, it is proper to suggest: +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. That it <i>could</i> not have been the object of the apostle to bind the +Corinthian converts to the stations and employments in which the +gospel found them. For he exhorts some of them to escape, if possible, +from their present condition. In the servile state, "under the yoke," +they ought not to remain unless impelled by stern necessity. +"If thou canst be free, use it rather." If they ought to prefer +freedom to bondage and to exert themselves to escape from the latter +for the sake of the former, could their master consistently with the +claims and spirit of the gospel have hindered or discouraged them in +so doing? Their "brother" could <i>he</i> be, who kept "the yoke" upon +their neck, which the apostle would have them shake off if possible? +And had such masters been members of the Corinthian church, what +inferences must they have drawn from this exhortation to their +servants? That the apostle regarded slavery as a Christian +institution?—or could look complacently on any efforts to introduce +or maintain it in the church? Could they have expected less from him +than a stern rebuke, if they refused to exert themselves in the +cause of freedom? +</li> +<li> +2. But while they were to use their freedom, if they could obtain it, +they should not, even on such a subject, give themselves up to +ceaseless anxiety. "The Lord was no respecter of persons." They need +not fear, that the "low estate," to which they had been wickedly +reduced, would prevent them from enjoying the gifts of his hand or +the light of his countenance. <i>He</i> would respect their rights, sooth +their sorrows, and pour upon their hearts, and cherish there, the +spirit of liberty. "For he that is called in the Lord, being a +servant, is the Lord's freeman." In <i>him</i>, therefore, should they +cheerfully confide. +</li> +<li> +3. The apostle, however, forbids them so to acquiesce in the servile +relation, as to act inconsistently with their Christian obligations. +To their Savior they belonged. By his blood they had been purchased. +It should be their great object, therefore, to render <i>Him</i> a hearty +and effective service. They should permit no man, whoever he might be, +to thrust in himself between them and their Redeemer. "<i>Ye are +bought with a price</i>; BE NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN." +</li> +</ul> +<p> +With his eye upon the passage just quoted and explained, the +Princeton professor asserts that "Paul represents this relation"—the +relation of slavery—"as of comparatively little account."[<a name="rnote12-66"></a><a href="#note12-66">66</a>] And this he applies—otherwise it is nothing to his purpose—to +<i>American slavery</i>. Does he then regard it as a small matter, a +mere trifle, to be thrown under the slave-laws of this republic, +grimly and fiercely excluding their victim from almost every means +of improvement, and field of usefulness, and source of comfort; and +making him, body and substance, with his wife and babes, "the +servant of men?" Could such a relation be acquiesced in consistently +with the instructions of the apostle? +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-66"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-66">66</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, p.10.] +</p> +<p> +To the Princeton professor we commend a practical trial of the +bearing of the passage in hand upon American slavery. His regard for +the unity and prosperity of the ecclesiastical organizations, which +in various forms and under different names, unite the southern with +the northern churches, will make the experiment grateful to his +feelings. Let him, then, as soon as his convenience will permit, +proceed to Georgia. No religious teacher[<a name="rnote12-67"></a><a href="#note12-67">67</a>] from any free State, can +be likely to receive so general and so warm a welcome there. To +allay the heat, which the doctrines and movements of the +abolitionists have occasioned in the southern mind, let him with as +much despatch as possible, collect, as he goes from place to place, +masters and their slaves. Now let all men, whom it may concern, see +and own that slavery is a Christian institution! With his Bible in his +hand and his eye upon the passage in question, he addresses himself +to the task of instructing the slaves around him. Let not your hearts, +my brethren, be overcharged with sorrow, or eaten up with anxiety. Your +servile condition cannot deprive you of the fatherly regards of Him +"who is no respecter of persons." Freedom you ought, indeed, to +prefer. If you can escape from "the yoke," throw it off. In the mean +time rejoice that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;" +that the gospel places slaves "on a perfect religious equality" with +their master; so that every Christian is "the Lord's freeman." And, +for your encouragement, remember that "Christianity has abolished +both political and domestic servitude wherever it has had free scope. +It enjoins a fair compensation for labor; it insists on the moral and +intellectual improvement of all classes of men; it condemns all +infractions of marital or parental rights; in short it requires not +only that free scope be allowed to human improvement, but that all +suitable means should be employed for the attainment of that end."[<a name="rnote12-68"></a><a href="#note12-68">68</a>] Let your lives, then, be honorable to your relations to your +Savior. He bought you with his own blood; and is entitled to your +warmest love and most effective service. "Be not ye the servants of +men." Let no human arrangements prevent you, as citizens of the +kingdom of heaven, from making the most of your powers and +opportunities. Would such an effort, generally and heartily made, +allay excitement at the South, and quench the flames of discord, +every day rising higher and waxing hotter, in almost every part of +the republic, and cement "the Union?" +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-67"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-67">67</a>: Rev. Mr. Savage, of Utica, New York, had, not very +long ago, a free conversation with a gentleman of high standing in +the literary and religious world from a slaveholding State, where +the "peculiar institution" is cherished with great warmth and +maintained with iron rigor. By him, Mr. Savage was assured, that the +Princeton professor had, through the Pittsburg pamphlet, contributed +most powerfully and effectually to bring the "whole South" under the +persuasion, <i>that slaveholding is in itself right</i>—a system <i>to +which the Bible gives countenance and support</i>. +</p> +<p> +In an extract from an article in the Southern Christian Sentinel, a +new Presbyterian paper established in Charleston, South Carolina, +and inserted in the Christian Journal for March 21, 1839, we find +the following paragraphs from the pen of Rev. C.W. Howard, and, +according to Mr. Chester, ably and freely endorsed by the editor. +"There is scarcely any diversity of sentiment at the North upon this +subject. The great mass of the people, believing slavery to be sinful, +are clearly of the opinion that, as a system, it should be abolished +throughout this land and throughout the world. They differ as to the +time and mode of abolition. The abolitionists consistently argue, +that whatever is sinful should be instantly abandoned. The others, +<i>by a strange sort of reasoning for Christian men</i>, contend that +though slavery is sinful, <i>yet it may be allowed to exist until it +shall he expedient to abolish it</i>; or, if, in many cases, this +reasoning might be translated into plain English, the sense would be, +both in Church and State, <i>slavery, though sinful, may be allowed to +exist until our interest will suffer us to say that it must be +abolished</i>. This is not slander; it is simply a plain way of stating +a plain truth. It does seem the evident duty of every man to become +an abolitionist, who believes slavery to be sinful, for the Bible +allows no tampering with sin. +</p> +<p> +"To these remarks, there are some noble exceptions, to be found in +both parties in the church. <i>The South owes a debt of gratitude to +the Biblical Repertory, for the fearless argument in behalf of the +position, that slavery is not forbidden by the Bible</i>. The writer of +that article is said, without contradiction, to be <i>Professor Hodge, +of Princeton</i>—HIS NAME OUGHT TO BE KNOWN AND REVERED AMONG YOU, +<i>my brethren, for in a land of anti-slavery men, he is the</i> ONLY +ONE <i>who has dared to vindicate your character from the serious +charge of living in the habitual transgression of God's holy law</i>."] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-68"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-68">68</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 31.] +</p> +<p> +"It is," affirms the Princeton professor, "on all hands acknowledged, +that, at the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, slavery in its +worst forms prevailed over the whole world. <i>The Savior found it +around him</i> IN JUDEA."[<a name="rnote12-69"></a><a href="#note12-69">69</a>] To say that he found it <i>in Judea</i>, is to +speak ambiguously. Many things were to be found "<i>in</i> Judea," which +neither belonged to, nor were characteristic of <i>the Jews</i>. It is +not denied that <i>the Gentiles</i>, who resided among them, might have +had slaves; <i>but of the Jews this is denied</i>. How could the +professor take that as granted, the proof of which entered vitally +into the argument and was essential to the soundness of the +conclusions to which he would conduct us? How could he take +advantage of an ambiguous expression to conduct his confiding +readers on to a position which, if his own eyes were open, he must +have known they could not hold in the light of open day! +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-69"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-69">69</a>: The same, p. 9] +</p> +<p> +We do not charge the Savior with any want of wisdom, goodness, or +courage,[<a name="rnote12-70"></a><a href="#note12-70">70</a>] for refusing to "break down the wall of partition between +Jews and Gentiles" "before the time appointed." While this barrier +stood, he could not, consistently with the plan of redemption, +impart instruction freely to the Gentiles. To some extent, and on +extraordinary occasions, he might have done so. But his business +then was with "the lost sheep of the house of Israel."[<a name="rnote12-71"></a><a href="#note12-71">71</a>] The +propriety of this arrangement is not the matter of dispute between +the Princeton professor and ourselves. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-70"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-70">70</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 10.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-71"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-71">71</a>: Matt. xv. 24.] +</p> +<p> +In disposing of the question whether the Jews held slaves during our +Savior's incarnation among them, the following points deserve earnest +attention:— +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. Slaveholding is inconsistent with the Mosaic economy. For the +proof of this, we would refer our readers, among other arguments more +or less appropriate and powerful, to the tract already alluded to.[<a name="rnote12-72"></a><a href="#note12-72">72</a>] In all the external relations and visible arrangements of life, +the Jews, during our Savior's ministry among them, seem to have been +scrupulously observant of the institutions and usages of the +"Old Dispensation." They stood far aloof from whatever was +characteristic of Samaritans and Gentiles. From idolatry and +slaveholding—those twin-vices which had always so greatly prevailed +among the heathen—they seem at length, as the result of a most +painful discipline, to have been effectually divorced. +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-72"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-72">72</a>: "The Bible against Slavery."] +</p> +</li> +<li> +2. While, therefore, John the Baptist; with marked fidelity and great +power, acted among the Jews the part of a <i>reprover</i>, he found no +occasion to repeat and apply the language of his predecessors,[<a name="rnote12-73"></a><a href="#note12-73">73</a>] in exposing and rebuking idolatry and slaveholding. Could he, +the greatest of the prophets, have been less effectually aroused by +the presence of "the yoke," than was Isaiah?—or less intrepid and +decisive in exposing and denouncing the sin of oppression under its +most hateful and injurious forms? +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-73"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-73">73</a>: Psalm lxxxii; Isa. lviii. 1-12 Jer. xxii. 13-16.] +</p> +</li> +<li> +3. The Savior was not backward in applying his own principles plainly +and pointedly to such forms of oppression as appeared among the Jews. +These principles, whenever they have been freely acted on, the +Princeton professor admits, have abolished domestic bondage. Had +this prevailed within the sphere of our Savior's ministry, he could +not, consistently with his general character, have failed to expose +and condemn it. The oppression of the people by lordly ecclesiastics, +of parents by their selfish children, of widows by their ghostly +counsellors, drew from his lips scorching rebukes and terrible +denunciations.[<a name="rnote12-74"></a><a href="#note12-74">74</a>] How, then, must he have felt and spoke in the +presence of such tyranny, if <i>such tyranny had been within his +official sphere</i>, as should <i>have made widows</i>, by driving their +husbands to some flesh-market, and their children not orphans, +<i>but cattle</i>? +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-74"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-74">74</a>: Matt. xxiii; Mark, vii. 1-13.] +</p> +</li> +<li> +4. Domestic slavery was manifestly inconsistent with the <i>industry</i>, +which, <i>in the form of manual labor</i>, so generally prevailed among +the Jews. In one connection, in the Acts of the Apostles, we are +informed, that, coming from Athens to Corinth, Paul "found a certain +Jew, named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his +wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to +depart from Rome;) and came unto them. And because he was of the +same craft, he abode with them and wrought: (for by their occupation +they were tent-makers.")[<a name="rnote12-75"></a><a href="#note12-75">75</a>] This passage has opened the way for +different commentators to refer us to the public sentiment and +general practice of the Jews respecting useful industry and manual +labor. According to <i>Lightfoot</i>, "it was their custom to bring up +their children to some trade, yea, though they gave them learning or +estates." According to Rabbi Judah, "He that teaches not his son a +trade, is as if he taught him to be a thief."[<a name="rnote12-76"></a><a href="#note12-76">76</a>] It was, <i>Kuinoel</i> +affirms, customary even for Jewish teachers to unite labor (opificium) +with the study of the law. This he confirms by the highest +Rabbinical authority.[<a name="rnote12-77"></a><a href="#note12-77">77</a>] <i>Heinrichs</i> quotes a Rabbi as teaching, +that no man should by any means neglect to train his son to honest +industry.[<a name="rnote12-78"></a><a href="#note12-78">78</a>] Accordingly, the apostle Paul, though brought up at the +"feet of Gamaliel," the distinguished disciple of a most illustrious +teacher, practised the art of tent-making. His own hands ministered +to his necessities; and his example is so doing, he commends to his +Gentile brethren for their imitation.[<a name="rnote12-79"></a><a href="#note12-79">79</a>] That Zebedee, the father of +John the Evangelist, had wealth, various hints in the New Testament +render probable.[<a name="rnote12-80"></a><a href="#note12-80">80</a>] Yet how do we find him and his sons, while +prosecuting their appropriate business? In the midst of the hired +servants, "in the ship mending their nets."[<a name="rnote12-81"></a><a href="#note12-81">81</a>] +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-75"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-75">75</a>: Acts, xviii. 1-3.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-76"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-76">76</a>: Henry on Acts, xviii. 1-3.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-77"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-77">77</a>: Kuinoel on Acts.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-78"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-78">78</a>: Heinrichs on Acts.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-79"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-79">79</a>: Acts, xx. 34, 35; 1 Thess. iv. 11.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-80"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-80">80</a>: See Kuinoel's Prolegom. to the Gospel of John.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-81"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-81">81</a>: Mark, i. 19, 20.] +</p> +Slavery among a people who, from the highest to the lowest, were +used to manual labor! What occasion for slavery there? And how could +it be maintained? No place can be found for slavery among a people +generally inured to useful industry. With such, especially if +men of learning, wealth, and station, "labor, working with their +hands," such labor must be honorable. On this subject, let Jewish +maxims and Jewish habits be adopted at the South, and the "peculiar +institution" would vanish like a ghost at daybreak. +</li> +<li> +5. Another hint, here deserving particular attention, is furnished in +the allusions of the New Testament to the lowest casts and most +servile employments among the Jews. With profligates, <i>publicans</i> were +joined as depraved and contemptible. The outcasts of society were +described, not as fit to herd with slaves, but as deserving a place +among Samaritans and publicans. They were "<i>hired servants</i>," whom +Zebedee employed. In the parable of the prodigal son we have a +wealthy Jewish family. Here servants seem to have abounded. The +prodigal, bitterly bewailing his wretchedness and folly, described +their condition as greatly superior to his own. How happy the change +which should place him by their side? His remorse, and shame, and +penitence made him willing to embrace the lot of the lowest of them +all. But these—what was their condition? They were HIRED SERVANTS. +"Make me as one of thy hired servants." Such he refers to as the +lowest menials known in Jewish life. +</li> +</ul> +<p> +Lay such hints as have now been suggested together; let it be +remembered, that slavery was inconsistent with the Mosaic economy; +that John the Baptist in preparing the way for the Messiah makes no +reference "to the yoke" which, had it been before him, he would, like +Isaiah, have condemned; that the Savior, while he took the part of +the poor and sympathized with the oppressed, was evidently spared the +pain of witnessing within the sphere of his ministry, the presence, +of the chattel principle, that it was the habit of the Jews, whoever +they might be, high or low, rich or poor, learned or rude, "to labor, +working with their hands;" and that where reference was had to the +most menial employments, in families, they were described as carried +on by hired servants; and the question of slavery "in Judea," so far +as the seed of Abraham were concerned, is very easily disposed of. +With every phase and form of society among them slavery was +inconsistent. +</p> +<p> +The position which, in the article so often referred to in this paper, +the Princeton professor takes, is sufficiently remarkable. Northern +abolitionists he saw in an earnest struggle with southern +slaveholders. The present welfare and future happiness of myriads of +the human family were at stake in this contest. In the heat of the +battle, he throws himself between the belligerent powers. He gives +the abolitionists to understand, that they are quite mistaken in the +character of the objections they have set themselves so openly and +sternly against. Slaveholding is not, as they suppose, contrary to +the law of God. It was witnessed by the Savior "in its worst forms"[<a name="rnote12-82"></a><a href="#note12-82">82</a>] without extorting from his laps a syllable of rebuke. "The sacred +writers did not condemn it."[<a name="rnote12-83"></a><a href="#note12-83">83</a>] And why should they? By a definition +[<a name="rnote12-84"></a><a href="#note12-84">84</a>] sufficiently ambiguous and slippery, he undertakes to set forth +a form of slavery which he looks upon as consistent with the law of +Righteousness. From this definition he infers that the abolitionists +are greatly to blame for maintaining that American slavery is +inherently and essentially sinful, and for insisting that it ought +at once to be abolished. For this labor of love the slaveholding +South is warmly grateful and applauds its reverend ally, as if a +very Daniel had come as their advocate to judgment.[<a name="rnote12-85"></a><a href="#note12-85">85</a>] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-82"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-82">82</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-83"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-83">83</a>: The same, p. 13.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-84"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-84">84</a>: The same, p. 12.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-85"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-85">85</a>: Supra, p. 58.] +</p> +<p> +A few questions, briefly put, may not here be inappropriate. +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. Was the form of slavery which our professor pronounces innocent +<i>the form</i> witnessed by our Savior "in Judea?" That, <i>he</i> will by +no means admit. The slavery there was, he affirms, of the "worst" +kind. <i>How then does he account for the alleged silence of the +Savior?—a silence covering the essence and the form—the institution and +its "worst" abuses</i>? +</li> +<li> +2. Is the slaveholding, which, according to the Princeton professor, +Christianity justifies, the same as that which the abolitionists so +earnestly wish to see abolished? Let us see. +<table summary="Christianity vs. Slavery" border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2"> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<i>Christianity in supporting Slavery, according to Professor Hodge</i>: +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<i>The American system for supporting Slavery</i>: +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +"Enjoins a fair compensation for labor" +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Makes compensation impossible by reducing the laborer to a chattel. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +"It insists on the moral and intellectual improvement of all classes of men" +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +It sternly forbids its victim to learn to read even the name of his Creator and Redeemer. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +"It condemns all infractions of marital or parental rights." +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +It outlaws the conjugal and parental relations. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +"It requires that free scope should be allowed to human improvement." +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +It forbids any effort, on the part of myriads of the human family, to improve their character, condition, and prospects. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +"It requires that all suitable means should be employed to improve mankind" +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +It inflicts heavy penalties for teaching letters to the poorest of the poor. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +"Wherever it has had free scope, it has abolished domestic bondage." +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Wherever it has free scope, it perpetuates domestic bondage. +</td> +</table> +<p> +<i>Now it is slavery according to the American system</i> that the +abolitionists are set against. <i>Of the existence of any</i> such form +of slavery as is consistent with Professor Hodge's account of the +requisitions of Christianity, they know nothing. It has never met +their notice, and of course, has never roused their feelings or +called forth their exertions. What, then, have <i>they</i> to do with the +censures and reproaches which the Princeton professor deals around? +Let those who have leisure and good nature protect the <i>man of straw</i> +he is so hot against. The abolitionists have other business. It is +not the figment of some sickly brain; but that system of oppression +which in theory is corrupting, and in practice destroying both +Church and State;—it is this that they feel pledged to do battle +upon, till by the just judgment of Almighty God it is thrown, dead +and damned, into the bottomless abyss. +</p> +</li> +<li> +3. <i>How can the South feel itself protected by any shield which may +be thrown over</i> SUCH SLAVERY, <i>as may be consistent with what the +Princeton professor describes as the requisitions of Christianity</i>? +Is <i>this</i> THE <i>slavery</i> which their laws describe, and their hands +maintain? "Fair compensation for labor"—"marital and parental rights"—"free scope" and "all suitable means" for the "improvement, moral +and intellectual, of all classes of men;"—are these, according to +the statutes of the South, among the objects of slaveholding +legislation? Every body knows that any such requisitions and +American slavery are flatly opposed to and directly subversive of +each other. What service, then, has the Princeton professor, with +all his ingenuity and all his zeal, rendered the "peculiar +institution?" Their gratitude must be of a stamp and complexion +quite peculiar, if they can thank him for throwing their "domestic +system" under the weight of such Christian requisitions as must at +once crush its snaky head "and grind it to powder." +</li> +</ul> +<p> +And what, moreover, is the bearing of the Christian requisitions, +which Professor Hodge quotes, upon the <i>definition of slavery</i> which +he has elaborated? "All the ideas which necessarily enter into the +definition of slavery are, deprivation of personal liberty, +obligation of service at the discretion of another, and the +transferable character of the authority and claim of service of the +master."[<a name="rnote12-86"></a><a href="#note12-86">86</a>] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-86"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-86">86</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet p. 12.] +</p> +<table summary="Christianity vs. Slavery" border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2"> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<i>According to Professor Hodge's account of the requisitions of Christianity</i>, +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<i>According to Professor Hodge's definition of Slavery</i>, +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +The spring of effort in the laborer is a fair compensation. +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +The laborer must serve at the discretion of another. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Free scope must be given for his moral and intellectual improvement. +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +He is deprived of personal liberty—the necessary condition, and living soul of improvement, without which he has no control of either intellect or morals. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +His rights as a husband and a father are to be protected. +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +The authority and claims of the master may throw an ocean between him and his family, and separate them from each other's presence at any moment and forever. +</td> +</tr> +</table> +<p> +Christianity, then, requires such slavery as Professor Hodge so +cunningly defines, to be abolished. It was well provided for the +peace of the respective parties, that he placed <i>his definition</i> so +far from <i>the requisitions of Christianity</i>. Had he brought them +into each other's presence, their natural and invincible antipathy +to each other would have broken out into open and exterminating +warfare. But why should we delay longer upon an argument which is +based on gross and monstrous sophistry? It can mislead only such as +<i>wish</i> to be misled. The lovers of sunlight are in little danger +of rushing into the professor's dungeon. Those who, having something +to conceal, covet darkness, can find it there, to their heart's +content. The hour cannot be far away, when upright and reflective +minds at the South will be astonished at the blindness which could +welcome such protection as the Princeton argument offers to the +slaveholder. +</p> +<p> +But <i>Professor Stuart</i> must not be forgotten. In his celebrated +letter to Dr. Fisk, he affirms that "<i>Paul did not expect slavery to +be ousted in a day</i>."[<a name="rnote12-87"></a><a href="#note12-87">87</a>] <i>Did not</i> EXPECT! What then! Are the +<i>requisitions</i> of Christianity adapted to any EXPECTATIONS which +in any quarter and on any ground might have risen to human +consciousness? And are we to interpret the <i>precepts</i> of the gospel +by the expectations of Paul? The Savior commanded all men every +where to repent, and this, though "Paul did not expect" that human +wickedness, in its ten thousand forms would in any community +"be ousted in a day." Expectations are one thing; requisitions quite +another. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-87"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-87">87</a>: Supra, p. 7.] +</p> +<p> +In the mean time, while expectation waited, Paul, the professor adds, +"gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor." <i>That</i> he +did. Of what character were these precepts? Must they not have been +in harmony with the Golden Rule? But this, according to Professor +Stuart, "decides against the righteousness of slavery" even as a +"theory." Accordingly, Christians were required, <i>without respect of +persons</i>, to do each other justice—to maintain equality as common +ground for all to stand upon—to cherish and express in all their +intercourse that tender love and disinterested charity which one +<i>brother</i> naturally feels for another. These were the "ad interim +precepts."[<a name="rnote12-88"></a><a href="#note12-88">88</a>] which cannot fail, if obeyed, to cut up slavery, +"root and branch," at once and forever. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-88"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-88">88</a>: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7.] +</p> +<p> +Professor Stuart comforts us with the assurance that "<i>Christianity +will ultimately certainly destroy slavery</i>." Of this <i>we</i> have not +the feeblest doubt. But how could <i>he</i> admit a persuasion and utter +a prediction so much at war with the doctrine he maintains, that +"<i>slavery may exist without</i> VIOLATING THE CHRISTIAN FAITH OR THE +CHURCH?"[<a name="rnote12-89"></a><a href="#note12-89">89</a>] What, Christianity bent on the destruction of an ancient +and cherished institution which hurts neither her character nor +condition?[<a name="rnote12-90"></a><a href="#note12-90">90</a>] Why not correct its abuses and purify its spirit; and +shedding upon it her own beauty, preserve it, as a living trophy of +her reformatory power? Whence the discovery that, in her onward +progress, she would trample down and destroy what was no way hurtful +to her? This is to be <i>aggressive</i> with a witness. Far be it from +the Judge of all the earth to whelm the innocent and guilty in the +same destruction! In aid of Professor Stuart, in the rude and +scarcely covert attack which he makes upon himself, we maintain that +Christianity will certainly destroy slavery on account of its +inherent wickedness—its malignant temper—its deadly effects—its +constitutional, insolent, and unmitigable opposition to the +authority of God and the welfare of man. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-89"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-89">89</a>: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-90"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-90">90</a>: Professor Stuart applies here the words, <i>salva fide et +salva ecclesia</i>.] +</p> +<p> +"Christianity will <i>ultimately</i> destroy slavery." "ULTIMATELY!" What +meaneth that portentous word? To what limit of remotest time, +concealed in the darkness of futurity, may it look? Tell us, O +watchman, on the hill of Andover. Almost nineteen centuries have +rolled over this world of wrong and outrage—and yet we tremble in +the presence of a form of slavery whose breath is poison, whose fang +is death! If any one of the incidents of slavery should fall, but +for a single day, upon the head of the prophet, who dipped his pen +in such cold blood, to write that word "ultimately," how, under the +sufferings of the first tedious hour, would he break out in the +lamentable cry, "How <i>long</i>, O Lord, HOW LONG!" In the agony of +beholding a wife or daughter upon the table of the auctioneer, while +every bid fell upon his heart like the groan of despair, small +comfort would he find in the dull assurance of some heartless prophet, +quite at "ease in Zion," that "ULTIMATELY <i>Christianity would +destroy slavery</i>." As the hammer falls, and the beloved of his soul, +all helpless and most wretched, is borne away to the haunts of +<i>legalized</i> debauchery, his hearts turns to stone, while the cry +dies upon his lips, "<i>How</i> LONG, <i>O Lord</i>, HOW LONG!" +</p> +<p> +"<i>Ultimately</i>!" In <i>what circumstances</i> does Professor Stuart +assure himself that Christianity will destroy slavery? Are we, as +American citizens, under the sceptre of a Nero? When, as integral parts +of this republic—as living members of this community, did we forfeit +the prerogatives of <i>freemen</i>? Have we not the right to speak and +act as wielding the powers which the privileges of self-government +has put in our possession? And without asking leave of priest or statesman +of the North or the South, may we not make the most of the freedom +which we enjoy under the guaranty of the ordinances of Heaven and +the Constitution of our country! Can we expect to see Christianity +on higher vantage-ground than in this country she stands upon? In +the midst of a republic based on the principle of the equality of +mankind, where every Christian, as vitally connected with the state, +freely wields the highest political rights and enjoys the richest +political privileges; where the unanimous demand of one-half of the +members of the churches would be promptly met in the abolition of +slavery, what "<i>ultimately</i>" must Christianity here wait for before +she crushes the chattel principle beneath her heel? Her triumph over +slavery is retarded by nothing but the corruption and defection so +widely spread through the "sacramental host" beneath her banners! +Let her voice be heard and her energies exerted, and the <i>ultimately</i> +of the "dark spirit of slavery" would at once give place to the +<i>immediately</i> of the Avenger of the Poor. +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +No. 12. +</h2> +<h2 class="centered"> +THE +</h2> +<h2 class="centered"> +ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. +</h2> +<hr> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +DISUNION. +</h2> +<h3 class="centered"> +ADDRESS OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY +</h3> +<h3 class="centered"> +AND +</h3> +<h3 class="centered"> +F. JACKSON'S LETTER ON THE PRO-SLAVERY CHARACTER +</h3> +<h3 class="centered"> +OF THE CONSTITUTION +</h3> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p class="centered"> +NEW YORK: +</p> + +<p class="centered"> +AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. +</p> +<p class="centered"> +142 NASSAU STREET. +</p> +<p class="centered"> +1845. +</p> +<hr> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p class="centered"> +BOSTON: +</p> +<p class="centered"> +PRINTED BY DAVID H. ELA, +</p> +<p class="centered"> +NO. 37, CORNHILL. +</p> + +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<h2 class="centered"> +ADDRESS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE +</h2> +<h2 class="centered"> +OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY +</h2> +<h2 class="centered"> +TO THE +</h2> +<h2 class="centered"> +Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the U. States. +</h2> +<hr> +<p> +At the Tenth Anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, held +in the city of New-York, May 7th, 1844,—after grave deliberation, +and a long and earnest discussion,—it was decided, by a vote of +nearly three to one of the members present, that fidelity to the +cause of human freedom, hatred of oppression, sympathy for those who +are held in chains and slavery in this republic, and allegiance to +God, require that the existing national compact should be instantly +dissolved; that secession from the government is a religious and +political duty; that the motto inscribed on the banner of Freedom +should be, <b>NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS</b>; that it is impracticable for +tyrants and the enemies of tyranny to coalesce and legislate together +for the preservation of human rights, or the promotion of the +interests of Liberty; and that revolutionary ground should be +occupied by all those who abhor the thought of doing evil that good +may come, and who do not mean to compromise the principles of +Justice and Humanity. +</p> +<p> +A decision involving such momentous consequences, so well calculated +to startle the public mind, so hostile to the established order of +things, demands of us, as the official representatives of the +American Society, a statement of the reasons which led to it. This +is due not only to the Society, but also to the country and the world. +</p> +<p> +It is declared by the American people to be a self-evident truth, +"that all men are created equal; that they are endowed <b>BY THEIR +CREATOR</b> with certain inalienable rights; that among these are +<i>life</i>, <b>LIBERTY</b>, and the pursuit of happiness." It is further +maintained by them, that "all governments derive their just powers +from the consent of the governed;" that "whenever any form of +government becomes destructive of human rights, it is the right of +the people to alter or to abolish it, and institute a new government, +laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers +in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their +safety and happiness." These doctrines the patriots of 1776 sealed +with their blood. They would not brook even the menace of oppression. +They held that there should be no delay in resisting, at whatever +cost or peril, the first encroachments of power on their liberties. +Appealing to the great Ruler of the universe for the rectitude of +their course, they pledged to each other "their lives, their +fortunes and their sacred honor," to conquer or perish in their +struggle to be free. +</p> +<p> +For the example which they set to all people subjected to a despotic +sway, and the sacrifices which they made, their descendants cherish +their memories with gratitude, reverence their virtues, honor their +deeds, and glory in their triumphs. +</p> +<p> +It is not necessary, therefore, for us to prove that a state of +slavery is incompatible with the dictates of reason and humanity; or +that it is lawful to throw off a government which is at war with the +sacred rights of mankind. +</p> +<p> +We regard this as indeed a solemn crisis, which requires of every +man sobriety of thought, prophetic forecast, independent judgment, +invincible determination, and a sound heart. A revolutionary step is +one that should not be taken hastily, nor followed under the +influence of impulsive imitation. To know what spirit they are +of—whether they have counted the cost of the warfare—what are the +principles they advocate—and how they are to achieve their object—is +the first duty of revolutionists. +</p> +<p> +But, while circumspection and prudence are excellent qualities in +every great emergency, they become the allies of tyranny whenever +they restrain prompt, bold and decisive action against it. +</p> +<p> +We charge upon the present national compact, that it was formed at +the expense of human liberty, by a profligate surrender of principle, +and to this hour is cemented with human blood. +</p> +<p> +We charge upon the American Constitution, that it contains provisions, +and enjoins duties, which make it unlawful for freemen to take the +oath of allegiance to it, because they are expressly designed to +favor a slaveholding oligarchy, and, consequently, to make one +portion of the people a prey to another. +</p> +<p> +We charge upon the existing national government, that it is an +insupportable despotism, wielded by a power which is superior to all +legal and constitutional restraints—equally indisposed and unable to +protect the lives or liberties of the people—the prop and safeguard +of American slavery. +</p> +<p> +These charges we proceed briefly to establish: +</p> +<p> +I. It is admitted by all men of intelligence,—or if it be denied in +any quarter, the records of our national history settle the question +beyond doubt,—that the American Union was effected by a guilty +compromise between the free and slaveholding States; in other words, +by immolating the colored population on the altar of slavery, by +depriving the North of equal rights and privileges, and by +incorporating the slave system into the government. In the expressive +and pertinent language of scripture, it was "a covenant with death, +and an agreement with hell"—null and void before God, from the first +hour of its inception—the framers of which were recreant to duty, +and the supporters of which are equally guilty. +</p> +<p> +It was pleaded at the time of the adoption, it is pleaded now, that, +without such a compromise there could have been no union; that, +without union, the colonies would have become an easy prey to the +mother country; and, hence, that it was an act of necessity, +deplorable indeed when viewed alone, but absolutely indispensable to +the safety of the republic. +</p> +<p> +To this we reply: The plea is as profligate as the act was tyrannical. +It is the jesuitical doctrine, that the end sanctifies the means. It +is a confession of sin, but the denial of any guilt in its +perpetration. It is at war with the government of God, and +subversive of the foundations of morality. It is to make lies our +refuge, and under falsehood to hide ourselves, so that we may escape +the overflowing scourge. "Therefore, thus saith the Lord God, +Judgment will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet; +and the bail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters +shall overflow the hiding place." Moreover, "because ye trust in +oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon; therefore this +iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in +a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant. And he +shall break it as the breaking of the potter's vessel that is broken +in pieces; he shall not spare." +</p> +<p> +This plea is sufficiently broad to cover all the oppression and +villany that the sun has witnessed in his circuit, since God said, +"Let there by light." It assumes that to be practicable, which is +impossible, namely, that there can be freedom with slavery, union +with injustice, and safety with blood guiltiness. A union of virtue +with pollution is the triumph of licentiousness. A partnership +between right and wrong, is wholly wrong. A compromise of the +principles of Justice, is the deification of crime. +</p> +<p> +Better that the American Union had never been formed, than that it +should have been obtained at such a frightful cost! If they were +guilty who fashioned it, but who could not foresee all its frightful +consequences, how much more guilty are they, who, in full view of +all that has resulted from it, clamor for its perpetuity! If it was +sinful at the commencement, to adopt it on the ground of escaping a +greater evil, is it not equally sinful to swear to support it for the +same reason, or until, in process of time, it be purged from its +corruption? +</p> +<p> +The fact is, the compromise alluded to, instead of effecting a union, +rendered it impracticable; unless by the term union we are to +understand the absolute reign of the slaveholding power over the +whole country, to the prostration of Northern rights. In the just +use of words, the American Union is and always has been a sham—an +imposture. It is an instrument of oppression unsurpassed in the +criminal history of the world. How then can it be innocently +sustained? It is not certain, it is not even probable, that if it had +not been adopted, the mother country would have reconquered the +colonies. The spirit that would have chosen danger in preference to +crime,—to perish with justice rather than live with dishonor,—to +dare and suffer whatever might betide, rather than sacrifice the +rights of one human being,—could never have been subjugated by any +mortal power. Surely it is paying a poor tribute to the valor and +devotion of our revolutionary fathers in the cause of liberty, to say +that, if they had sternly refused to sacrifice their principles, they +would have fallen an easy prey to the despotic power of England. +</p> +<p> +II. The American Constitution is the exponent of the national compact. +We affirm that it is an instrument which no man can innocently bind +himself to support, because its anti-republican and anti-Christian +requirements are explicit and peremptory; at least, so explicit that, +in regard to all the clauses pertaining to slavery, they have been +uniformly understood and enforced in the same way, by all the courts +and by all the people; and so peremptory, that no individual +interpretation or authority can set them aside with impunity. It is +not a ball of clay, to be moulded into any shape that party +contrivance or caprice may choose it to assume. It is not a form of +words, to be interpreted in any manner, or to any extent, or for the +accomplishment of any purpose, that individuals in office under it +may determine. <i>It means precisely what those who framed and adopted +it meant</i>—NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS, <i>as a matter of bargain and +compromise</i>. Even if it can be construed to mean something else, +without violence to its language, such construction is not to be +tolerated <i>against the wishes of either party</i>. No just or honest +use of it can be made, in opposition to the plain intention of its +framers, <i>except to declare the contract at an end, and to refuse to +serve under it</i>. +</p> +<p> +To the argument, that the words "slaves" and "slavery" are not to be +found in the Constitution, and therefore that it was never intended +to give any protection or countenance to the slave system, it is +sufficient to reply, that though no such words are contained in that +instrument, other words were used, intelligently and specifically, +TO MEET THE NECESSITIES OF SLAVERY; and that these were adopted <i>in +good faith, to be observed until a constitutional change could be +effected</i>. On this point, as to the design of certain provisions, no +intelligent man can honestly entertain a doubt. If it be objected, +that though these provisions were meant to cover slavery, yet, as +they can fairly be interpreted to mean something exactly the reverse, +it is allowable to give to them such an interpretation, <i>especially +as the cause of freedom will thereby be promoted</i>—we reply, that +this is to advocate fraud and violence toward one of the contracting +parties, <i>whose co-operation was secured only by an express +agreement and understanding between them both, in regard to the +clauses alluded to</i>; and that such a construction, if enforced by +pains and penalties, would unquestionably lead to a civil war, in +which the aggrieved party would justly claim to have been betrayed, +and robbed of their constitutional rights. +</p> +<p> +Again, if it be said, that those clauses, being immoral, are null and +void—we reply, it is true they are not to be observed; but it is +also true that they are portions of an instrument, the support of +which, AS A WHOLE, is required by oath or affirmation; and, therefore, +<i>because they are immoral</i>, and BECAUSE OF THIS OBLIGATION +TO ENFORCE IMMORALITY, no one can innocently swear to support the +Constitution. +</p> +<p> +Again, if it be objected, that the Constitution was formed by the +people of the United States, in order to establish justice, to +promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to +themselves and their posterity: and therefore, it is to be so +construed as to harmonize with these objects; we reply, again, that +its language is <i>not to be interpreted in a sense which neither of +the contracting parties understood</i>, and which would frustrate every +design of their alliance—to wit, <i>union at the expense of the +colored population of the country</i>. Moreover, nothing is more +certain than that the preamble alluded to never included, in the +minds of those who framed it, <i>those who were then pining in bondage</i>—for, +in that case, a general emancipation of the slaves would have instantly been +proclaimed throughout the United States. The words, +"secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," +assuredly meant only the white population. "To promote the general +welfare," referred to their own welfare exclusively. "To establish +justice," was understood to be for their sole benefit as slaveholders, +and the guilty abettors of slavery. This is demonstrated by other +parts of the same instrument, and by their own practice under it. +</p> +<p> +We would not detract aught from what is justly their due; but it is +as reprehensible to give them credit for <i>what they did not possess</i>, +as it is to rob them of what is theirs. It is absurd, it is false, +it is an insult to the common sense of mankind, to pretend that the +Constitution was intended to embrace the entire population of the +country under its sheltering wings; or that the parties to it were +actuated by a sense of justice and the spirit of impartial liberty; +or that it needs no alteration, but only a new interpretation, to +make it harmonize with the object aimed at by its adoption. As truly +might it be argued, that because it is asserted in the Declaration +of Independence, that all men are created equal, and endowed with an +inalienable right to liberty, therefore none of its signers were +slaveholders, and since its adoption, slavery has been banished from +the American soil! The truth is, our fathers were intent on securing +liberty <i>to themselves</i>, without being very scrupulous as to the +means they used to accomplish their purpose. They were not actuated +by the spirit of universal philanthropy; and though <i>in words</i> they +recognized occasionally the brotherhood of the human race, <i>in +practice</i> they continually denied it. They did not blush to enslave +a portion of their fellow-men, and to buy and sell them as cattle in +the market, while they were fighting against the oppression of the +mother country, and boasting of their regard for the rights of man. +Why, then, concede to them virtues which they did not posses. +<i>Why cling to the falsehood, that they were not respecters of +persons in the formation of the government</i>? +</p> +<p> +Alas! that they had no more fear of God, no more regard for man, in +their hearts! "The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah [the +North and South] is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, +and the city full of perverseness; for they say, the Lord hath +forsaken the earth, and the Lord seeth not." +</p> +<p> +We proceed to a critical examination of the American Constitution, +in its relations to slavery. +</p> +<p> +In ARTICLE 1, Section 9, it is declared—"the migration or +importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall +think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress, prior +to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty +may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for +each person." +</p> +<p> +In this Section, it will be perceived, the phraseology is so guarded +as not to imply, <i>ex necessitate</i>, any criminal intent or inhuman +arrangement; and yet no one has ever had the hardihood or folly to +deny, that it was clearly understood by the contracting parties, to +mean that there should be no interference with the African slave +trade, on the part of the general government, until the year 1808. +For twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution, the +citizens of the United States were to be encouraged and protected in +the prosecution of that infernal traffic—in sacking and burning the +hamlets of Africa—in slaughtering multitudes of the inoffensive +natives on the soil, kidnapping and enslaving a still greater +proportion, crowding them to suffocation in the holds of the slave +ships, populating the Atlantic with their dead bodies, and +subjecting the wretched survivors to all the horrors of unmitigated +bondage! This awful covenant was strictly fulfilled; and though, +since its termination, Congress has declared the foreign slave +traffic to be piracy, yet all Christendom knows that the American +flag, instead of being the terror of the African slavers, has given +them the most ample protection. +</p> +<p> +The manner in which the 9th Section was agreed to, by the national +convention that formed the constitution, is thus frankly avowed by +the Hon. Luther Martin,[<a name="rnote12-91"></a><a href="#note12-91">91</a>] who was a prominent member of that body: +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"The Eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion of slavery, (!) +<i>were very willing to indulge the Southern States</i> at least with +a temporary liberty to prosecute the slave trade, provided the +Southern States would, in the return, <i>gratify</i> them by laying no +restriction on navigation acts; and, after a very little time, the +committee, by a great majority, agreed on a report, <i>by which the +general government was to be prohibited from preventing the +importation of slaves</i> for a limited time; and the restrictive +clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted." +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-91"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-91">91</a>: Speech before the Legislature of Maryland in 1787.] +</p> +<p> +Behold the iniquity of this agreement! How sordid were the motives +which led to it! what a profligate disregard of justice and humanity, +on the part of those who had solemnly declared the inalienable right +of all men to be free and equal, to be a self-evident truth! +</p> +<p> +It is due to the national convention to say, that this section was +not adopted "without considerable opposition." Alluding to it, +Mr. Martin observes— +</p> +<p> +"It was said we had just assumed a place among the independent +nations in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great +Britain to <i>enslave us</i>; that this opposition was grounded upon the +preservation of those rights to which God and nature has entitled us, +not in <i>particular</i>, but in <i>common with all the rest of mankind</i>; +that we had appealed to the Supreme Being for his assistance, as the +God of freedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve +the rights which he had thus imparted to his creatures; that now, +when we had scarcely risen from our knees, from supplicating his +mercy and protection in forming our government over a free people, a +government formed pretendedly on the principles of liberty, and for +its preservation,—in that government to have a provision, not only +of putting out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade, +even encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States +the power and influence in the Union in proportion as they cruelly +and wantonly sported with the rights of their fellow-creatures, +ought to be considered as a solemn mockery of, and insult to, that +God whose protection we had thus implored, and could not fail to +hold us up in detestation, and render us contemptible to every true +friend of liberty in the world. It was said that national crimes can +only be, and frequently are, punished in this world by <i>national +punishments</i>, and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus +giving it a national character, sanction, and encouragement, ought +to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and +vengeance of him who is equally the Lord of all, and who views +with equal eye the poor <i>African slave</i> and his <i>American master</i>![<a name="rnote12-92"></a><a href="#note12-92">92</a>] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-92"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-92">92</a>: How terribly and justly has this guilty nation been +scourged, since these words were spoken, on account of slavery and +the slave trade! Secret Proceedings, p. 64.] +</p> +<p> +"It was urged that, by this system, we were giving the general +government full and absolute power to regulate commerce, under which +general power it would have a right to restrain, or totally prohibit, +the slave trade: it must, therefore, appear to the world absurd and +disgraceful to the last degree that we should except from the +exercise of that power the only branch of commerce which is +unjustifiable in its nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind. +That, on the contrary, we ought to prohibit expressly, in our +Constitution, the further importation of slaves, and to authorize +the general government, from time to time, to make such regulations +as should be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of +slavery, and the emancipation of the slaves already in the States. +That slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and +has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, +as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and +habituates to tyranny and oppression. It was further urged that, by +this system of government, every State is to be protected both from +foreign invasion and from domestic insurrections; and, from this +consideration, it was of the utmost importance it should have the +power to restrain the importation of slaves, since in proportion as +the number of slaves increased in any State, in the same proportion +is the State weakened and exposed to foreign invasion and domestic +insurrection: and by so much less will it be able to protect itself +against either, and therefore by so much, want aid from, and be a +burden to, the Union. +</p> +<p> +"It was further said, that, in this system, as we were giving the +general government power, under the idea of national character, or +national interest, to regulate even our weights and measures, and +have prohibited all possibility of emitting paper money, and passing +insolvent laws, &c., it must appear still more extraordinary that we +prohibited the government from interfering with the slave trade, +than which nothing could more effect our national honor and interest. +</p> +<p> +"These reasons influenced me, both in the committee and in the +convention, most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as +it now makes part of the system."<a name="rnote12-93"></a><a href="#note12-93">93</a> +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-93"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-93">93</a>: Secret Proceedings, p. 64.] +</p> +<p> +Happy had it been for this nation, had these solemn considerations +been heeded by the framers of the Constitution! But for the sake of +securing some local advantages, they choose to do evil that good may +come, and to make the end sanctify the means. They were willing to +enslave others, that they might secure their own freedom. They did +this deed deliberately, with their eyes open, with all the facts and +consequences arising therefrom before them, in violation of all +their heaven-attested declarations, and in atheistical distrust of +the overruling power of God. "The Eastern States were very willing +to <i>indulge</i> the Southern States" in the unrestricted prosecution of +their piratical traffic, provided in return they could be <i>gratified</i> +by no restriction being laid on navigation acts!!—Had there been no +other provision of the Constitution justly liable to objection, this +one alone rendered the support of that instrument incompatible with +the duties which men owe to their Creator, and to each other. It was +the poisonous infusion in the cup, which, though constituting but a +very slight portion of its contents, perilled the life of every one +who partook of it. +</p> +<p> +If it be asked to what purpose are these animadversions, since the +clause alluded to has long since expired by its own limitation—we +answer, that, if at any time the foreign slave trade could be +<i>constitutionally</i> prosecuted, it may yet be renewed, under the +Constitution, at the pleasure of Congress, whose prohibitory statute +is liable to be reversed at any moment, in the frenzy of Southern +opposition to emancipation. It is ignorantly supposed that the +bargain was, that the traffic <i>should cease</i> in 1808; but the only +thing secured by it was, the <i>right</i> of Congress (not any obligation) +to prohibit it at that period. If, therefore, Congress had not +chosen to exercise that right, <i>the traffic might have been +prolonged indefinitely, under the Constitution</i>. The right to +destroy any particular branch of commerce, implies the right to +re-establish it. True, there is no probability that the African slave +trade will ever again be legalized by the national government; but +no credit is due the framers of the Constitution on this ground; for, +while they threw around it all the sanction and protection of the +national character and power for twenty years, <i>they set no bounds to +its continuance by any positive constitutional prohibition</i>. +</p> +<p> +Again, the adoption of such a clause, and the faithful execution of +it, prove what was meant by the words of the preamble—"to form a +more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, +provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and +secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"—namely, +that the parties to the Constitution regarded only their +own rights and interests, and never intended that its language +should be so interpreted as to interfere with slavery, or to make it +unlawful for one portion of the people to enslave another, <i>without +an express alteration in that instrument, in the manner therein set +forth</i>. While, therefore, the Constitution remains as it was +originally adopted, they who swear to support it are bound to comply +with all its provisions, as a matter of allegiance. For it avails +nothing to say, that some of those provisions are at war with the +law of God and the rights of man, and therefore are not obligatory. +Whatever may be their character, they are <i>constitutionally</i> +obligatory; and whoever feels that he cannot execute them, or swear +to execute them, without committing sin, has no other choice left +than to withdraw from the government, or to violate his conscience +by taking on his lips an impious promise. The object of the +Constitution is not to define <i>what is the law of God</i>, but WHAT IS +THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE—which will is not to be frustrated by an +ingenious moral interpretation, by those whom they have elected to +serve them. +</p> +<p> +ARTICLE 1, Sect. 2, provides—"Representatives and direct taxes +shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included +within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which +shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, +including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding +Indians not taxed, <i>three-fifths of all other persons</i>." +</p> +<p> +Here, as in the clause we have already examined, veiled beneath a +form of words as deceitful as it is unmeaning in a truly democratic +government, is a provision for the safety, perpetuity and +augmentation of the slaveholding power—a provision scarcely less +atrocious than that which related to the African slave trade, and +almost as afflictive in its operation—a provision still in force, +with no possibility of its alteration, so long as a majority of the +slave States choose to maintain their slave system—a provision +which, at the present time, enables the South to have twenty-five +additional representatives in Congress on the score of <i>property</i>, while +the North is not allowed to have one—a provision which concedes +to the oppressed three-fifths of the political power which is granted +to all others, aid then puts this power into the hands of their +oppressors, to be wielded by them for the more perfect security of +their tyrannous authority, and the complete subjugation of the +non-slaveholding States. +</p> +<p> +Referring to this atrocious bargain, ALEXANDER HAMILTON remarked in +the New York Convention— +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"The first thing objected to, is that clause which allows a +representation for three-fifths of the negroes. Much has been said +of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own: +whether this is <i>reasoning</i> or <i>declamation</i>, (!!) I will not +presume to say. It is the <i>unfortunate</i> situation of the Southern +States to have a great part of their population, as well as <i>property</i>, +in blacks. The regulation complained of was one result of <i>the +spirit of accommodation</i> which governed the Convention; and +without this <i>indulgence</i>, NO UNION COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN FORMED. +But, sir, considering some <i>peculiar advantages</i> which we derive +from them it is entirely JUST that they should be <i>gratified</i>—The +Southern States possess certain staples,—tobacco, rice, indigo, +&c.—which must be <i>capital</i> objects in treaties of commerce with +foreign nations; and the advantage which they necessarily procure in +these treaties will be felt throughout the United States." +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +If such was the patriotism, such the love of liberty, such the +morality of ALEXANDER HAMILTON, what can be said of the character of +those who were far less conspicuous than himself in securing +American independence, and in framing the American Constitution? +</p> +<p> +Listen, now, to the opinions of JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, respecting the +constitutional clause now under consideration:— +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"'In outward show, it is a representation of persons in bondage; in +fact, it is a representation of their masters,—the oppressor +representing the oppressed.'—'Is it in the compass of human +imagination to devise a more perfect exemplification of the art of +committing the lamb to the tender custody of the wolf?'—'The +representative is thus constituted, not the friend, agent and +trustee of the person whom he represents, but the most inveterate of +his foes.'—'It was <i>one</i> of the curses from that Pandora's box, +adjusted at the time, as usual, by a <i>compromise</i>, the whole +advantage of which inured to the benefit of the South, and to +aggravate the burdens of the North.'—'If there be a parallel to it +in human history, it can only be that of the Roman Emperors, who, +from the days when Julius Caesar substituted a military despotism in +the place of a republic, among the offices which they always +concentrated upon themselves, was that of tribune of the people. A +Roman Emperor tribune of the people, is an exact parallel to that +feature in the Constitution of the United States which makes the +master the representative of his slave.'—'The Constitution of the +United States expressly prescribes that no title of nobility shall +be granted by the United States. The spirit of this interdict is not +a rooted antipathy to the grant of mere powerless empty <i>titles</i>, +but to titles of <i>nobility</i>; to the institution of privileged orders +of men. But what order of men under the most absolute of monarchies, +or the most aristocratic of republics, was ever invested with such +an odious and unjust privilege as that of the separate and exclusive +representation of less than half a million owners of slaves, in the +Hall of this House, in the Chair of the Senate, and in the +Presidential mansion?'—'This investment of power in the owners of +one species of property concentrated in the highest authorities of +the nation, and disseminated through thirteen of the twenty-six +States of the Union, constitutes a privileged order of men in the +community, more adverse to the rights of all, and more pernicious to +the interests of the whole, than any order of nobility ever known. +To call government thus constituted a democracy, is to insult the +understanding of mankind. To call it an aristocracy, is to do +injustice to that form of government. Aristocracy is the government +of <i>the best</i>. Its standard qualification for accession to power +<i>is merit</i>, ascertained by popular election recurring at short +intervals of time. If even that government is prone to degenerate +into tyranny, what must be the character of that form of polity in +which the standard qualification for access to power is wealth in +the possession of slaves? It is doubly tainted with the infection of +riches and of slavery. <i>There is no name in the language of national +jurisprudence that can define it</i>—no model in the records of +ancient history, or in the political theories of Aristotle, with +which it can be likened. It was introduced into the Constitution of +the United States by an equivocation—a representation of property +under the name of persons. Little did the members of the Convention +from the free States foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden +under the mask of this concession.'—'The House of Representatives +of the United States consists of 223 members—all, by the <i>letter</i> of +the Constitution, representatives only of <i>persons</i>, as 135 of them +really are; but the other 88, equally representing the <i>persons</i> of +their constituents, by whom they are elected, also represent, under +the name of <i>other persons</i>, upwards of two and a half millions of +<i>slaves</i>, held as the <i>property</i> of less than half a million of +the white constituents, and valued at twelve hundred millions of +dollars. Each of these 88 members represents in fact the whole of +that mass of associated wealth, and the persons and exclusive +interests of its owners; all thus knit together, like the members of +a moneyed corporation, with a capital not of thirty-five or forty or +fifty, but of twelve hundred millions of dollars, exhibiting the +most extraordinary exemplification of the anti-republican tendencies +of associated wealth that the world ever saw,'—'Here is one class +of men, consisting of not more than one fortieth part of the whole +people, not more than one-thirtieth part of the free population, +exclusively devoted to their personal interests identified with +their own as slaveholders of the same associated wealth, and +wielding by their votes, upon every question of government or of +public policy, two-fifths of the whole power of the House. In the +Senate of the Union, the proportion of the slaveholding power is yet +greater. By the influence of slavery, in the States where the +institution is tolerated, over their elections, no other than a +slaveholder can rise to the distinction of obtaining a seat in the +Senate; and thus, of the 52 members of the federal Senate, 26 are +owners of slaves, and as effectively representatives of that +interest as the 88 members elected by them to the House.'—'By this +process it is that all political power in the States is absorbed and +engrossed by the owners of <i>slaves</i>, and the overruling policy of +the States is shaped to strengthen and consolidate their domination. +The legislative, executive, and judicial authorities are all in +their hands—the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of the +black code of slavery—every law of the legislature becomes a link +in the chain of the slave; every executive act a rivet to his +hapless fate; every judicial decision a perversion of the human +intellect to the justification of <i>wrong</i>.'—'Its reciprocal +operation upon the government of the nation is, to establish an +artificial majority in the slave representation over that of the +free people, in the American Congress, and thereby to make the +PRESERVATION, PROPAGATION, AND PERPETUATION OF SLAVERY THE VITAL AND +ANIMATING SPIRIT OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.'—'The result is seen +in the fact that, at this day, the President of the United States, +the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of +Representatives, and five out of nine of the Judges of the Supreme +Judicial Courts of the United States, are not only citizens of +slaveholding States, but individual slaveholders themselves. So are, +and constantly have been, with scarcely an exception, all the +members of both Houses of Congress from the slaveholding States; and +so are, in immensely disproportionate numbers, the commanding +officers of the army and navy; the officers of the customs; the +registers and receivers of the land offices, and the post-masters +throughout the slaveholding States.—The Biennial Register indicates +the birth-place of all the officers employed in the government of +the Union. If it were required to designate the owners of this +species of property among them, it would be little more than a +catalogue of slaveholders.'" +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +It is confessed by Mr. Adams, alluding to the national convention +that framed the Constitution, that "the delegation from the free +States, in their extreme anxiety to conciliate the ascendency of the +Southern slaveholder, did listen to a <i>compromise between right and +wrong</i>—<i>between freedom and slavery</i>; of the ultimate fruits of which +they had no conception, but which already even now is urging the +Union to its inevitable ruin and dissolution, by a civil, servile, +foreign, and Indian war, all combined in one; a war, the essential +issue of which will be between freedom and slavery, and in which the +unhallowed standard of slavery will be the desecrated banner of the +North American Union—that banner, first unfurled to the breeze, +inscribed with the self-evident truths of the Declaration of +Independence." +</p> +<p> +Hence, to swear to support the Constitution of the United States, <i>as +it is</i>, is to make "a compromise between right and wrong," and to +wage war against human liberty. It is to recognize and honor as +republican legislators, <i>incorrigible men-stealers</i>, MERCILESS +TYRANTS, BLOOD THIRSTY ASSASSINS, who legislate with deadly weapons +about their persons, such as pistols, daggers, and bowie-knives, +with which they threaten to murder any Northern senator or +representative who shall dare to stain their <i>honor</i>, or interfere +with their <i>rights</i>! They constitute a banditti more fierce and cruel +than any whose atrocities are recorded on the pages of history or +romance. To mix with them on terms of social or religious fellowship, +is to indicate a low state of virtue; but to think of administering +a free government by their co-operation, is nothing short of insanity. +</p> +<p> +Article IV., Section 2, declares,—"No person held to service or +labor in one State, <i>under the laws thereof</i>, 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." +</p> +<p> +Here is a third clause, which, like the other two, makes no mention +of slavery or slaves, in express terms; and yet, like them, was +intelligently framed and mutually understood by the parties to the +ratification, and intended both to protect the slave system and to +restore runaway slaves. It alone makes slavery a national institution, +a national crime, and all the people who are not enslaved, the +body-guard over those whose liberties have been cloven down. This +agreement, too, has been fulfilled to the letter by the North. +</p> +<p> +Under the Mosaic dispensation it was imperatively commanded,—"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 warning which the +prophet Isaiah gave to oppressing Moab was of a similar kind: +"Take counsel, execute judgment; make thy shadow as the night in the +midst of the noon-day; hide the outcasts; bewray not him that +wandereth. Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab; be thou a covert +to them from the face of the spoiler." The prophet Obadiah brings +the following charge against treacherous Edom, which is precisely +applicable to this guilty nation:—"For thy violence against thy +brother Jacob, shame shall come over thee, and thou shalt be cut off +for ever. In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the +day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and +foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, +<i>even thou wast as one of them</i>. But thou shouldst not have looked +on the day of thy brother, in the day that he became a stranger; +neither shouldst thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah, in +the day of their destruction; neither shouldst thou have spoken +proudly in the day of distress; neither shouldst thou have <i>stood in +the cross-way, to cut off those of his that did escape</i>; neither +shouldst thou have <i>delivered up those of his that did remain</i>, in +the day of distress." +</p> +<p> +How exactly descriptive of this boasted republic is the impeachment +of Edom by the same prophet! "The pride of thy heart hath deceived +thee, thou whose habitation is high; that sayeth in thy heart, Who +shall bring me down to the ground? Though thou exalt thyself as the +eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I +bring thee down, saith the Lord." The emblem of American pride and +power is the <i>eagle</i>, and on her banner she has mingled <i>stars</i> with +its <i>stripes</i>. Her vanity, her treachery, her oppression, her +self-exaltation, and her defiance of the Almighty, far surpass the +madness and wickedness of Edom. What shall be her punishment? Truly, +it may be affirmed of the American people, (who live not under the +Levitical but Christian code, and whose guilt, therefore, is the +more awful, and their condemnation the greater,) in the language of +another prophet—"They all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every +man his brother with a net. That they may do evil with both hands +earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and +the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: <i>so they wrap it +up</i>." Likewise of the colored inhabitants of this land it may be said, +—"This is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared +in holes, and they are hid in prison-houses; they are for a prey, +and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore." +</p> +<p> +By this stipulation, the Northern States are made the hunting ground +of slave-catchers, who may pursue their victims with blood-hounds, +and capture them with impunity wherever they can lay their robber +hands upon them. At least twelve or fifteen thousand runaway slaves +are now in Canada, exiled from their native land, because they could +not find, throughout its vast extent, a single road on which they +could dwell in safety, <i>in consequence of this provision of the +Constitution</i>? How is it possible, then, for the advocates of +liberty to support a government which gives over to destruction +one-sixth part of the whole population? +</p> +<p> +It is denied by some at the present day, that the clause which has +been cited, was intended to apply to runaway slaves. This indicates +either ignorance, or folly, or something worse. JAMES MADISON as one +of the framers of the Constitution, is of some authority on this +point. Alluding to that instrument, in the Virginia convention, he +said:— +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"Another clause <i>secures us that property which we now possess</i>. At +present, if any slave elopes to those States where slaves are free, +<i>he becomes emancipated by their laws</i>; for the laws of the States +are <i>uncharitable</i>(!) to one another in this respect; but in this +constitution, 'No person held to service or labor in one State, +under the laws thereof, shall, in consequence of any law or +regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but +shall be delivered upon claim of the party to whom such service or +labor away be due. THIS CLAUSE WAS EXPRESSLY INSERTED TO ENABLE THE +OWNERS OF SLAVES TO RECLAIM THEM. <i>This is a better security than +any that now exists</i>. No power is given to the general government to +interfere with respect to the property in slaves now held by the +States." +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +In the same convention, alluding to the same clause, GOV. RANDOLPH +said:— +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"Every one knows that slaves are held to service or labor. And, when +authority is given to owners of slaves <i>to vindicate their property</i>, +can it be supposed they can be deprived of it? If a citizen of this +State, in consequence of this clause, can take his runaway slave in +Maryland, can it be seriously thought that, after taking him and +bringing him home, he could be made free?" +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +It is objected, that slaves are held as property, and therefore, as +the clause refers to persons, it cannot mean slaves. But this is +criticism against fact. Slaves are recognized not merely as property, +but also as persons—as having a mixed character—as combining the +human with the brutal. This is paradoxical, we admit; but slavery is +a paradox—the American Constitution is a paradox—the American +Union is a paradox—the American Government is a paradox; and if any +one of these is to be repudiated on that ground, they all are. That +it is the duty of the friends of freedom to deny the binding +authority of them all, and to secede from them all, we distinctly +affirm. After the independence of this country had been achieved, +the voice of God exhorted the people, saying, "Execute true judgment, +and show mercy and compassion every man to his brother: and oppress +not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and +let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. But +they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped +their ears, that they should not hear; yea, they made their hearts +as an adamant stone." "Shall I not visit for these things? saith the +Lord. Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?" +</p> +<p> +Whatever doubt may have rested on any honest mind, respecting the +meaning of the clause in relation to persons held to service or labor, +must have been removed by the unanimous decision of the Supreme +Court of the United States, in the case of Prigg versus The State of +Pennsylvania. By that decision, any Southern slave-catcher is +empowered to seize and convey to the South, without hindrance or +molestation on the part of the State, and without any legal process +duly obtained and served, any person or persons, irrespective of +caste or complexion, whom he may choose to claim as runaway slaves; +and if, when thus surprised and attacked, or on their arrival South, +they cannot prove by legal witnesses, that they are freemen, their +doom is sealed! Hence the free colored population of the North are +specially liable to become the victims of this terrible power, and +all the other inhabitants are at the mercy of prowling kidnappers, +because there are multitudes of white as well as black slaves on +Southern plantations, and slavery is no longer fastidious with +regard to the color of its prey. +</p> +<p> +As soon as that appalling decision of the Supreme Court was +enunciated, in the name of the Constitution, the people of the North +should have risen <i>en masse</i>, if for no other cause, and declared the +Union at an end; and they would have done so, if they had not lost +their manhood, and their reverence for justice and liberty. +</p> +<p> +In the 4th Sect. of Art. IV., the United States guarantee to protect +every State in the Union "<i>against domestic violence</i>." By the 8th +Section of Article 1., congress is empowered "to provide for calling +forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, <i>suppress +insurrections</i>, and repel invasions." These provisions, however +strictly they may apply to cases of disturbance among the white +population, were adopted with special reference to the slave +population, for the purpose of keeping them in their chains by the +combined military force of the country; and were these repealed, and +the South left to manage her slaves as best she could, a servile +insurrection would ere long be the consequence, as general as it +would unquestionably be successful. Says Mr. Madison, respecting +these clauses:-- +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"On application of the legislature or executive, as the case may be, +the militia of the other States are to be called to suppress +domestic insurrections. Does this bar the States from calling forth +their own militia? No; but it gives them a <i>supplementary</i> security +to suppress insurrections and domestic violence." +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +The answer to Patrick Henry's objection, as urged against the +constitution in the Virginia convention, that there was no power left +to the States to quell an insurrection of slaves, as it was wholly +vested in congress, George Nicholas asked:— +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"Have they it now? If they have, does the constitution take it away? +If it does, it must be in one of those clauses which have been +mentioned by the worthy member. The first part gives the general +government power to call them out when necessary. Does this take it +away from the States? No! but <i>it gives an additional security</i>; for, +beside the power in the State government to use their own militia, +it will be <i>the duty of the general government</i> to aid them <b>WITH THE +STRENGTH OF THE UNION</b>, when called for." +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +This solemn guaranty of security to the slave system, caps the +climax of national barbarity, and stains with human blood the +garments of all the people. In consequence of it, that system has +multiplied its victims from five hundred thousand to nearly three +millions—a vast amount of territory has been purchased, in order to +give it extension and perpetuity—several new slave States have been +admitted into the Union—the slave trade has been made one of the +great branches of American commerce—the slave population, though +over-worked, starved, lacerated, branded, maimed, and subjected to +every form of deprivation and every species of torture, have been +over awed and crushed,—or, whenever they have attempted to gain +their liberty by revolt, they have been shot down and quelled by the +strong arm of the national government; as, for example, in the case +of Nat Turner's insurrection in Virginia, when the naval and military +forces of the government were called into active service. Cuban +bloodhounds have been purchased with the money of the people, and +imported and used to hunt slave fugitives among the everglades of +Florida. A merciless warfare has been waged for the extermination or expulsion +of the Florida Indians, because they gave succor to those poor hunted +fugitives—a warfare which has cost the nation several thousand lives, +and forty millions of dollars. But the catalogue of enormities is +too long to be recapitulated in the present address. +</p> +<p> +We have thus demonstrated that the compact between the North and the +South embraces every variety of wrong and outrage,—is at war with +God and man, cannot be innocently supported, and deserves to be +immediately annulled. In behalf of the Society which we represent, +we call upon all our fellow-citizens, who believe it is right to +obey God rather than man, to declare themselves peaceful +revolutionists, and to unite with us under the stainless banner of +Liberty, having for its motto—"EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL—<b>NO UNION WITH +SLAVEHOLDERS</b>!" +</p> +<p> +It is pleaded that the Constitution provides for its own amendment; +and we ought to use the elective franchise to effect this object. +True, there is such a proviso; but, until the amendment be made, +that instrument is binding as it stands. Is it not to violate every +moral instinct, and to sacrifice principle to expediency, to argue +that we may swear to steal, oppress and murder by wholesale, because +it may be necessary to do so only for the time being, and because +there is some remote probability that the instrument which requires +that we should be robbers, oppressors and murderers, may at some +future day be amended in these particulars? Let us not palter with +our consciences in this manner—let us not deny that the compact was +conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity—let us not be so +dishonest, even to promote a good object, as to interpret the +Constitution in a manner utterly at variance with the intentions and +arrangements of the contracting parties; but, confessing the guilt +of the nation, acknowledging the dreadful specifications in the bond, +washing our hands in the waters of repentance from all further +participation in this criminal alliance, and resolving that we will +sustain none other than a free and righteous government, let us +glory in the name of revolutionists, unfurl the banner of disunion, +and consecrate our talents and means to the overthrow of all that is +tyrannical in the land,—to the establishment of all that is free, +just, true and holy,—to the triumph of universal love and peace. +</p> +<p> +If, in utter disregard of the historical facts which have been cited, +it is still asserted, that the Constitution needs no amendment to +make it a free instrument, adapted to all the exigencies of a free +people, and was never intended to give any strength or countenance to the +slave system—the indignant spirit of insulted Liberty replies:—"What +though the assertion be true? Of what avail is a mere piece +of parchment? In itself, though it be written all over with words of +truth and freedom—though its provisions be as impartial and just as +words can express, or the imagination paint—though it be as pure as +the gospel, and breathe only the spirit of Heaven—it is powerless; +it has no executive vitality; it is a lifeless corpse, even though +beautiful in death. I am famishing for lack of bread! How is my +appetite relieved by holding up to my gaze a painted loaf? I am +manacled, wounded, bleeding dying! What consolation is it to know, +that they who are seeking to destroy my life, profess in words to be +my friends?" If the liberties of the people have been betrayed—if +judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off, and +truth has fallen in the streets, and equality cannot enter—if the +princes of the land are roaring lions, the judges evening wolves, +the people light and treacherous persons, the priests covered with +pollution—if we are living under a frightful despotism, which scoffs +at all constitutional restraints, and wields the resources of the +nation to promote its own bloody purposes—tell us not that the +forms of freedom are still left to us! Would such tameness and +submission have freighted the May-Flower for Plymouth Rock? Would it +have resisted the Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, or any of those entering +wedges of tyranny with which the British government sought to rive +the liberties of America? The wheel of the Revolution would have +rusted on its axle, if a spirit so weak had been the only power to +give it motion. Did our fathers say, when their rights and liberties +were infringed—"<i>Why, what is done cannot be undone</i>. That is the +first thought." No, it was the last thing they thought of: or, rather, +it never entered their minds at all. They sprang to the conclusion at +once—"<i>What is done</i> SHALL <i>be undone</i>. That is our FIRST and ONLY +thought." +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"Is water running in our veins? Do we remember still +<br> +Old Plymouth Rock, and Lexington, and famous Bunker Hill? +<br> +The debt we owe our fathers' graves? and to the yet unborn, +<br> +Whose heritage ourselves must make a thing of pride or scorn?" +</p> +<p> +"Gray Plymouth Rock hath yet a tongue, and Concord is not dumb; +<br> +And voices from our fathers' graves and from the future come: +<br> +They call on us to stand our ground—they charge us still to be +<br> +Not only free from chains ourselves, but foremost to make free!" +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +It is of little consequence who is on the throne, if there be behind +it a power mightier than the throne. It matters not what is the +theory of the government, if the practice of the government be unjust +and tyrannical. We rise in rebellion against a despotism +incomparably more dreadful than that which induced the colonists to +take up arms against the mother country; not on account of a +three-penny tax on tea, but because fetters of living iron are +fastened on the limbs of millions of our countrymen, and our most +sacred rights are trampled in the dust. As citizens of the State, +we appeal to the State in vain for protection and redress. As +citizens of the United States, we are treated as outlaws in one +half of the country, and the national government consents to our +destruction. We are denied the right of locomotion, freedom of speech, +the right of petition, the liberty of the press, the right peaceably +to assemble together to protest against oppression and plead for +liberty—at least in thirteen States of the Union. If we venture, as +avowed and unflinching abolitionists, to travel South of Mason and +Dixon's line, we do so at the peril of our lives. If we would escape +torture and death, on visiting any of the slave States, we must +stifle our conscientious convictions, bear no testimony against +cruelty and tyranny, suppress the struggling emotions of humanity, +divest ourselves of all letters and papers of an anti-slavery +character, and do homage to the slaveholding power—or run the risk +of a cruel martyrdom! These are appalling and undeniable facts. +</p> +<p> +Three millions of the American people are crushed under the American +Union! They are held as slaves—trafficked as merchandise—registered +as goods and chattels! The government gives them no +protection—the government is their enemy—the government keeps +them in chains! There they lie bleeding—we are prostrate by +their side—in their sorrows and sufferings we participate—their +stripes are inflicted on our bodies, their shackles are fastened on +our limbs, their cause is ours! The Union which grinds them to the +dust rests upon us, and with them we will struggle to overthrow it! +The Constitution, which subjects them to hopeless bondage, is one +that we cannot swear to support! Our motto is, "<b>NO UNION WITH +SLAVEHOLDERS</b>," either religious or political. They are the fiercest +enemies of mankind, and the bitterest foes of God! We separate from +them not in anger, not in malice, not for a selfish purpose, not to +do them an injury, not to cease warning, exhorting, reproving them +for their crimes, not to leave the perishing bondman to his fate—O +no! But to clear our skirts of innocent blood—to give the oppressor +no countenance—to signify our abhorrence of injustice and +cruelty—to testify against an ungodly compact—to cease striking +hands with thieves and consenting with adulterers—to make no +compromise with tyranny—to walk worthily of our high profession—to +increase our moral power over the nation—to obey God and vindicate +the gospel of his Son—hasten the downfall of slavery in America, +and throughout the world! +</p> +<p> +We are not acting under a blind impulse. We have carefully counted +the cost of this warfare, and are prepared to meet its consequences. +It will subject us to reproach, persecution, infamy—it will prove a +fiery ordeal to all who shall pass through it—it may cost us our +lives. We shall be ridiculed as fools, accused as visionaries, +branded as disorganizers, reviled as madmen, threatened and perhaps +punished as traitors. But we shall bide our time. Whether safety +or peril, whether victory or defeat, whether life or death be ours, +believing that our feet are planted on an eternal foundation, that +our position is sublime and glorious, that our faith in God is +rational and steadfast, that we have exceeding great and precious +promises on which to rely, THAT WE ARE IN THE RIGHT, we shall not +falter nor be dismayed, "though the earth be removed, and though the +mountains be carried into the midst of the sea,"—though our ranks +be thinned to the number of "three hundred men." Freemen! are you +ready for the conflict? Come what may, will you sever the chain that +binds you to a slaveholding government, and declare your independence? +Up, then, with the banner of revolution! Not to shed blood—not to +injure the person or estate of any oppressor—not by force and arms +to resist any law—not to countenance a servile insurrection—not to +wield any carnal weapons! No—ours must be a bloodless strife, +excepting <i>our</i> blood be shed—for we aim, as did Christ our leader, +not to destroy men's lives, but to save them—to overcome evil with +good—to conquer through suffering for righteousness' sake—to set +the captive free by the potency of truth! +</p> +<p> +Secede, then, from the government. Submit to its exactions, but pay +it no allegiance, and give it no voluntary aid. Fill no offices +under it. Send no senators or representatives to the national or +State legislature; for what you cannot conscientiously perform +yourself, you cannot ask another to perform as your agent. Circulate +a declaration of <b>DISUNION FROM SLAVEHOLDERS</b>, throughout the country. +Hold mass meetings—assemble in conventions—nail your banners to +the mast! +</p> +<p> +Do you ask what can be done, if you abandon the ballot-box? What did +the crucified Nazarene do without the elective franchise? What did +the apostles do? What did the glorious army of martyrs and +confessors do? What did Luther and his intrepid associates do? What +can women and children do? What has Father Mathew done for teetotalism? +What has Daniel O'Connell done for Irish repeal? "Stand, having your +loins girt about with truth, and having on the breast-plate of +righteousness," and arrayed in the whole armor of God! +</p> +<p> +The form of government that shall succeed the present government of +the United States, let time determine. It would be a waste of time +to argue that question, until the people are regenerated and turned +from their iniquity. Ours is no anarchical movement, but one of +order and obedience. In ceasing from oppression, we establish liberty. +What is now fragmentary, shall in due time be crystallized, and +shine like a gem set in the heavens, for a light to all coming ages. +</p> +<p> +Finally—we believe that the effect of this movement will be,—First, +to create discussion and agitation throughout the North; and these +will lead to a general perception of its grandeur and importance. +</p> +<p> +Secondly, to convulse the slumbering South like an earthquake, and +convince her that her only alternative is, to abolish slavery, or be +abandoned by that power on which she now relies for safety. +</p> +<p> +Thirdly, to attack the slave power in its most vulnerable point, and +to carry the battle to the gate. +</p> +<p> +Fourthly, to exalt the moral sense, increase the moral power, and +invigorate the moral constitution of all who heartily espouse it. +</p> +<p> +We reverently believe that, in withdrawing from the American Union, +we have the God of justice with us. We know that we have our +enslaved countrymen with us. We are confident that all free hearts +will be with us. We are certain that tyrants and their abettors will +be against us. +</p> +<p> +In behalf of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery +Society, +</p> +<p> +<b>WM. LLOYD GARRISON</b>, <i>President</i>. +</p> +<p class="centered"> +WENDELL PHILLIPS, MARIA WESTON CHAPMAN, +</p> +<p class="centered"> +<i>Secretaries</i>. +</p> +<p class="centered"> +<i>Boston, May</i> 20, 1844. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +LETTER FROM FRANCIS JACKSON. +</h3> +<p> +BOSTON, 4TH July, 1844 +</p> +<p> +<i>To His Excellency George N. Briggs</i>: +</p> +<p> +SIR—Many years since, I received from the Executive of the +Commonwealth a commission as Justice of the Peace. I have held the +office that it conferred upon me till the present time, and have +found it a convenience to myself, and others. It might continue to +be so, could I consent longer to hold it. But paramount +considerations forbid, and I herewith transmit to you my commission, +respectfully asking you to accept my resignation. +</p> +<p> +While I deem it a duty to myself to take this step, I feel called on +to state the reasons that influence me. +</p> +<p> +In entering upon the duties of the office in question, I complied +with the requirements of the law, by taking an oath "<i>to support the +Constitution of the United States</i>." I regret that I ever took that +oath. Had I then as maturely considered its full import, and the +obligations under which it is understood, and meant to lay those who +take it, as I have done since, I certainly never would have taken it, +seeing, as I now do, that the Constitution of the United States +contains provisions calculated and intended to foster, cherish, +uphold and perpetuate <i>slavery</i>. It pledges the country to guard and +protect the slave system so long as the slaveholding States choose +to retain it. It regards the slave code as lawful in the States +which enact it. Still more, "it has done that, which, until its +adoption, was never before done for African slavery. It took it out +of its former category of municipal law and local life, adopted it +as a national institution, spread around it the broad and sufficient +shield of national law, and thus gave to slavery a national existence." +Consequently, the oath to support the Constitution of the United +States is a solemn promise to do that which is morally wrong; that +which is a violation of the natural rights of man, and a sin in the +sight of God. +</p> +<p> +I am not, in this matter, constituting myself a judge of others. I +do not say that no honest man can take such an oath, and abide by it. +I only say, that <i>I</i> would not now deliberately take it; and that, +having inconsiderately taken it, I can no longer suffer it to lie +upon my soul. I take back the oath, and ask you, sir, to take back +the commission, which was the occasion of my taking it. +</p> +<p> +I am aware that my course in this matter is liable to be regarded as +singular, if not censurable; and I must, therefore, be allowed to +make a more specific statement of those <i>provisions of the +Constitution</i> which support the enormous wrong, the heinous sin of +slavery. +</p> +<p> +The very first Article of the Constitution takes slavery at once +under its legislative protection, as a basis of representation in +the popular branch of the National Legislature. It regards slaves +under the description "of all other <i>persons</i>"—as of only +three-fifths of the value of free persons; thus to appearance +undervaluing them in comparison with freemen. But its dark and +involved phraseology seems intended to blind us to the consideration, +that those underrated slaves are merely a <i>basis</i>, not the <i>source</i> +of representation; that by the laws of all the States where they live, +they are regarded not as <i>persons</i>; but as <i>things</i>; that they are +not the <i>constituency</i> of the representative, but his property; and +that the necessary effect of this provision of the Constitution is, +to take legislative power out of the hands of <i>men</i>, as such, and +give it to the mere possessors of goods and chattels. Fixing upon +thirty thousand persons, as the smallest number that shall send one +member into the House of Representatives, it protects slavery by +distributing legislative power in a free and in a slave State thus: +To a congressional district in South Carolina, containing fifty +thousand slaves, claimed as the property of five hundred whites, who +hold, on an average, one hundred apiece, it gives one Representative +in Congress; to a district in Massachusetts containing a population +of thirty thousand five hundred, one Representative is assigned. But +inasmuch as a slave is never permitted to vote, the fifty thousand +persons in a district in Carolina form no part of "the constituency;" +that is found only in the five hundred free persons. Five hundred +freemen of Carolina could send one Representative to Congress, while +it would take thirty thousand five hundred freemen of Massachusetts, +to do the same thing: that is, one slaveholder in Carolina is +clothed by the Constitution with the same political power and +influence in the Representatives Hall at Washington, as sixty +Massachusetts men like you and me, who "eat their bread in the sweat +of their own brows." +</p> +<p> +According to the census of 1830, and the ratio of representation +based upon that, slave property added twenty-five members to the +House of Representatives. And as it has been estimated, (as an +approximation to the truth,) that the two and a half million slaves +in the United States are held as property by about two hundred and +fifty thousand persons—giving an average of ten slaves to each +slaveholder, those twenty-five Representatives, each chosen, at most, +by only ten thousand voters, and probably by less than three-fourths +of that number, were the representatives, not only of the two +hundred and fifty thousand persons who chose them; but of <i>property</i> +which, five years ago, when slaves were lower in market, than at +present, were estimated, by the man who is now the most prominent +candidate for the Presidency, at twelve hundred millions of dollars—a +sum, which, by the natural increase of five years, and the +enhanced value resulting from a more prosperous state of the planting +interest, cannot now be less than fifteen hundred millions of dollars. +All this vast amount of property, as it is "peculiar," is also +identical in its character. In Congress, as we have seen, it is +animated by one spirit, moves in one mass, and is wielded with one +aim; and when we consider that tyranny is always timid, and despotism +distrustful, we see that this vast money power would be false to +itself, did it not direct all its eyes and hands, and put forth all +its ingenuity and energy, to one end—self-protection and +self-perpetuation. And this it has ever done. In all the vibrations +of the political scale, whether in relation to a Bank or Sub-Treasury, +Free Trade or a Tariff, this immense power has moved, and will +continue to move, in one mass, for its own protection. +</p> +<p> +While the weight of the slave influence is thus felt in the House of +Representatives, "in the Senate of the Union," says John Quincy Adams, +"the proportion of slaveholding power is still greater. By the +influence of slavery in the States where the institution is tolerated, +over their elections, no other than a slaveholder can rise to the +distinction of obtaining a seat in the Senate; and thus, of the +fifty-two members of the federal Senate, twenty-six are owners of +slaves, and are as effectually representatives of that interest, as +the eighty-eight members elected by them to the House." +</p> +<p> +The dominant power which the Constitution gives to the slave interest, +as thus seen and exercised in the <i>Legislative Halls</i> of our nation, +is equally obvious and obtrusive in every other department of the +National government. +</p> +<p> +In the <i>Electoral colleges</i>, the same cause produces the same effect—the +same power is wielded for the same purpose, as in the Halls of +Congress. Even the preliminary nominating conventions, before they +dare name a candidate for the highest office in the gift of the +people, must ask of the Genius of slavery, to what votary she will +show herself propitious. This very year, we see both the great +political parties doing homage to the slave power, by nominating +each a slaveholder for the chair of the State. The candidate of one +party declares. "I should have opposed, and would continue to oppose, +any scheme whatever of emancipation, either gradual or immediate;" +and adds, "It is not true, and I rejoice that it is not true, that +either of the two great parties of this country has any design or +aim at abolition. I should deeply lament it, if it were true."[<a name="rnote12-94"></a><a href="#note12-94">94</a>] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-94"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-94">94</a>: Henry Clay's speech in the United States Senate in 1839, +and confirmed at Raleigh, N.C. 1844.] +</p> +<p> +The other party nominates a man who says, "I have no hesitation in +declaring that I am in favor of the immediate re-annexation of Texas +to the territory and government of the United States." +</p> +<p> +Thus both the political parties, and the candidates of both, vie +with each other, in offering allegiance to the slave power, as a +condition precedent to any hope of success in the struggle for the +executive chair; a seat that, for more than three-fourths of the +existence of our constitutional government, has been occupied by a +slaveholder. +</p> +<p> +The same stern despotism overshadows even the sanctuaries of <i>justice</i>. +Of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, five +are slaveholders, and of course, must be faithless to their own +interest, as well as recreant to the power that gives them place, or +must, so far as <i>they</i> are concerned, give both to law and +constitution such a construction as shall justify the language of +John Quincy Adams, when he says—"The legislative, executive, and +judicial authorities, are all in their hands—for the preservation, +propagation, and perpetuation of the black code of slavery. Every +law of the legislature becomes a link in the chain of the slave; +every executive act a rivet to his hapless fate; every judicial +decision a perversion of the human intellect to the justification of +wrong." +</p> +<p> +Thus by merely adverting but briefly to the theory and the practical +effect of this clause of the Constitution, that I have sworn to +support, it is seen that it throws the political power of the nation +into the hands of the slaveholders; a body of men, which, however it +may be regarded by the Constitution as "persons," is in fact and +practical effect, a vast moneyed corporation, bound together by an +indissoluble unity of interest, by a common sense of a common danger; +counselling at all times for its common protection; wielding the +whole power, and controlling the destiny of the nation. +</p> +<p> +If we look into the legislative halls, slavery is seen in the chair +of the presiding officer of each, and controlling the action of both. +Slavery occupies, by prescriptive right, the Presidential chair. The +paramount voice that comes from the temple of national justice, +issues from the lips of slavery. The army is in the hands of slavery, +and at her bidding, must encamp in the everglades of Florida, or +march from the Missouri to the borders of Mexico, to look after her +interests in Texas. +</p> +<p> +The navy, even that part that is cruising off the coast of Africa, to +suppress the foreign slave trade, is in the hands of slavery. +</p> +<p> +Freemen of the North, who have even dared to lift up their voice +against slavery, cannot travel through the slave States, but at the +peril of their lives. +</p> +<p> +The representatives of freemen are forbidden, on the floor of +Congress, to remonstrate against the encroachments of slavery, or to +pray that she would let her poor victims go. +</p> +<p> +I renounce my allegiance to a Constitution that enthrones such a +power, wielded for the purpose of depriving me of my rights, of +robbing my countrymen of their liberties, and of securing its own +protection, support and perpetuation. +</p> +<p> +Passing by that clause of the Constitution, which restricted Congress +for twenty years, from passing any law against the African slave +trade, and which gave authority to raise a revenue on the stolen +sons of Africa, I come to that part of the fourth article, which +guarantees protection against "<i>domestic violence</i>," and which +pledges to the South the military force of the country, to protect +the masters against their insurgent slaves: binds us, and our +children, to shoot down our fellow-countrymen, who may rise, in +emulation of our revolutionary fathers, to vindicate their inalienable +"right to life, <i>liberty</i> and the pursuit of happiness,"—this +clause of the Constitution, I say distinctly, I never will +support. +</p> +<p> +That part of the Constitution which provides for the surrender of +fugitive slaves, I never have supported and never will. I will join +in no slave-hunt. My door shall stand open, as it has long stood, for +the panting and trembling victim of the slave-hunter. When I shut it +against him, may God shut the door of his mercy against me! Under +this clause of the Constitution, and designed to carry it into effect, +slavery has demanded that laws should be passed, and of such a +character, as have left the free citizen of the North without +protection for his own liberty. The question, whether a man seized +in a free State as a slave, <i>is</i> a slave or not, the law of Congress +does not allow a jury to determine: but refers it to the decision of +a Judge of a United States' Court, or even of the humblest State +magistrate, it may be, upon the testimony or affidavit of the party +most deeply interested to support the claim. By virtue of this law, +freemen have been seized and dragged into perpetual slavery—and +should I be seized by a slave-hunter in any part of the country +where I am not personally known, neither the Constitution nor laws +of the United States would shield me from the same destiny. +</p> +<p> +These, sir, are the specific parts of the Constitution of the United +States, which in my opinion are essentially vicious, hostile at once +to the liberty and to the morals of the nation. And these are the +principal reasons of my refusal any longer to acknowledge my +allegiance to it, and of my determination to revoke my oath to +support it. I cannot, in order to keep the law of man, break the law +of God, or solemnly call him to witness my promise that I will break +it. +</p> +<p> +It is true that the Constitution provides for its own amendment, and +that by this process, all the guarantees of Slavery may be expunged. +But it will be time enough to swear to support it when this is done. +It cannot be right to do so, until these amendments are made. +</p> +<p> +It is also true that the framers of the Constitution did studiously +keep the words "Slave" and "Slavery" from its face. But to do our +constitutional fathers justice, while they forebore—from very +shame—to give the word "Slavery" a place in the Constitution, they +did not forbear—again to do them justice—to give place in it to +the <i>thing</i>. They were careful to wrap up the idea, and the substance +of Slavery, in the clause for the surrender of the fugitive, though +they sacrificed justice in doing so. +</p> +<p> +There is abundant evidence that this clause touching "persons held +to service or labor," not only operates practically, under the +judicial construction, for the protection of the slave interest; but +that it was intended so to operate by the framers of the +Constitution. The highest judicial authorities—Chief Justice Shaw, +of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in the Latimer case, and +Mr. Justice Story, in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the +case of <i>Prigg</i> vs. <i>The State of Pennsylvania</i>,—tell us, I know +not on what evidence, that without this "compromise," this security +for Southern slaveholders, "the Union could not have been formed." +And there is still higher evidence, not only that the framers of the +Constitution meant by this clause to protect slavery, but that they +did this, knowing that slavery was wrong. Mr. Madison[<a name="rnote12-95"></a><a href="#note12-95">95</a>] informs us +that the clause in question, as it came out of the hands of Dr. Johnson, +the chairman of the "committee on style," read thus: "No person legally +held to service, or labor, in one State, escaping into another, shall," +&c., and that the word "legally" was struck out, and the words "under +the laws thereof" inserted after the word "State," in compliance with +the wish of some, who thought the term <i>legal</i> equivocal, and +favoring the idea that slavery was legal "<i>in a moral view</i>." +A conclusive proof that, although future generations might apply that +clause to other kinds of "service or labor," when slavery should have +died out, or been killed off by the young spirit of liberty, which +was <i>then</i> awake and at work in the land; still, slavery was what +they were wrapping up in "equivocal" words; and wrapping it up for its +protection and safe keeping: a conclusive proof that the framers of +the Constitution were more careful to protect themselves in the judgment +of coming generations, from the charge of ignorance, than of sin; a +conclusive proof that they knew that slavery was <i>not</i> "legal in +a moral view," that it was a violation of the moral law of God; and yet +knowing and confessing its immorality, they dared to make this +stipulation for its support and defence. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-95"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-95">95</a>: Madison Papers, p. 1589] +</p> +<p> +This language may sound harsh to the ears of those who think it a +part of their duty, as citizens, to maintain that whatever the +patriots of the Revolution did, was right; and who hold that we are +bound to <i>do</i> all the iniquity that they covenanted for us that we +<i>should</i> do. But the claims of truth and right are paramount to +all other claims. +</p> +<p> +With all our veneration for our constitutional fathers, we must +admit,—for they have left on record their own confession of it,—that +in this part of their work they intended to hold the shield +of their protection over a wrong, knowing that it was a wrong. They +made a "compromise" which they had no right to make—a compromise of +moral principle for the sake of what they probably regarded as +"political expediency." I am sure they did not know—no man could +know, or can now measure, the extent, or the consequences of the +wrong, that they were doing. In the strong language of John Quincy +Adams,[<a name="rnote12-96"></a><a href="#note12-96">96</a>] in relation to +the article fixing the basis of +representation, "Little did the members of the Convention, from the +free States, imagine or foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden +under the mask of this concession." +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-96"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-96">96</a>: See his Report on the Massachusetts Resolutions.] +</p> +<p> +I verily believe that, giving all due consideration to the benefits +conferred upon this nation by the Constitution, its national unity, +its swelling masses of wealth, its power, and the external +prosperity of its multiplying millions; yet the <i>moral</i> injury that +has been done, by the countenance shown to slavery by holding over +that tremendous sin the shield of the Constitution, and thus +breaking down in the eyes of the nation the barrier between right +and wrong; by so tenderly cherishing slavery as, in less than the +life of man, to multiply her children from half a million to nearly +three millions; by exacting oaths from those who occupy prominent +stations in society, that they will violate at once the rights of +man and the law of God; by substituting itself as a rule of right, +in place of the moral laws of the universe;—thus in effect, +dethroning the Almighty in the hearts of this people and setting up +another sovereign in his stead—more than outweighs it all. A +melancholy and monitory lesson this, to all timeserving and +temporising statesmen! A striking illustration of the <i>impolicy</i> of +sacrificing <i>right</i> to any considerations of expediency! Yet, what +better than the evil effects that we have seen, could the authors of +the Constitution have reasonably expected, from the sacrifice of +right, in the concessions they made to slavery? Was it reasonable in +them to expect that after they had introduced a vicious element into +the very Constitution of the body politic which they were calling +into life, it would not exert its vicious energies? Was it reasonable +in them to expect that, after slavery had been corrupting the public +morals for a whole generation, their children would have too much +virtue to <i>use</i> for the defence of slavery, a power which they +themselves had not too much virtue to <i>give</i>? It is dangerous for +the sovereign power of a State to license immorality; to hold the +shield of its protection over any thing that is not "legal in a moral +view." Bring into your house a benumbed viper, and lay it down upon +your warm hearth, and soon it will not ask you into which room it +may crawl. Let Slavery once lean upon the supporting arm, and bask +in the fostering smile of the State, and you will soon see, as we +now see, both her minions and her victims multiply apace till the +politics, the morals, the liberties, even the religion of the nation, +are brought completely under her control. +</p> +<p> +To me, it appears that the virus of slavery, introduced into the +Constitution of our body politic, by a few slight punctures, has now +so pervaded and poisoned the whole system of our National Government, +that literally there is no health in it. The only remedy that I can +see for the disease, is to be found in the <i>dissolution of the +patient</i>. +</p> +<p> +The Constitution of the United States, both in theory and practice, +is so utterly broken down by the influence and effects of slavery, +so imbecile for the highest good of the nation, and so powerful for +evil, that I can give no voluntary assistance in holding it up any +longer. +</p> +<p> +Henceforth it is dead to me, and I to it. I withdraw all profession +of allegiance to it, and all my voluntary efforts to sustain it. The +burdens that it lays upon me, while it is held up by others, I shall +endeavor to bear patiently, yet acting with reference to a higher law, +and distinctly declaring, that while I retain my own liberty, I will +be a party to no compact, which helps to rob any other man of his. +</p> +<p class="centered"> +Very respectfully, your friend, +</p> +<p class="centered"> +<b>FRANCIS JACKSON</b>. +</p> +<hr> +<h3 class="centered"> +FROM MR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH AT NIBLO'S GARDENS. +</h3> +<p> +"We have slavery, already, amongst us. The Constitution found it +among us; it recognized it and gave it <b>SOLEMN GUARANTIES</b>. To the +full extent of these guaranties we are all bound, in honor, in +justice, and by the Constitution. All the stipulations, contained in +the Constitution, <i>in favor of the slaveholding States</i> which are +already in the Union, ought to be fulfilled, and so far as depends +on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fullness of their spirit, and to +the exactness of their letter."!!! +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<hr> +<h3 class="centered"> +EXTRACTS FROM JOHN Q. ADAMS'S ADDRESS +</h3> +<p class="centered"> +<b>AT NORTH BRIDGEWATER, NOV. 6, 1844</b>. +</p> +<p> +The benefits of the Constitution of the United States, were the +restoration of credit and reputation, to the country—the revival of +commerce, navigation, and ship-building—the acquisition of the +means of discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection +and encouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the +country. All this, however, as is now well ascertained, was +insufficient to propitiate the rulers of the Southern States to +the adoption of the Constitution. What they specially wanted was +<i>protection</i>.—Protection from the powerful and savage tribes of +Indians within their borders, and who were harassing them with the most +terrible of wars—and protection from their own negroes—protection +from their insurrections—protection from their escape—protection +even to the trade by which they were brought into the country—protection, +shall I not blush to say, protection to the very +bondage by which they were held. Yes! it cannot be denied—the +slaveholding lords of the South prescribed, as a condition of their +assent to the Constitution, three special provisions to secure the +perpetuity of their dominion over their slaves. The first was the +immunity for twenty years of preserving the African slave-trade; the +second was the stipulation to surrender fugitive slaves—an +engagement positively prohibited by the laws of God, delivered from +Sinai; and thirdly, the exaction fatal to the principles of popular +representation, of a representation for slaves—for articles of +merchandise, under the name of persons. +</p> +<p> +The reluctance with which the freemen of the North submitted to the +dictation of these conditions, is attested by the awkward and +ambiguous language in which they are expressed. The word slave is +most cautiously and fastidiously excluded from the whole instrument. +A stranger, who should come from a foreign land, and read the +Constitution of the United States, would not believe that slavery or +a slave existed within the borders of our country. There is not a +word in the Constitution <i>apparently</i> bearing upon the condition of +slavery, nor is there a provision but would be susceptible of +practical execution, if there were not a slave in the land. +</p> +<p> +The delegates from South Carolina and Georgia distinctly avowed that, +without this guarantee of protection to their property in slaves, +they would not yield their assent to the Constitution; and the +freemen of the North, reduced to the alternative of departing from +the vital principle of their liberty, or of forfeiting the Union +itself, averted their faces, and with trembling hand subscribed the +bond. +</p> +<p> +Twenty years passed away—the slave markets of the South were +saturated with the blood of African bondage, and from midnight of the +31st of December, 1807, not a slave from Africa was suffered ever +more to be introduced upon our soil. But the internal traffic was +still lawful, and the <i>breeding</i> States soon reconciled themselves to +a prohibition which gave them the monopoly of the interdicted trade, +and they joined the full chorus of reprobation, to punish with death +the slave-trader from Africa, while they cherished and shielded and +enjoyed the precious profits of the American slave-trade exclusively +to themselves. +</p> +<p> +Perhaps this unhappy result of their concession had not altogether +escaped the foresight of the freemen of the North; but their intense +anxiety for the preservation of the whole Union, and the habit +already formed of yielding to the somewhat peremptory and overbearing +tone which the relation of master and slave welds into the nature of +the lord, prevailed with them to overlook this consideration, the +internal slave-trade having scarcely existed while that with Africa +had been allowed. But of one consequence which has followed from the +slave representation, pervading the whole organic structure of the +Constitution, they certainly were not prescient; for if they had been, +never—no, never would they have consented to it. +</p> +<p> +The representation, ostensibly of slaves, under the name of persons, +was in its operation an exclusive grant of power to one class of +proprietors, owners of one species of property, to the detriment of +all the rest of the community. This species of property was odious +in its nature, held in direct violation of the natural and +inalienable rights of man, and of the vital principles of +Christianity; it was all accumulated in one geographical section of +the country, and was all held by wealthy men, comparatively small in +numbers, not amounting to a tenth part of the free white population +of the States in which it was concentrated. +</p> +<p> +In some of the ancient, and in some modern republics, extraordinary +political power and privileges have been invested in the owners of +horses; but then these privileges and these powers have been granted +for the equivalent of extraordinary duties and services to the +community, required of the favoured class. The Roman knights +constituted the cavalry of their armies, and the bushels of rings +gathered by Hannibal from their dead bodies, after the battle of +Cannae, amply prove that the special powers conferred upon them were +no gratuitous grants. But in the Constitution of the United States, +the political power invested in the owners of slaves is entirely +gratuitous. No extraordinary service is required of them; they are, +on the contrary, themselves grievous burdens upon the community, +always threatened with the danger of insurrections, to be smothered +in the blood of both parties, master and slave, and always +depressing the condition of the poor free laborer, by competition +with the labor of the slave. The property in horses was the gift of +God to man, at the creation of the world; the property in slaves is +property acquired and held by crimes, differing in no moral aspect +from the pillage of a freebooter, and to which no lapse of time can +give a prescriptive right. You are told that this is no concern of +yours, and that the question of freedom and slavery is exclusively +reserved to the consideration of the separate States. But if it be so, +as to the mere question of right between master and slave, it is of +tremendous concern to you that this little cluster of slave-owners +should possess, besides their own share in the representative hall +of the nation, the exclusive privilege of appointing two-fifths of +the whole number of the representatives of the people. This is now +your condition, under that delusive ambiguity of language and of +principle, which begins by declaring the representation in the +popular branch of the legislature a representation of persons, and +then provides that one class of persons shall have neither part not +lot in the choice of their representatives; but their elective +franchise shall be transferred to their masters, and the oppressors +shall represent the oppressed. The same perversion of the +representative principle pollutes the composition of the colleges of +electors of President and Vice President of the United States, and +every department of the government of the Union is thus tainted at +its source by the gangrene of slavery. +</p> +<p> +Fellow-citizens,—with a body of men thus composed, for legislators +and executors of the laws, what will, what must be, what has been +your legislation? The numbers of freemen constituting your nation +are much greater than those of the slaveholding States, bond and free. +You have at least three-fifths of the whole population of the Union. +Your influence on the legislation and the administration of the +government ought to be in the proportion of three to two.—But how +stands the fact? Besides the legitimate portion of influence +exercised by the slaveholding States by the measure of their numbers, +here is an intrusive influence in every department, by a +representation nominally of persons, but really of property, +ostensibly of slaves, but effectively of their masters, +overbalancing your superiority of numbers, adding two-fifths of +supplementary power to the two-fifths fairly secured to them by the +compact, <b>CONTROLLING AND OVERRULING THE WHOLE ACTION OF YOUR +GOVERNMENT AT HOME AND ABROAD</b>, and warping it to the sordid private +interest and oppressive policy of 300,000 owners of slaves. +</p> +<p> +From the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United +States, the institution of domestic slavery has been becoming more +and more the abhorrence of the civilized world. But in proportion as +it has been growing odious to all the rest of mankind, it has been +sinking deeper and deeper into the affections of the holders of +slaves themselves. The cultivation of cotton and of sugar, unknown +in the Union at the establishment of the Constitution, has added +largely to the pecuniary value of the slave. And the suppression of +the African slave-trade as piracy upon pain of death, by securing +the benefit of a monopoly to the virtuous slaveholders of the +ancient dominion, has turned her heroic tyrannicides into a +community of slave-breeders for sale, and converted the land of +George Washington, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas +Jefferson, into a great barracoon—a cattle-show of human beings, an +emporium, of which the staple articles of merchandise are the flesh +and blood, the bones and sinews of immortal man. +</p> +<p> +Of the increasing abomination of slavery in the unbought hearts of +men at the time when the Constitution of the United States was formed, +what clearer proof could be desired, than that the very same year in +which that charter of the land was issued, the Congress of the +Confederation, with not a tithe of the powers given by the people to +the Congress of the new compact, actually abolished slavery for ever +throughout the whole Northwestern territory, without a remonstrance +or a murmur. But in the articles of confederation, there was no +guaranty for the property of the slaveholder—no double +representation of him in the Federal councils—no power of +taxation—no stipulation for the recovery of fugitive slaves. But when +the powers of <i>government</i> came to be delegated to the Union, the +South—that is, South Carolina and Georgia—refused their subscription +to the parchment, till it should be saturated with the infection of +slavery, which no fumigation could purify, no quarantine could +extinguish. The freemen of the North gave way, and the deadly venom +of slavery was infused into the Constitution of freedom. Its first +consequence has been to invert the first principle of Democracy, +that the will of the majority of numbers shall rule the land. By +means of the double representation, the minority command the whole, +and a <b>KNOT OF SLAVEHOLDERS GIVE THE LAW AND PRESCRIBE THE POLICY OF +THE COUNTRY</b>. To acquire this superiority of a large majority of +freemen, a persevering system of engrossing nearly all the seats +of power and place, is constantly for a long series of years +pursued, and you have seen, in a period of fifty-six years, the +Chief-magistracy of the Union held, during forty-four of them, by +the owners of slaves. The Executive departments, the Army and Navy, +the Supreme Judicial Court and diplomatic missions abroad, all +present the same spectacle:—an immense majority of power in the +hands of a very small minority of the people—millions made for a +fraction of a few thousands. +</p> +<hr> +<p> +From that day (1830), <b>SLAVERY, SLAVEHOLDING, SLAVE-BREEDING AND +SLAVE-TRADING, HAVE FORMED THE WHOLE FOUNDATION OF THE POLICY OF THE +FEDERAL GOVERNMENT</b>, and of the slaveholding States, at home and +abroad; and at the very time when a new census has exhibited a large +increase upon the superior numbers of the free States, it has +presented the portentous evidence of increased influence and +ascendancy of the slaveholding power. +</p> +<p> +Of the prevalence of that power, you have had continual and +conclusive evidence in the suppression for the space of ten years of +the right of petition, guarantied, if there could be a guarantee +against slavery, by the first article amendatory of the Constitution. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +<a name="AE13cond"></a> +No. 13. +</h2> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. +</h2> +<p> </p> +<hr> +<h2 class="centered"> +ON THE CONDITION OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR +</h2> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +IN THE UNITED STATES. +</h2> +<p> </p> +<hr> +<p class="centered"> +NEW YORK: +</p> +<p class="centered"> +PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, +<br> +NO. 143 NASSAU STREET. +</p> +<p class="centered"> +1839. +</p> +<hr> +<p> +This No. contains 1-1/2 sheet.—Postage, under 100 miles, +2-1/2 cts. over 100, 3 cts. +</p> +<p> +Please Read and circulate. +</p> +<h2> +ON THE CONDITION OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR. +</h2> +<p> </p> +<p> +It appears from the census of 1830, that there were then 319,467 +free colored persons in the United States. At the present time the +number cannot be less than 360,000. Fifteen States of the Federal +Union have each a smaller population than this aggregate. Hence if +the whole mass of human beings inhabiting Connecticut, or New Jersey, +or any other of these fifteen States, were subjected to the ignorance, +and degradation, and persecution and terror we are about to describe, +as the lot of this much injured people, the amount of suffering would +still be numerically less than that inflicted by a professedly +Christian and republican community upon the free negroes. Candor, +however, compels us to admit that, deplorable as is their condition, +it is still not so wretched as Colonizationists and slaveholders, +for obvious reasons, are fond of representing it. It is not true +that free negroes are "more vicious and miserable than slaves +<i>can</i> be,"[<a name="rnote12-97"></a><a href="#note12-97">97</a>] nor that "it would be as humane to throw slaves from +the decks of the middle passage, as to set them free in this country," +[<a name="rnote12-98"></a><a href="#note12-98">98</a>] nor that "a sudden and universal emancipation without +colonization, would be a greater CURSE to the slaves themselves, +than the bondage in which they are held." +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-97"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-97">97</a>: Rev. Mr. Bacon, of New Haven, 7 Rep. Am. Col. Soc. p. 99.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-98"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-98">98</a>: African Repository, Vol. IV. p. 226.] +</p> +<p> +It is a little singular, that in utter despite of these rash +assertions slaveholders and colonizationists unite in assuring us, +that the slaves are rendered <i>discontented</i> by <i>witnessing</i> the +freedom of their colored brethren; and hence we are urged to assist +in banishing to Africa these sable and dangerous mementoes of liberty. +</p> +<p> +We all know that the wife and children of the free negro are not +ordinarily sold in the market—that he himself does not toil under +the lash, and that in certain parts of our country he is permitted +to acquire some intelligence, and to enjoy some comforts, utterly +and universally denied to the slave. Still it is most unquestionable, +that these people grievously suffer from a cruel and wicked +prejudice—cruel in its consequences; wicked in its voluntary +adoption, and its malignant character. +</p> +<p> +Colonizationists have taken great pains to inculcate the opinion that +prejudice against color is implanted in our nature by the Author of +our being; and whence they infer the futility of every effort to +elevate the colored man in this country, and consequently the duty +and benevolence of sending him to Africa, beyond the reach of our +cruelty.[<a name="rnote12-99"></a><a href="#note12-99">99</a>] The theory is as false in fact as it is derogatory to +the character of that God whom we are told is LOVE. With what +astonishment and disgust should we behold an earthly parent exciting +feuds and animosities among his own children; yet we are assured, +and that too by professing Christians, that our heavenly Father has +implanted a principle of hatred, repulsion and alienation between +certain portions of his family on earth, and then commanded them, as +if in mockery, to "love one another." +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-99"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-99">99</a>: "Prejudices, which neither refinement, nor argument, +nor education, NOR RELIGION ITSELF can subdue, mark the people of +color, whether bond or free, as the subjects of a degradation +<i>inevitable and incurable</i>."—<i>Address of the Connecticut Col. +Society</i>. "The managers consider it clear that causes exist, and are +now operating, to prevent their improvement and elevation to any +considerable extent as a class in this country, which are fixed, not +only beyond the control of the friends of humanity, but of <i>any +human power</i>: CHRISTIANITY cannot do for them here, what it will do +for them in Africa. This is not the <i>fault</i> of the colored man, +<i>nor of the white man</i>, but an ORDINATION OF PROVIDENCE, <i>and no +more to be changed than the laws of nature</i>."—15 Rep. Am. Col. Soc. +p. 47. +</p> +<p> +"The people of color must, in this country, remain for ages, +probably for ever, a separate and distinct caste, weighed down by +causes powerful, universal, invincible, which neither legislation +nor CHRISTIANITY can remove."—African Repository Vol. VIII. p. 196. +</p> +<p> +"Do they (the abolitionists) not perceive that in thus confounding +all the distinctions which GOD himself has made, they arraign the +wisdom and goodness of Providence itself? It has been His divine +pleasure, to make the black man black, and the white man white, and +to distinguish them by other <i>repulsive</i> constitutional differences."—Speech +in Senate of the United States, February 7, 1839, by HENRY +CLAY, PRESIDENT OF THE AM. COL. SOC.] +</p> +<p> +In vain do we seek in nature, for the origin of this prejudice. Young +children never betray it, and on the continent of Europe it is +unknown. We are not speaking of matters of taste, or of opinions of +personal beauty, but of a prejudice against complexion, leading to +insult, degradation and oppression. In no country in Europe is any +man excluded from refined society, or deprived of literary, religious, +or political privileges on account of the tincture of his skin. If +this prejudice is the fiat of the Almighty, most wonderful is it, +that of all the kindreds of the earth, none have been found +submissive to the heavenly impulse, excepting the white inhabitants +of North America; and of these, it is no less strange than true, +that this divine principle of repulsion is most energetic in such +persons as, in other respects, are the least observant of their +Maker's will. This prejudice is sometimes erroneously regarded as +the <i>cause</i> of slavery; and some zealous advocates of emancipation +have flattered themselves that, could the prejudice be destroyed, +negro slavery would fall with it. Such persons have very inadequate +ideas of the malignity of slavery. They forget that the slaves in +Greece and Rome were of the same hue as their masters; and that at +the South, the value of a slave, especially of a female, rises, as +the complexion recedes from the African standard. +</p> +<p> +Were we to inquire into the geography of this prejudice, we should +find that the localities in which it attains its rankest luxuriance, +are not the rice swamps of Georgia, nor the sugar fields of Louisiana, +but the hills and valleys of New England, and the prairies of Ohio! +It is a fact of acknowledged notoriety, that however severe may be +the laws against colored people at the South, the prejudice against +their <i>persons</i> is far weaker than among ourselves. +</p> +<p> +It is not necessary for our present purpose, to enter into a +particular investigation of the condition of the free negroes in the +slave States. We all know that they suffer every form of oppression +which the laws can inflict upon persons not actually slaves. That +unjust and cruel enactments should proceed from a people who keep +two millions of their fellow men in abject bondage, and who believe +such enactments essential to the maintenance of their despotism, +certainly affords no cause for surprise. +</p> +<p> +We turn to the free States, where slavery has not directly steeled +our hearts against human suffering, and where no supposed danger of +insurrection affords a pretext for keeping the free blacks in +ignorance and degradation; and we ask, what is the character of the +prejudice against color <i>here</i>? Let the Rev. Mr. Bacon, of +Connecticut, answer the question. This gentleman, in a vindication +of the Colonization Society, assures us, "The <i>Soodra</i> is not +farther separated from the <i>Brahim</i> in regard to all his privileges, +civil, intellectual, and moral, than the negro from the white man by +the prejudices which result from the difference made between them by +THE GOD OF NATURE."—(<i>Rep. Am. Col. Soc.</i> p. 87.) +</p> +<p> +We may here notice the very opposite effect produced on Abolitionists +and Colonizationists, by the consideration that this difference +<i>is</i> made by the GOD OF NATURE; leading the one to discard the +prejudice, and the other to banish its victims. +</p> +<p> +With these preliminary remarks we will now proceed to take a view of +the condition of the free people of color in the non-slaveholding +States; and will consider in order, the various disabilities and +oppressions to which they are subjected, either by law or the +customs of society. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +1. GENERAL EXCLUSION FROM THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. +</h3> +<p> +Were this exclusion founded on the want of property, or any other +qualification deemed essential to the judicious exercise of the +franchise, it would afford no just cause of complaint; but it is +founded solely on the color of the skin, and is therefore irrational +and unjust. That taxation and representation should be inseparable, +was one of the axioms of the fathers of our revolution; and one of +the reasons they assigned for their revolt from the crown of Britain. +But <i>now</i>, it is deemed a mark of fanaticism to complain of the +disfranchisement of a whole race, while they remain subject to the +burden of taxation. It is worthy of remark, that of the thirteen +original States, only <i>two</i> were so recreant to the principles of +the Revolution, as to make a <i>white skin</i> a qualification for +suffrage. But the prejudice has grown with our growth, and +strengthened with our strength; and it is believed that in <i>every</i> +State constitution subsequently formed or revised, [excepting +Vermont and Maine, and the Revised constitution of Massachusetts,] +the crime of a dark complexion has been punished, by debarring its +possessor from all approach to the ballot-box.[<a name="rnote12-100"></a><a href="#note12-100">100</a>] The necessary +effect of this proscription in aggravating the oppression and +degradation of the colored inhabitants must be obvious to all who +call to mind the solicitude manifested by demagogues, and +office-seekers, and law makers, to propitiate the good will of all +who have votes to bestow. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-100"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-100">100</a>: From this remark the revised constitution of New York +is <i>nominally</i> an exception; colored citizens, possessing a <i>freehold</i> +worth two hundred and fifty dollars, being allowed to vote; while +suffrage is extended to <i>white</i> citizens without any property +qualification.] +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +2. DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF LOCOMOTION. +</h3> +<p> +It is in vain that the Constitution of the United States expressly +guarantees to "the citizens of each State, all the privileges and +immunities of citizens in the several States:"—It is in vain that +the Supreme Court of the United States has solemnly decided that this +clause confers on every citizen of one State the right to "pass +through, or reside in any other State for the purposes of trade, +agriculture, professional pursuits, or <i>otherwise</i>." It is in vain +that "the members of the several State legislatures" are required to +"be bound by oath or affirmation to support" the constitution +conferring this very guarantee. Constitutions, and judicial decisions, +and religious obligations are alike outraged by our State enactments +against people of color. There is scarcely a slave State in which a +citizen of New York, with a dark skin, may visit a dying child +without subjecting himself to legal penalties. But in the slave +States we look for cruelty; we expect the rights of humanity and the +laws of the land to be sacrificed on the altar of slavery. In the +free States we had reason to hope for a greater deference to decency +and morality. Yet even in these States we behold the effects of a +miasma wafted from the South. The Connecticut Black Act, prohibiting, +under heavy penalties, the instruction of any colored person from +another State, is well known. It is one of the encouraging signs of +the times, that public opinion has recently compelled the repeal of +this detestable law. But among all the free States, OHIO stands +pre-eminent for the wickedness of her statutes against this class of +our population. These statutes are not merely infamous outrages on +every principle of justice and humanity, but are gross and palpable +violations of the State constitution, and manifest an absence of +moral sentiment in the Ohio legislature as deplorable as it is +alarming. We speak the language, not of passion, but of sober +conviction; and for the truth of this language we appeal, first, to +the Statutes themselves, and then to the consciences of our readers. +We shall have occasion to notice these laws under the several +divisions of our subject to which they belong; at present we ask +attention to the one intended to prevent the colored citizens of +other States from removing into Ohio. By the constitution of New York, +the colored inhabitants are expressly recognized as "citizens." Let +us suppose then a New York freeholder and voter of this class, +confiding in the guarantee given by the Federal constitution removes +into Ohio. No matter how much property he takes with him; no matter +what attestations he produces to the purity of his character, he is +required by the Act of 1807, to find, within twenty days, two +freehold sureties in the sum of five hundred dollars for his <i>good +behavior</i>; and likewise for his <i>maintenance</i>, should he at any +future period from any cause whatever be unable to maintain himself, +and in default of procuring such sureties he is to be removed by the +overseers of the poor. The legislature well knew that it would +generally be utterly impossible for a stranger, and especially a +<i>black</i> stranger, to find such sureties. It was the <i>design</i> of +the Act, by imposing impracticable conditions, to prevent colored +emigrants from remaining within the State; and in order more +certainly to effect this object, it imposes a pecuniary penalty on +every inhabitant who shall venture to "harbor," that is, receive +under his roof, or who shall even "employ" an emigrant who has not +given the required sureties; and it moreover renders such inhabitant +so harboring or employing him, legally liable for his future +maintenance!! +</p> +<p> +We are frequently told that the efforts of the abolitionists have in +fact aggravated the condition of the colored people, bond and free. +The <i>date</i> of this law, as well as the date of most of the laws +composing the several slave codes, show what credit is to be given +to the assertion. If a barbarous enactment is <i>recent</i>, its odium is +thrown upon the friends of the blacks—if <i>ancient</i>, we are assured +it is <i>obsolete</i>. The Ohio law was enacted only four years after the +State was admitted into the Union. In 1800 there were only three +hundred and thirty-seven free blacks in the territory, and in 1830 +the number in the State was nine thousand five hundred. Of course a +very large proportion of the present colored population of the State +must have entered it in ignorance of this iniquitous law, or in +defiance of it. That the law has not been universally enforced, +proves only that the people of Ohio are less profligate than their +legislators—that it has remained in the statute book for thirty-two +years, proves the depraved state of public opinion and the horrible +persecution to which the colored people are legally exposed. But let +it not be supposed that this vile law is in fact obsolete, and its +very existence forgotten. +</p> +<p> +In 1829, a very general effort was made to enforce this law, and +about <i>one thousand free blacks</i> were in consequence of it driven +out of the State; and sought a refuge in the more free and Christian +country of Canada. Previous to their departure, they sent a +deputation to the Governor of the Upper Province, to know if they +would be admitted, and received from Sir James Colebrook this reply,—"Tell +the <i>republicans</i> on your side of the line, that we +royalists do not know men by their color. Should you come to us, you +will be entitled to all the privileges of the rest of his majesty's +subjects." This was the origin of the Wilberforce colony in Upper +Canada. +</p> +<p> +We have now before us an Ohio paper, containing a proclamation by +John S. Wiles, overseer of the poor in the town of Fairfield, dated +12th March, 1838. In this instrument notice is given to all +"black or mulatto persons" residing in Fairfield, to comply with the +requisitions of the Act of 1807 within twenty days, or the law would +be enforced against them. The proclamation also addresses the white +inhabitants of Fairfield in the following terms,—"Whites, look out! +If any person or persons <i>employing</i> any black or mulatto person, +contrary to the 3d section of the above law, you may look out for +the breakers." The extreme vulgarity and malignity of this notice +indicates the spirit which gave birth to this detestable law, and +continues it in being. +</p> +<p> +Now what says the constitution of Ohio? "ALL are born free and +independent, and have certain natural, inherent, inalienable rights; +among which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, +<i>acquiring, possessing, and protecting property</i>, and pursuing and +attaining happiness and safety." Yet men who had called their Maker +to witness, that they would obey this very constitution, require +impracticable conditions, and then impose a pecuniary penalty and +grievous liabilities on every man who shall give to an innocent +fellow countryman a night's lodging, or even a meal of victuals in +exchange for his honest labor! +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +3. DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION. +</h3> +<p> +We explicitly disclaim all intention to imply that the several +disabilities and cruelties we are specifying are of universal +application. The laws of some States in relation to people of color +are more wicked than others; and the spirit of persecution is not in +every place equally active and malignant. In none of the free States +have these people so many grievances to complain of as in Ohio, and +for the honor of our country we rejoice to add, that in no other +State in the Union, has their right to petition for a redress of +their grievances been denied. +</p> +<p> +On the 14th January, 1839, a petition for relief from certain legal +disabilities, from colored inhabitants of Ohio, was presented to the +<i>popular</i> branch of the legislature, and its rejection was moved +by George H. Flood.[<a name="rnote12-101"></a><a href="#note12-101">101</a>] This rejection was not a denial of the prayer, +but an <i>expulsion of the petition itself</i>, as an intruder into the +house. "The question presented for our decision," said one of the +members, "is simply this—Shall human beings, who are bound by every +enactment upon our statute book, be <i>permitted</i> to <i>request</i> the +legislature to modify or soften the laws under which they live?" To +the Grand Sultan, crowded with petitions as he traverses the streets +of Constantinople, such a question would seem most strange; but +American democrats can exert a tyranny over <i>men who have no votes</i>, +utterly unknown to Turkish despotism. Mr. Flood's motion was lost by +a majority of only <i>four</i> votes; but this triumph of humanity and +republicanism was as transient as it was meagre. The <i>next</i> day, the +House, by a large majority, resolved: +"That the blacks and mulattoes who may be residents within this State, +have no constitutional right to present their petitions to the +General Assembly for any purpose whatsoever, and that any reception +of such petitions on the part of the General Assembly is a mere act +of privilege or policy, and not imposed by any expressed or implied +power of the Constitution." +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-101"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-101">101</a>: It is sometimes interesting to preserve the names of +individuals who have perpetrated bold and unusual enormities.] +</p> +<p> +The phraseology of this resolution is as clumsy as its assertions are +base and sophistical. The meaning intended to be expressed is simply, +that the Constitution of Ohio, neither in terms nor by implication, +confers on such residents as are negroes or mulattoes, any right +to offer a petition to the legislature for any object whatever; nor +imposes on that body any obligation to notice such a petition; and +whatever attention it may please to bestow upon it, ought to be +regarded as an act not of duty, but merely of favor or expediency. +Hence it is obvious, that the <i>principle</i> on which the resolution is +founded is, that the reciprocal right and duty of offering and +hearing petitions <i>rest solely on constitutional enactment</i>, and not +on moral obligation. The reception of negro petitions is declared +to be a mere act of <i>privilege or policy</i>. Now it is difficult to +imagine a principle more utterly subversive of all the duties of +rulers, the rights of citizens, and the charities of private life. +The victim of oppression or fraud has no <i>right</i> to appeal to the +constituted authorities for redress; nor are those authorities under +any obligation to consider the appeal—the needy and unfortunate +have no right to implore the assistance of their more fortunate +neighbors: and all are at liberty to turn a deaf ear to the cry of +distress. The eternal and immutable principles of justice and +humanity, proclaimed by Jehovah, and impressed by him on the +conscience of man, have no binding force on the legislature of Ohio, +unless expressly adopted and enforced by the State Constitution! +</p> +<p> +But as the legislature has thought proper thus to set at defiance the +moral sense of mankind, and to take refuge behind the enactments of +the Constitution, let us try the strength of their entrenchments. The +words of the Constitution, which it is pretended sanction the +resolution we are considering are the following, viz.—"The <i>people</i> +have a right to assemble together in a peaceable manner to consult +for their common good, to <i>instruct their representatives</i>, and to +apply to the legislature for a redress of grievances." It is obvious +that this clause confers no rights, but is merely declaratory of +existing rights. Still, as the right of the people to apply for a +redress of grievances is coupled with the right of <i>instructing +their representatives</i>, and as negroes are not electors and +consequently are without representatives, it is inferred that they +are not part of <i>the people</i>. That Ohio legislators are not +Christians would be a more rational conclusion. One of the members +avowed his opinion that "none but voters had a right to petition." If +then, according to the principle of the resolution, the Constitution +of Ohio denies the right of petition to all but electors, let us +consider the practical results of such a denial. In the first place, +every female in the State is placed under the same disability with +"blacks and mulattoes." No wife has a right to ask for a divorce—no +daughter may plead for a father's life. Next, no man under +twenty-one years—no citizen of any age, who from want of sufficient +residence, or other qualification, is not entitled to vote—no +individual among the tens of thousands of aliens in the +State—however oppressed and wronged by official tyranny or +corruption, has a right to seek redress from the representatives of +the people, and should he presume to do so, may be told, that, like +"blacks and mulattoes," he "has no constitutional right to present +his petition to the General Assembly for any purpose whatever." +Again—the State of Ohio is deeply indebted to the citizens of other +States, and also to the subjects of Great Britain for money borrowed +to construct her canals. Should any of these creditors lose their +certificates of debt, and ask for their renewal; or should their +interest be withheld, or paid in depreciated currency, and were they +to ask for justice at the hands of the legislature, they might be +told, that any attention paid to their request must be regarded as a +"mere act of privilege or policy, and not imposed by any expressed +or implied power of the Constitution," for, not being voters, they +stood on the same ground as "blacks and mulattoes." Such is the +folly and wickedness in which prejudice against color has involved +the legislators of a republican and professedly Christian State in +the nineteenth century. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +4. EXCLUSION FROM THE ARMY AND MILITIA. +</h3> +<p> +The Federal Government is probably the only one in the world that +forbids a portion of its subjects to participate in the national +defence, not from any doubts of their courage, loyalty, or physical +strength, but merely on account of the tincture of their skin! To +such an absurd extent is this prejudice against color carried, that +some of our militia companies have occasionally refused to march to +the sound of a drum when beaten by a black man. To declare a certain +class of the community unworthy to bear arms in defence of their +native country, is necessarily to consign that class to general +contempt. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +5. EXCLUSION FROM ALL PARTICIPATION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. +</h3> +<p> +No colored man can be a judge, juror, or constable. Were the talents +and acquirements of a Mansfield or a Marshall veiled in a sable skin, +they would be excluded from the bench of the humblest court in the +American republic. In the slave States generally, no black man can +enter a court of justice as a witness against a white one. Of course +a white man may, with perfect impunity, defraud or abuse a negro to +any extent, provided he is careful to avoid the presence of any of +his own caste, at the execution of his contract, or the indulgence of +his malice. We are not aware that an outrage so flagrant is +sanctioned by the laws of any <i>free</i> State, with one exception. That +exception the reader will readily believe can be none other than OHIO. +A statute of this State enacts, "that no black or mulatto <i>person</i> or +<i>persons</i> shall hereafter be permitted to be sworn, or give evidence +in any court of Record or elsewhere, in this State, in any cause +depending, or matter of controversy, when either party to the same +is a WHITE person; or in any prosecution of the State against any +WHITE person." +</p> +<p> +We have seen that on the subject of petition the legislature regards +itself as independent of all obligation except such as is imposed by +the Constitution. How mindful they are of the requirements even of +that instrument, when obedience to them would check the indulgence of +their malignity to the blacks, appears from the 7th Section of the +8th Article, viz.—"All courts shall be open, and <i>every</i> person, for +any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall +have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered +without denial or delay." +</p> +<p> +Ohio legislators may deny that negroes and mulattoes are citizens, or +people; but they are estopped by the very words of the statute just +quoted, from denying that they are "<i>persons</i>." Now, by the +Constitution every <i>person</i>, black as well as white, is to have +justice administered to him without denial or delay. But by the law, +while any unknown <i>white</i> vagrant may be a witness in any case +whatever, no black suitor is permitted to offer a witness of his own +color, however well established may be his character for +intelligence and veracity, to prove his rights or his wrongs; and +hence in a multitude of cases, justice is denied in despite of the +Constitution; and why denied? Solely from a foolish and wicked +prejudice against color. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +6. IMPEDIMENTS TO EDUCATION. +</h3> +<p> +No people have ever professed so deep a conviction of the importance +of popular education as ourselves, and no people have ever resorted +to such cruel expedients to perpetuate abject ignorance. More than +one third of the whole population of the slave States are prohibited +from learning even to read, and in some of them free men, if with +dark complexions, are subject to stripes for teaching their own +children. If we turn to the free States, we find that in all of them, +without exception, the prejudices and customs of society oppose +almost insuperable obstacles to the acquisition of a liberal +education by colored youth. Our academies and colleges are barred +against them. We know there are instances of young men with dark +skins having been received, under peculiar circumstances, into +northern colleges; but we neither know nor believe, that there have +been a dozen such instances within the last thirty years. +</p> +<p> +Colored children are very generally excluded from our common schools, +in consequence of the prejudices of teachers and parents. In some of +our cities there are schools <i>exclusively</i> for their use, but in the +country the colored population is usually too sparse to justify such +schools; and white and black children are rarely seen studying under +the same roof; although such cases do sometimes occur, and then they +are confined to elementary schools. Some colored young men, who +could bear the expense, have obtained in European seminaries the +education denied them in their native land. +</p> +<p> +It may not be useless to cite an instance of the malignity with +which the education of the blacks is opposed. The efforts made in +Connecticut to prevent the establishment of schools of a higher order +than usual for colored pupils, are too well known to need a recital +here; and her BLACK ACT, prohibiting the instruction of colored +children from other States, although now expunged from her statute +book through the influence of abolitionists, will long be remembered +to the opprobrium of her citizens. We ask attention to the following +illustration of public opinion in another New England State. +</p> +<p> +In 1834 an academy was built by subscription in CANAAN, New Hampshire, +and a charter granted by the legislature; and at a meeting of the +proprietors it was determined to receive all applicants having +"suitable moral and intellectual recommendations, without other +distinctions;" in other words, without reference to <i>complexion</i>. +When this determination was made known, a TOWN MEETING was forthwith +convened, and the following resolutions adopted, viz. +</p> +<p> +"RESOLVED, That we view with <i>abhorrence</i> the attempt of the +Abolitionists to establish in this town a school for the instruction +of the sable sons and daughters of Africa, in common with our sons +and daughters. +</p> +<p> +"RESOLVED, That we will not associate with, nor in any way +countenance, any man or woman who shall hereafter persist in +attempting to establish a school in this town for the <i>exclusive</i> +education of blacks, <i>or</i> for their education in conjunction with +the whites." +</p> +<p> +The frankness of this last resolve is commendable. The inhabitants +of Canaan, assembled in legal town meeting, determined, it seems, +that the blacks among them should in future have no education +whatever—they should not be instructed in company with the whites, +neither should they have schools exclusively for themselves. +</p> +<p> +The proprietors of the academy supposing, in the simplicity of their +hearts, that in a free country they might use their property in any +manner not forbidden by law, proceeded to open their school, and in +the ensuing spring had twenty-eight white, and fourteen colored +scholars. The crisis had now arrived when the cause of prejudice +demanded the sacrifice of constitutional liberty and of private +property. Another town meeting was convoked, at which, without a +shadow of authority, and in utter contempt of law and decency, it +was ordered, that the academy should be forcibly removed, and a +committee was appointed to execute the abominable mandate. Due +preparations were made for the occasion, and on the 10th of August, +three hundred men, with about 200 oxen, assembled at the place, and +taking the edifice from off its foundation, dragged it to a distance, +and left it a ruin. No one of the actors in this high-handed outrage +was ever brought before a court of justice to answer for this +criminal and riotous destruction of the property of others. +</p> +<p> +The transaction we have narrated, expresses in emphatic terms the +deep and settled hostility felt in the free States to the education +of the blacks. The prejudices of the community render that hostility +generally effective without the aid of legal enactments. Indeed, +some remaining regard to decency and the opinion of the world, has +restrained the Legislatures of the free States, with <i>one exception</i>, +from consigning these unhappy people to ignorance by "decreeing +unrighteous decrees," and "framing mischief by a law." Our readers, +no doubt, feel that the exception must of course be OHIO. +</p> +<p> +We have seen with what deference Ohio legislators profess to regard +their <i>constitutional</i> obligations; and we are now to contemplate +another instance of their shameless violation of them. The +Constitution which these men have sworn to obey declares, "NO LAW +SHALL BE PASSED to prevent the poor of the several townships and +counties in this State from an <i>equal</i> participation in the schools, +academies, colleges, and universities in this State, which are +endowed in whole, or <i>in part</i>, from the revenue arising from +<i>donations</i> made by the United States, for the support of <i>colleges +and schools</i>—and the door of said schools, academies, and +universities shall be open for the reception of scholars, students, +and teachers of every <i>grade</i>, without ANY DISTINCTION OR PREFERENCE +WHATEVER." +</p> +<p> +Can language be more explicit or unequivocal? But have any donations +been made by the United States for the support of colleges and +schools in Ohio? Yes—by an act of Congress, the sixteenth section of +land in <i>each</i> originally surveyed township in the State, was set +apart as a donation for the express purpose of endowing and +supporting common schools. And now, how have the scrupulous +legislators of Ohio, who refuse to acknowledge any other than +constitutional obligations to give ear to the cry of distress—how +have they obeyed this injunction of the Constitution respecting the +freedom of their schools? They enacted a law in 1831, declaring that, +"when any appropriation shall be made by the directors of any school +district, from the treasury thereof, for the payment of a teacher, +the school in such district shall be open"—to whom? "<i>to scholars, +students, and teachers of every grade, without distinction or +preference whatever</i>," as commanded by the Constitution? Oh no! +"Shall be open to all the WHITE children residing therein!!" Such is +the impotency of written constitutions, where a sense of moral +obligation is wanting to enforce them. +</p> +<p> +We have now taken a review of the Ohio laws against free people of +color. Some of them are of old, and others of recent date. The +opinion entertained of all these laws, new and old, by the <i>present</i> +legislators of Ohio, may be learned by a resolution adopted in +January last, (1839) by both houses of the legislature. "RESOLVED, +That in the opinion of this general assembly it is unwise, impolitic, +and inexpedient to repeal <i>any</i> law now in force imposing +disabilities upon black or mulatto persons, thus placing them upon +an equality with the whites, so far as this legislature can do, and +indirectly inviting the black population of other States to emigrate +to this, to the manifest injury of the public interest." The best +comment on the <i>spirit</i> which dictated this resolve is an enactment +by the <i>same</i> legislature, abrogating the supreme law which requires +us to "Do unto others as we would they should do unto us," and +prohibiting every citizen of Ohio from <i>harboring or concealing</i> a +fugitive slave, under the penalty of fine or imprisonment. General +obedience to this vile statute is alone wanting to fill to the brim +the cup of Ohio's iniquity and degradation. She hath done what she +could to oppress and crush the free negroes within her borders. She +is now seeking to rechain the slave who has escaped from his fetters. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +7. IMPEDIMENTS TO RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION. +</h3> +<p> +It is unnecessary to dwell here on the laws of the slave States +prohibiting the free people of color from learning to read the Bible, +and in many instances, from assembling at discretion to worship their +Creator. These laws, we are assured, are indispensable to the +perpetuity of that "peculiar institution," which many masters in +Israel are now teaching, enjoys the sanction of HIM who "will have +all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth," and +who has left to his disciples the injunction, "search the Scriptures." +We turn to the free States, in which no institution requires, that +the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should be prevented from +shining on any portion of the population, and inquire how far +prejudice here supplies the place of southern statutes. +</p> +<p> +The impediments to education already mentioned, necessarily render +the acquisition of religious knowledge difficult, and in many +instances impracticable. In the northern cities, the blacks have +frequently churches of their own, but in the country they are too few, +and too poor to build churches and maintain ministers. Of course they +must remain destitute of public worship and religious instruction, +unless they can enjoy these blessings in company with the whites. +Now there is hardly a church in the United States, not exclusively +appropriated to the blacks, in which one of their number owns a pew, +or has a voice in the choice of a minister. There are usually, indeed, +a few seats in a remote part of the church, set apart for their use, +and in which no white person is ever seen. It is surely not +surprising, under all the circumstances of the case, that these +seats are rarely crowded. +</p> +<p> +Colored ministers are occasionally ordained in the different +denominations, but they are kept at a distance by their white +brethren in the ministry, and are very rarely permitted to enter +their pulpits; and still more rarely, to sit at their tables, +although acknowledged to be ambassadors of Christ. The distinction +of <i>caste</i> is not forgotten, even in the celebration of the Lord's +Supper, and seldom are colored disciples permitted to eat and drink +of the memorials of the Redeemer's passion till after every white +communicant has been served. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +8. IMPEDIMENTS TO HONEST INDUSTRY. +</h3> +<p> +In this country ignorance and poverty are almost inseparable +companions; and it is surely not strange that those should be poor +whom we compel to be ignorant. The liberal professions are virtually +sealed against the blacks, if we except the church, and even in that +admission is rendered difficult by the obstacles placed in their way +in acquiring the requisite literary qualifications;[<a name="rnote12-102"></a><a href="#note12-102">102</a>] and when once +admitted, their administrations are confined to their own color. +Many of our most wealthy and influential citizens have commenced +life as ignorant and as pennyless as any negro who loiters in our +streets. Had their complexion been dark, notwithstanding their +talents, industry, enterprize and probity, they would have continued +ignorant and pennyless, because the paths to learning and to wealth, +would then have been closed against them. There is a conspiracy, +embracing all the departments of society, to keep the black man +ignorant and poor. As a general rule, admitting few if any exceptions, +the schools of literature and of science reject him—the counting +house refuses to receive him as a bookkeeper, much more as a +partner—no store admits him as a clerk—no shop as an apprentice. +Here and there a black man may be found keeping a few trifles on a +shelf for sale; and a few acquire, as if by stealth, the knowledge +of some handicraft; but almost universally these people, both in +town and country, are prevented by the customs of society from +maintaining themselves and their families by any other than menial +occupations. +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-102"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-102">102</a>: Of the truth of this remark, the trustees of the +Episcopal Theological Seminary at New-York, lately (June, 1839) +afforded a striking illustration. A young man, regularly +acknowledged by the Bishop as a candidate for orders, and in +consequence of such acknowledgment entitled, by an <i>express statute</i> +of the seminary, to admission to its privileges, presented himself +as a pupil. But God had given him a dark complexion, and <i>therefore</i> +the trustees, regardless of the statute, barred the doors against him, +by a formal and deliberate vote. As a compromise between conscience +and prejudice, the professors offered to give him <i>private</i> +instruction—to do in secret what they were ashamed to do openly—to +confer as a favor, what he was entitled to demand as a right. The +offer was rejected. +</p> +<p> +It is worthy of remark, that of the trustees who took an <i>active</i> +part against the <i>colored</i> candidate, one is the PRESIDENT <i>of the +New York Colonization Society</i>; another a MANAGER, and a third, one +of its public champions; and that the Bishop of the diocese, who +wished to exclude his candidate from the theological school of which +he is both a trustee and a professor, lately headed a recommendation +in the newspapers for the purchase of a packet ship for Liberia, as +likely to "render far more efficient than heretofore, the enterprize +of colonization."] +</p> +<p> +In 1836, a black man of irreproachable character, and who by his +industry and frugality had accumulated several thousand dollars, made +application in the City of New York for a carman's license, and was +refused solely and avowedly on account of his complexion! We have +already seen the effort of the Ohio legislature, to consign the +negroes to starvation, by deterring others from employing them. +Ignorance, idleness, and vice, are at once the punishments we +inflict upon these unfortunate people for their complexion; and the +crimes with which we are constantly reproaching them. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +9. LIABILITY TO BE SEIZED, AND TREATED AS SLAVES. +</h3> +<p> +An able-bodied colored man sells in the southern market for from +eight hundred to a thousand dollars; of course he is worth stealing. +Colonizationists and slaveholders, and many northern divines, +solemnly affirm, that the situation of a slave is far preferable to +that of a free negro; hence it would seem an act of humanity to +convert the latter into the former. Kidnapping being both a +lucrative and a benevolent business, it is not strange it should be +extensively practised. In many of the States this business is +regulated by law, and there are various ways in which the +transmutation is legally effected. Thus, in South Carolina, if a +free negro "entertains" a runaway slave, it may be his own wife or +child, he himself is turned into a slave. In 1827, a <i>free woman +and her three children</i> underwent this benevolent process, for +<i>entertaining</i> two fugitive children of six and nine years old. In +Virginia all emancipated slaves remaining twelve months in the State, +are kindly restored to their former condition. In Maryland a free +negro who marries a white woman, thereby acquires all the privileges +of a slave—and generally, throughout the slave region, including +the District of Columbia, every negro not known to be free, is +mercifully considered as a slave, and if his master cannot be +ascertained, he is thrown into a dungeon, and there kept, till by a +public sale a master can be provided for him. But often the law +grants to colored men, <i>known to be free</i>, all the advantages of +slavery. Thus, in Georgia, every <i>free</i> colored man coming into the +State, and unable to pay a fine of one hundred dollars, becomes a +slave for life; in Florida, insolvent debtors, if <i>black</i>, are SOLD +for the benefit of their creditors; and in the District of Columbia +a free colored man, thrown into jail on suspicion of being a slave +and proving his freedom, is required by law to be sold as a slave, +if too poor to pay his jail fees. Let it not be supposed that these +laws are all obsolete and inoperative. They catch many a northern +negro, who, in pursuit of his own business, or on being decoyed +by others ventures to enter the slave region; and who, of course, +helps to augment the wealth of our southern brethren. On the 6th +of March, 1839, a report by a Committee was made to the House of +Representatives of the Massachusetts Legislature, in which are given +the <i>names</i> of seventeen free colored men who had been enslaved at +the south. It also states an instance in which twenty-five colored +citizens, belonging to Massachusetts, were confined at one time in a +southern jail, and another instance in which 75 free colored persons +from different free States were confined, all preparatory to their +sale as slaves according to law. +</p> +<p> +The facts disclosed in this report induced the Massachusetts +Legislature to pass a resolution protesting against the kidnapping +laws of the slave States, "as invading the sacred rights of citizens +of this commonwealth, as contrary to the Constitution of the United +States, and in utter derogation of that great principle of the +common law which presumes every person to be innocent until proved +to be guilty;" and ordered the protest to be forwarded to the +Governors of the several States. +</p> +<p> +But it is not at the south alone that freemen may be converted into +slaves "according to law." The Act of Congress respecting the +recovery of fugitive slaves, affords most extraordinary facilities +for this process, through official corruption and individual perjury. +By this Act, the claimant is permitted to <i>select</i> a justice of the +peace, before whom he may bring or send his alleged slave, and even +to prove his property by <i>affidavit</i>. Indeed, in almost every State +in the Union, a slaveholder may recover at law a human being as his +beast of burden with far less ceremony than he could his pig from +the possession of his neighbor. In only three States is a man, +claimed as a slave, entitled to a trial by jury. At the last session +of the New York Legislature a bill allowing a jury trial in such +cases was passed by the lower House, but rejected by a <i>democratic</i> +vote in the Senate, democracy in that State, being avowedly only +<i>skin</i> deep, all its principles of liberty, equality, and human rights +depending on complexion. +</p> +<p> +Considering the wonderful ease and expedition with which fugitives +may be recovered by law, it would be very strange if mistakes did not +sometimes occur. <i>How</i> often they occur cannot, of course, be known, +and it is only when a claim is <i>defeated</i>, that we are made sensible +of the exceedingly precarious tenure by which a poor friendless +negro at the north holds his personal liberty. A few years since, a +girl of the name of Mary Gilmore was arrested in Philadelphia, as a +fugitive slave from Maryland. Testimony was not wanting in support +of the claim; yet it was most conclusively proved that she was the +daughter of poor <i>Irish</i> parents—having not a drop of negro blood +in her veins—that the father had absconded, and that the mother had +died a drunkard in the Philadelphia hospital, and that the infant +had been kindly received and <i>brought up in a colored family</i>. Hence +the attempt to make a slave of her. In the spring of 1839, a colored +man was arrested in Philadelphia, on a charge of having absconded +from his owner <i>twenty-three</i> years before. This man had a wife and +family depending upon him, and a home where he enjoyed their society; +and yet, unless he could find witnesses who could prove his freedom +for more than this number of years, he was to be torn from his wife, +his children, his home, and doomed for the remainder of his days to +toil under the lash. <i>Four</i> witnesses for the claimant swore to his +identity, although they had not seen him before for twenty-three years! +By a most extraordinary coincidence, a New England Captain, with +whom this negro had sailed <i>twenty-nine</i> years before, in a sloop +from Nantucket, happened at this very time to be confined for debt +in the same prison with the alleged slave, and the Captain's +testimony, together with that of some other witnesses, who had +known the man previous to his pretended elopement, so fully +established his freedom, that the Court discharged him. +</p> +<p> +Another mode of legal kidnapping still remains to be described. By +the Federal Constitution, fugitives from <i>justice</i> are to be +delivered up, and under this constitutional provision, a free negro +may be converted into a slave without troubling even a Justice of +the Peace to hear the evidence of the captor's claim. A fugitive +slave is, of course, a felon—he not only steals himself, but also +the rags on his back which belong to his master. It is understood he +has taken refuge in New York, and his master naturally wishes to +recover him with as little noise, trouble, and delay as possible. +The way is simple and easy. Let the Grand Jury indict A.B. for +stealing wearing apparel, and let the indictment, with an affidavit +of the criminal's flight, be forwarded by the Governor of the State, +to his Excellency of New York, with a requisition for the delivery +of A.B., to the agent appointed to receive him. A warrant is, of +course, issued to "any Constable of the State of New York," to +arrest A.B. For what purpose?—to bring him before a magistrate +where his identity may be established?—no, but to deliver him up to +the foreign agent. Hence, the Constable may pick up the first likely +negro he finds in the street, and ship him to the south; and should +it be found, on his arrival on the plantation, that the wrong man +has come, it will also probably be found that the mistake is of no +consequence to the planter. A few years since, the Governor of New +York signed a warrant for the apprehension of 17 Virginia negroes, +as fugitives from justice.[<a name="rnote12-103"></a><a href="#note12-103">103</a>] Under this warrant, a man who had +lived in the neighborhood for three years, and had a wife and +children, and who claimed to be free, was seized, on a Sunday evening, +in the public highway, in West Chester County, N.Y., and without +being permitted to take leave of his family, was instantly +hand-cuffed, thrown into a carriage, and hurried to New York, and +the next morning was on his voyage to Virginia. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-103"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-103">103</a>: There is no evidence that he knew they were negroes; +or that he acted otherwise than in perfect good faith. The alleged +crime was stealing a boat. The <i>real</i> crime, it is said, was +stealing themselves and escaping in a boat. The most horrible abuses +of these warrants can only be prevented by requiring proof of +identity before delivery.] +</p> +<p> +Free colored men are converted into slaves not only by law, but also +contrary to law. It is, of course, difficult to estimate the extent +to which illegal kidnapping is carried, since a large number of +cases must escape detection. In a work published by Judge Stroud, of +Philadelphia, in 1827, he states, that it had been <i>ascertained</i> +that more than <i>thirty</i> free colored persons, mostly children, had +been kidnapped in that city within the last two years.[<a name="rnote12-104"></a><a href="#note12-104">104</a>] +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-104"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-104">104</a>: Stroud's Sketch of the Slave Laws, p. 94.] +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +10. SUBJECTION TO INSULT AND OUTRAGE. +</h3> +<p> +The feeling of the community towards these people, and the contempt +with which they are treated, are indicated by the following notice, +lately published by the proprietors of a menagerie, in New York. +"The proprietors wish it to be understood, that people of color are +not permitted to enter, <i>except when in attendance upon children and +families</i>." For two shillings, any white scavenger would be freely +admitted, and so would negroes, provided they came in a capacity +that marked their dependence—their presence is offensive, <i>only</i> +when they come as independent spectators, gratifying a laudable +curiosity. +</p> +<p> +Even death, the great leveller, is not permitted to obliterate, among +Christians, the distinction of caste, or to rescue the lifeless form +of the colored man from the insults of his white brethren. In the +porch of a Presbyterian Church, in Philadelphia, in 1837, was +suspended a card, containing the form of a deed, to be given to +purchasers of lots in a certain burial ground, and to enhance the +value of the property, and to entice buyers, the following clause was +inserted, "No person of <i>color</i>, nor any one who has been the +subject of <i>execution</i>, shall be interred in said lot." +</p> +<p> +Our colored fellow-citizens, like others, are occasionally called to +pass from one place to another; and in doing so are compelled to +submit to innumerable hardships and indignities. They are frequently +denied seats in our stage coaches; and although admitted upon the +<i>decks</i> of our steam boats, are almost universally excluded from +the cabins. Even women have been forced, in cold weather, to pass +the night upon deck, and in one instance the wife of a colored +clergyman lost her life in consequence of such an exposure. +</p> +<p> +The contempt poured upon these people by our laws, our churches, our +seminaries, our professions, naturally invokes upon their heads the +fierce wrath of vulgar malignity. In order to exhibit the actual +condition of this portion of our population, we will here insert +some <i>samples</i> of the outrages to which they are subjected, taken +from the ordinary public journals. +</p> +<p> +In an account of the New York riots of 1834, the <i>Commercial +Advertiser</i> says—"About twenty poor African (native American) +families, have had their all destroyed, and have neither bed, +clothing, nor food remaining. Their houses are completely eviscerated, +their furniture a wreck, and the ruined and disconsolate tenants of +the devoted houses are reduced to the necessity of applying to the +corporation for bread." +</p> +<p> +The example set in New York was zealously followed in Philadelphia. +"Some arrangement, it appears, existed between the mob and the white +inhabitants, as the dwelling houses of the latter, contiguous to the +residences of the blacks, were illuminated and left undisturbed, +while the huts of the negroes were singled out with unerring +certainty. The furniture found in these houses was generally broken +up and destroyed—beds ripped open and their contents scattered in +the streets.... The number of houses assailed was not less than +twenty. In one house there was a <i>corpse, which was thrown from the +coffin, and in another a dead infant was taken out of the bed, and +cast on the floor, the mother being at the same time barbarously +treated</i>."—<i>Philadelphia Gazette</i>. +</p> +<p> +"No case is reported of an attack having been <i>invited</i> or <i>provoked</i> +by the residents of the dwellings assailed or destroyed. The extent +of the depredations committed on the <i>three</i> evenings of riot and +outrage can only be judged of by the number of houses damaged or +destroyed. So far as ascertained, this amounts to FORTY-FIVE. One of +the houses assaulted was occupied by an unfortunate cripple—who, +unable to fly from the fury of the mob, was so beaten by some of the +ruffians, that he has since died in consequence of the bruises and +wounds inflicted.... For the last two days the Jersey steam boats +have been loaded with numbers of the colored population, who, +fearful their lives were not safe in this, determined to seek refuge +in another State. On the Jersey side, tents were erected, and the +negroes have taken up a temporary residence, until a prospect shall +be offered for their perpetual location in some place of security +and liberty."—<i>National Gazette</i>. +</p> +<p> +The facts we have now exhibited, abundantly prove the extreme +cruelty and sinfulness of that prejudice against color which we are +impiously told is an ORDINATION OF PROVIDENCE. Colonizationists, +assuming the prejudice to be natural and invincible, propose to +remove its victims beyond its influence. Abolitionists, on the +contrary, remembering with the Psalmist, that "It is HE that hath +made us, and not we ourselves," believe that the benevolent Father +of us all requires us to treat with justice and kindness every +portion of the human family, notwithstanding any particular +organization he has been pleased to impress upon them. Instead, +therefore, of gratifying and fostering this prejudice, by +continually banishing from our country those against whom it is +directed, Abolitionists are anxious to destroy the prejudice itself; +feeling, to use the language of another, that—"It is time to +recognize in the humblest portions of society, partakers of our +nature with all its high prerogatives and awful destinies—time to +remember that our distinctions are <i>exterior</i> and evanescent, our +resemblance real and permanent—that all is transient but what is +moral and spiritual—that the only graces we can carry with us into +another world, are graces of divine implantation, and that amid the +rude incrustations of poverty and ignorance there lurks an +imperishable jewel—a SOUL, susceptible of the highest spiritual +beauty, destined, perhaps, to adorn the celestial abodes, and to +shine for ever in the mediatorial diadem of the Son of God—<i>Take +heed that ye despise not one of these little ones</i>." +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +<a name="AE13vote"></a> +No. 13. +</h2> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. +</h2> +<p> </p> +<hr> +<h2 class="centered"> +CAN ABOLITIONISTS VOTE OR TAKE OFFICE UNDER +</h2> +<h2 class="centered"> +THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? +</h2> +<blockquote> +<p> +"The preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of slavery +is the vital and animating spirit of the National Government." +</p> +</blockquote> +<p class="centered"> +NEW YORK: +<br> +AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, +<br> +142 NASSAU STREET +</p> +<p class="centered"> +1815. +</p> + +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h2> +INTRODUCTION. +</h2> + +<p> +The American Anti-Slavery Society, at its Annual Meeting in May, 1844, +adopted the following Resolution: +</p> +<p> +<i>Resolved</i>, That secession from the present United States +government is the duty of every abolitionist; since no one can take +office, or throw a vote for another to hold office, under the United +States Constitution, without violating his anti-slavery principles, +and rendering himself an abettor of the slaveholder in his sin. +</p> +<p> +The passage of this Resolution has caused two charges to be brought +against the Society: <i>First</i>, that it is a <i>no-government</i> body, +and that the whole doctrine of non-resistance is endorsed by this +vote:—and <i>secondly</i>, that the Society transcended its proper +sphere and constitutional powers by taking such a step. +</p> +<p> +The logic which infers that because a man thinks the Federal +Government bad, he must necessarily think <i>all</i> government so, has +at least, the merit and the charm of novelty. There is a spice of +arrogance just perceptible, in the conclusion that the Constitution +of these United States is so perfect, that one who dislikes it could +never be satisfied with any form of government whatever! +</p> +<p> +Were O'Connell and his fellow Catholics non-resistants, because for +two hundred years they submitted to exclusion from the House of +Lords and the House of Commons, rather than qualify themselves for a +seat by an oath abjuring the Pope? Were the <i>non-juring</i> Bishops of +England non-resistants, when they went down to the grave without +taking their seats in the House of Lords, rather than take an oath +denying the Stuarts and to support the House of Hanover? Both might +have purchased power at the price of one annual falsehood. There are +some in this country who do not seem to think that price at all +unreasonable. It were a rare compliment indeed to the non-resistants, +if every exhibition of rigid principle on the part of an individual +is to make the world suspect him of leaning towards their faith. +</p> +<p> +The Society is not opposed to government, but only to <i>this</i> +Government based upon and acting for slavery. +</p> +<p> +With regard to the second charge, of exceeding its proper limits and +trespassing on the rights of the minority, it is enough to say, that +the object of the American Anti-Slavery Society is the "entire +abolition of slavery in the United States." Of course it is its duty +to find out all the sources of pro-slavery influence in the land. It +is its right, it is its duty to try every institution in the land, +no matter how venerable, or sacred, by the touchstone of +anti-slavery principle; and if it finds any one false, to proclaim +that fact to the world, with more or less of energy, according to +its importance in society. It has tried the Constitution, and +pronounced it unsound. +</p> +<p> +No member's conscience need be injured—The qualification for +membership remains the same, "the belief that slave-holding is a +heinous crime"—No new test has been set up—But the majority of the +Society, for the time being, faithful to its duty of trying every +institution by the light of the present day—of uttering its opinion +on every passing event that touches the slave's welfare, has seen it +to be duty to sound forth its warning, +</p> +<p class="centered"> +<b>NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS</b>. +</p> +<p> +No one who did not vote for the Resolution is responsible for it. No +one is asked to quit our platform. We, the majority, only ask him to +extend to our opinions the same toleration that we extend to him, +and agreeing to differ on this point, work together where we can. We +proscribe no man for difference of opinion. +</p> +<p> +It is said, that having refused in 1840, to say that a man <i>ought to +vote</i>, on the ground that such a resolution would be tyrannical and +intolerant, the Society is manifestly inconsistent now in taking +upon itself to say that no abolitionist <i>can</i> consistently vote. But +the inconsistency is only apparent and not real. +</p> +<!--HERE 131.png--> +<p> +There may he a thousand reasons why a particular individual ought +not to do an act, though the act be innocent in itself. It would be +tyranny therefore in a society which can properly take notice of but +one subject, slavery, to promulgate the doctrine that all its +members ought to do any particular act, as for instance, to vote, to +give money, to lecture, to petition, or the like. The particular +circumstances and opinions of each one must regulate his actions. +All we have a right to ask is, that he do for the slave's cause as +much as he does for any other of equal importance. But when an act +is wrong, it is no intolerance to say to the whole world that it +ought <i>not to be done</i>. After the abolitionist has granted that +slavery is wrong, we have the right to judge him by his own +principles, and arraign him for inconsistency that, so believing, he +helps the slaveholder by his oath. +</p> +<p> +The following pages have been hastily thrown together in explanation +of the vote above recited. They make no pretension to a full +argument of the topic. I hope that in a short time I shall get +leisure sufficient to present to our opponents, unless some one does +it for me, a full statement of the reasons which have led us to this +step. +</p> +<p> +I am aware that we non-voters are rather singular. But history, from +the earliest Christians downwards, is full of instances of men who +refused all connection with government, and all the influence which +office could bestow, rather than deny their principles, or aid in +doing wrong. Yet I never heard them called either idiots or +over-scrupulous. Sir Thomas More need never have mounted the scaffold, +had he only consented to take the oath of supremacy. He had only to +tell a lie with solemnity, as we are asked to do, and he might not +only have saved his life, but, as the trimmers of his day would have +told him, doubled his influence. Pitt resigned his place as Prime +Minister of England, rather than break faith with the Catholics of +Ireland. Should I not resign a petty ballot rather than break faith +with the slave? But I was specially glad to find a distinct +recognition of the principle upon which we have acted, applied to a +different point, in the life of that Patriarch of the Anti-Slavery +enterprise, Granville Sharpe. It is in a late number of the +Edinburgh Review. While an underclerk in the War Office, he +sympathized with our fathers in their struggle for independence. +"Orders reached his office to ship munitions of war to the revolted +colonies. If his hand had entered the account of such a cargo, it +would have contracted in his eyes the stain of innocent blood. To +avoid this pollution, he resigned his place and his means of +subsistence at a period of life when be could no longer hope to find +any other lucrative employment." As the thoughtful clerk of the War +Office takes his hat down from the peg where it has used to hang for +twenty years, methinks I hear one of our opponents cry out, +"Friend Sharpe, you are absurdly scrupulous." "You may innocently +aid Government in doing wrong," adds another. While Liberty Party +yelps at his heels, "My dear Sir, you are quite losing your influence!" +And indeed it is melancholy to reflect how, from that moment the +mighty underclerk of the War Office(!) dwindled into the mere +Granville Sharpe of history! the man of whom Mansfield and Hargrave +were content to learn law, and Wilberforce, philanthropy. +</p> +<p> +One friend proposes to vote for men who shall be pledged not to take +office unless the oath to the Constitution is dispensed with, and +who shall then go on to perform in their offices only such duties as +we, their constituents, approve. He cites, in support of his view, +the election of O'Connell to the House of Commons, in 1828, I believe, +just one year before the "Oath of Supremacy," which was the +objectionable one to the Catholics, was dispensed with. Now, if we +stood in the same circumstances as the Catholics did in 1828, the +example would be in point. When the public mind is thoroughly +revolutionized, and ready for the change, when the billow has +reached its height and begins to crest into foam, then such a +measure may bring matters to a crisis. But let us first go through, +in patience, as O'Connell did, our twenty years of agitation. +Waiving all other objections, this plan seems to me mere playing at +politics, and an entire waste of effort. +</p> +<p> +It loses our high position as moral reformers; it subjects us to all +that malignant opposition and suspicion of motives which attend the +array of parties; and while thus closing up our access to the +national conscience, it wastes in fruitless caucussing and party +tactics, the time and the effort which should have been directed to +efficient agitation. +</p> +<p> +The history of our Union is lesson enough, for every candid mind, of +the fatal effects of every, the least, compromise with evil. The +experience of the fifty years passed under it, shows us the slaves +trebling in numbers;—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and +dictating the policy of the Government;—prostituting the strength +and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and +elsewhere;—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making +the courts of the country their tools. To continue this disastrous +alliance longer is madness. The trial of fifty years only proves +that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, +without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the +sin of slavery. Why prolong the experiment? Let every honest man +join in the outcry of the American Anti-Slavery Society, +</p> +<p class="centered"> +<b>NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS</b>. +</p> +<p class="centered"> +<b>WENDELL PHILLIPS</b>. +</p> +<p> +<i>Boston, Jan</i>. 15, 1845. +</p> + +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<h2 class="centered"> +THE NO-VOTING THEORY. +</h2> + +<p> +"God never made a CITIZEN, and no one will escape as a man, from the +sins which he commits as a citizen." +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +Can an abolitionist consistently take office, or vote, under the +Constitution of the United States? +</p> +<p> +1st. What is an abolitionist? +</p> +<p> +One who thinks slaveholding a sin in all circumstances, and desires +its abolition. Of course such an one cannot consistently aid another +in holding his slave;—in other words, I cannot innocently aid a man +in doing that which I think wrong. No amount of fancied good will +justify me in joining another in doing wrong, unless I adopt the +principle "of doing evil that good may come." +</p> +<p> +2d. What do taking office and voting under the Constitution imply? +</p> +<p> +The President swears "to execute the office of president," and +"to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United +States." The judges "to discharge the duties incumbent upon them +agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States." +</p> +<p> +All executive, legislative, and judicial officers, both of the +several States and of the General Government, before entering on the +performance of their official duties, are bound to take an oath or +affirmation, "<i>to support the Constitution of the United States.</i>" +This is what every office-holder expressly <i>promises in so many words</i>. +It is a contract between him and <i>the whole nation</i>. The voter, who, +by voting, sends his fellow citizen into office as his representative, +knowing beforehand that the taking of this oath is the first duty +his agent will have to perform, does by his vote, request and +authorize him to take it. He therefore, by voting, impliedly engages +to support the Constitution. What one does by his agent he does +himself. Of course no honest man will authorize and request another +to do an act which he thinks it wrong to do himself! Every voter, +therefore, is bound to see, <i>before voting</i>, whether he could +himself honestly swear to <i>support</i> the constitution. Now what does +this oath of office-holders relate to and imply? "It applies," says +Chief Justice Marshall, "in an especial manner, to their conduct in +their official character." Judge Story, in his Commentaries on the +Constitution, speaks of it as "a solemn obligation to the due +execution of the trusts reposed in them, and to support the +Constitution." It is universally considered throughout the country, +by common men and by the courts, as a promise to do what the +Constitution bids, and to avoid what it forbids. It was in the +spirit of this oath, under which he spake, that Daniel Webster said +in New York, "The Constitution gave it (slavery) SOLEMN GUARANTIES. +To the full extent of these guaranties we are all bound by the +Constitution. All the stipulations contained in the Constitution in +favor of the slaveholding States ought to be fulfilled; and so far +as depends on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fulness of their spirit +and to the exactness of their letter." +</p> +<p> +It is more than an oath of allegiance; more than a mere promise that +we will not resist the laws. For it is an engagement to "support them"; +as an <i>officer</i> of government, to carry them into effect. Without +such a promise on the part of its functionaries, how could +government exist? It is more than the expression of that obligation +which rests on all peaceable citizens to <i>submit</i> to laws, even +though they will not actively <i>support</i> them. For it is the promise +which the judge makes, that he will actually <i>do</i> the business of +the courts; which the sheriff assumes, that he will actually <i>execute</i> +the laws. +</p> +<p> +Let it be remarked, that it is an oath to support <i>the</i> +Constitution—that is, <i>the whole of it</i>; there are no exceptions. +And let it be remembered, that by it each <i>one</i> makes a contract +with the <i>whole</i> nation, that he will do certain acts. +</p> +<p> +3d. What is the Constitution which each voter thus engages to support? +</p> +<p> +It contains the following clauses: +</p> +<p> +Art. 1, Sect. 2. Representatives and direct taxes shall be +apportioned among the several States, which may be included within +this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be +determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including +those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians +not taxed, <i>three fifths of all other persons</i>. +</p> +<p> +Art. 1, Sect. 8. Congress shall have power ... to suppress +insurrections. +</p> +<p> +Art. 4, Sec. 2. 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. +</p> +<p> +Art. 4, Sect. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in +this Union a republican form of government; and shall protect each +of them against invasion; and, on application of the legislature, or +of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened) <i>against +domestic violence</i>. +</p> +<p> +The first of these clauses, relating to representation, gives to +10,000 inhabitants of Carolina equal weight in the government with +40,000 inhabitants of Massachusetts, provided they are rich enough +to hold 50,000 slaves:—and accordingly confers on a slaveholding +community additional political power for every slave held among them, +thus tempting them to continue to uphold the system. +</p> +<p> +Its result has been, in the language of John Quincy Adams, "to make +the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of slavery the vital +and animating spirit of the National Government;" and again, to +enable "a knot of slaveholders to give the law and prescribe the +policy of the country." So that "since 1830 slavery, slaveholding, +slavebreeding, and slavetrading have formed the whole foundation of +the policy of the Federal Government." The second and the last +articles relating to insurrection and domestic violence, perfectly +innocent in themselves—yet being made with the fact directly in +view that slavery exists among us, do deliberately pledge the whole +national force against the unhappy slave if he imitate our fathers +and resist oppression—thus making us partners in the guilt of +sustaining slavery: the third is a promise, on the part of the whole +North, to return fugitive slaves to their masters; a deed which +God's law expressly condemns, and which every noble feeling of our +nature repudiates with loathing and contempt. +</p> +<p> +These are the clauses which the abolitionist, by voting or taking +office, engages to uphold. While he considers slaveholding to be sin, +he still rewards the master with additional political power for +every additional slave that he can purchase. Thinking slaveholding +to be sin, he pledges to the master the aid of the whole army and +navy of the nation to reduce his slave again to chains, should he at +any time succeed a moment in throwing them off. Thinking +slaveholding to be sin, he goes on, year after year, appointing by +his vote judges and marshals to aid in hunting up the fugitives, and +seeing that they are delivered back to those who claim them! How +beautifully consistent are his <i>principles</i> and his <i>promises</i>! +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +OBJECTIONS. +</h2> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION I. +</h3> +<p> +Allowing that the clause relating to representation and that relating +to insurrections are immoral, it is contended that the article which +orders the return of fugitive slaves was not meant to apply to slaves, +but has been misconstrued and misapplied! +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. The meaning of the other two clauses, settled as it has been +by the unbroken practice and cheerful acquiescence of the Government +and people, no one has attempted to deny. This also has the same +length of practice, and the same acquiescence, to show that it +relates to slaves. No one denies that the Government and Courts have +so construed it, and that the great body of the people have freely +concurred in and supported this construction. And further, "The +Madison Papers" (containing the debates of those who framed the +Constitution, at the time it was made) settle beyond all doubt what +meaning the framers intended to convey. +</p> +<p> +Look at the following extracts from those Papers: +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +<i>Tuesday, August 28th</i>, 1787. +</p> +<p> +Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney moved to require "fugitive slaves and +servants to be delivered up like criminals." +</p> +<p> +Mr. Wilson. This would oblige the Executive of the State to do it, at +the public expense. +</p> +<p> +Mr. Sherman saw no more propriety in the public seizing and +surrendering a slave or servant, than a horse. +</p> +<p> +Mr. Butler withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular +provision might be made, apart from this article. +</p> +<p> +Article 15, as amended, was then agreed to, <i>nem. con.</i>—Madison +papers, pp. 1447-8. +</p> +<p> +<i>Wednesday, August</i> 29, 1787. +</p> +<p> +Mr. Butler moved to insert after Article 15, "If any person bound to +service or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into +another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service +or labor, in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State +to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly +claiming their service or labor,"—which was agreed to, <i>nem. con</i>.—p. 1456. +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +And again, after the wording of the above article had been slightly +changed, and the clause newly numbered, as in the present +Constitution, we find another statement most clearly showing to what +subject the whole was intended to refer: +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +<i>Saturday, September</i> 15, 1787. +</p> +<p> +Article 4, Section 2, (the third paragraph,) the term "legally" was +struck out; and the words, "under the laws thereof," inserted after +the word "State," in compliance with the wish of some who thought +the term <i>legal</i> equivocal, and favoring the idea that SLAVERY was +legal in a moral view.—p. 1589. +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +Is it not hence evident that SLAVERY was the subject referred to by +the whole article? +</p> +<p> +The debates of the Convention held in the several States to ratify +the Constitution, at the same time show clearly what meaning it was +thought the framers had conveyed:—In Virginia Mr. Madison said, +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +Another clause secures to us that property which we now possess. At +present, if any slave elopes to any of those States where slaves are +free, he becomes emancipated by their laws. For the laws of the +States are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this +Constitution, "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." This clause was expressly inserted to +enable owners of slaves to reclaim them. This is a better security +than any that now exists. +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +Patrick Henry, in reply observed, +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +The clause which had been adduced by the gentleman was no more than +this—that a runaway negro could be taken up in Maryland or New York. +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +Governor Randolph said, +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +But another clause of the Constitution proves the absurdity of the +supposition. The words of the clause are, "No person held to service +or labor in one State," &c. Every one knows that slaves are held to +service and labor. If a citizen of this State, in consequence of +this clause, can take his runaway slave in Maryland, &c. +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +General Pinckney in South Carolina Convention observed, +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"We have obtained a right to recover our slaves, in whatever part of +America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before." +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +In North Carolina, Mr. Iredell +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +Begged leave to explain the reason of this clause. In some of the +Northern States, they have emancipated all their slaves. If any of +our slaves, said he, go there and remain there a certain time, they +would, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, so that +their masters could not get them again. This would be extremely +prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States, and to +prevent it, this clause is inserted in the Constitution. Though the +word <i>slave</i> be not mentioned, this is the meaning of it. The +Northern delegates, owing to their particular scruples on the +subject of slavery, did not choose the word <i>slave</i> to be mentioned. +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +But even if TWO clauses are immoral that is enough for our purpose, +and shews that no honest man should engage to uphold them. Who has +the right to construe and expound the laws? Of course the Courts of +the Nation. The Constitution provides (Article 3, Section 2,) that +the Supreme Court shall be the final and only interpreter of its +meaning. What says the Supreme Court? That this clause does relate +to slaves, and order their return. All the other courts concur in +this opinion. But, say some, the courts are corrupt on this question. +Let us appeal to the people. Nine hundred and ninety-nine out of +every thousand answer, that the courts have construed it rightly, +and almost as many cheerfully support it. If the unanimous, +concurrent, unbroken practice of every department of the Government, +judicial, legislative, and executive, and the acquiescence of the +people for fifty years, do not prove which is the true construction, +then how and where can such a question ever be settled? If the +people and the courts of the land do not know what they themselves +mean, who has authority to settle their meaning for them? +</p> +<p> +If the Constitution is not what history, unbroken practice, and the +courts prove that our fathers intended to make it, and what too, +their descendants, this nation say they did make it, and agree to +uphold,—who shall decide what the Constitution is? +</p> +<p> +This is the sense then in which the Nation understand that the +promise is made to them. The Nation <i>understand</i> that the judge +pledges himself to return fugitive slaves. The judge knows this when +he takes the oath. And Paley expresses the opinion of all writers on +morals, as well as the conviction of all honest men, when he says, +"that a promise is binding in that sense in which the promiser +thought at the time that the other party understood it." +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION II. +</h3> +<p> +A promise to do an immoral act is not binding: therefore an oath to +support the Constitution of the United States, does not bind one to +support any provisions of that instrument which are repugnant to his +ideas of right. And an abolitionist, thinking it wrong to return +slaves, may as an office-holder, innocently and properly take an +oath to support a Constitution which commands such return. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. Observe that this objection allows the Constitution to be +pro-slavery, and admits that there are clauses in it which no +abolitionist ought to carry out or support. +</p> +<p> +And observe, further, that we all agree, that a bad promise is +better broken than kept—that every abolitionist, who has before now +taken the oath to the Constitution, is bound to break it, and +disobey the pro-slavery clauses of that instrument. So far there is +no difference between us. But the point in dispute now is, whether a +man, having found out that certain requirements of the Constitution +are wrong, can, after that, innocently swear to support and obey them, +<i>all the while meaning not to do so</i>. +</p> +<p> +Now I contend that such loose construction of our promises is +contrary alike to honor, to fair dealing, and to truthfulness—that +it tends to destroy utterly that confidence between man and man +which binds society together, and leads, in matters of government, +to absolute tyranny. +</p> +<p> +The Constitution is a series of contracts made by each individual +with every other of the fourteen millions. A man's oath is evidence +of his assent to this contract. If I offer a man the copy of an +agreement, and he, after reading, swears to perform it, have I not a +right to infer from his oath that he assents to the <i>rightfulness</i> +of the articles of that paper? What more solemn form of expressing +his assent could he select? A man's oath expresses his conviction of +the rightfulness of the actions he promises to do, as well as his +determination to do them. If this be not so, I can have no trust in +any man's word. He may take my money, promise to do what I wish in +return, and yet, keeping my money, tell me, on the morrow, that he +shall not keep his promise, and never meant to, because the act, his +conscience tells him, is wrong. Who would trust property to such men, +or such maxims in the common affairs of life? Shall we not be as +honest in the Senate House as on 'Change? The North makes a contract +with the South by which she receives certain benefits, and agrees to +render certain services. The benefits she carefully keeps—but the +services she refuses to render, because immoral contracts are not +binding! Is this fair dealing? It is the rule alike of law and +common sense, that if we are not able, from <i>any cause</i>, to furnish +the article we have agreed to, we ought to return the pay we have +received. If power is put into our hands on certain conditions, and +we find ourselves unable to comply with those conditions, we ought +to surrender the power back to those who gave it. +</p> +<p> +Immoral laws are doubtless void, and should not be obeyed. But the +question is here, whether one knowing a law to be immoral, may +innocently promise to obey it in order to get into office? The +people have settled the conditions on which one may take office. The +first is, that he assent to their Constitution. Is it honest to +accept power with the intention at the time of not keeping the +conditions?—The rightfulness of those conditions is not here the +question. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION III. +</h3> +<p> +I swear to support the Constitution, as <i>I understand it</i>. Certain +parts of it, in my opinion, contradict others and are therefore void. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. Will any one take the title deed of his house and carry it +to the man he bought of, and let him keep the covenants of that +paper as he says "he understands them?" Do we not all recognize the +justice of having some third, disinterested party to judge between +two disputants about the meaning of contracts? Who ever heard of a +contract of which each party was at liberty to keep as much as he +thought proper? +</p> +<p> +As in all other contracts, so in that of the Constitution, there is +a power provided to affix the proper construction to the instrument, +and that construction both parties are bound to abide by, or +repudiate the <i>whole</i> contract. That power is the Supreme Court of +the United States. +</p> +<p> +Do we seek the common sense, practical view of this question? Go to +the Exchange and ask any broker how many dollars he will trust any +man with, who avows his right to make promises with the design, at +the time, of breaking some parts, and not feeling called upon to +state which those parts will be? +</p> +<p> +Do you seek the moral view of the point, which philosophers have +taken? Paley says, "A promise is binding in that sense in which the +promiser thought at the time of making that the other party +understood it." Is there any doubt what meaning the great body of +the American people attach to the Constitution and the official oath? +They are that party to whom the promise is made. +</p> +<p> +But, say some, our lives are notice to the whole people what meaning +we attach to the oath, and we will protest when we swear, that we do +not include in our oath the pro-slavery clauses. You may as well +utter the protest now, as when you are swearing—or at home, equally +as well as within the State House. For no such protest can be of any +avail. The Chief Justice stands up to administer to me the oath of +some office, no matter which. "Sir," say I, "I must take that oath +with a qualification, excluding certain clauses." His reply will be, +"Sir, I have no discretion in this matter. I am here merely to +administer a prescribed form of oath. If you assent to it, you are +qualified for your station. If you do not, you cannot enter. I have +no authority given me to listen to exceptions. I am a servant—the +people are my masters—here is what they require that you support, +not this or that part of the Constitution, but '<i>the Constitution</i>,' +that is, the <i>whole</i>." +</p> +<p> +Baffled here, I turn to the people. I publish my opinions in +newspapers. I proclaim them at conventions, I spread them through +the country on the wings of a thousand presses. Does this avail me? +Yes, says Liberty party, if after this, men choose to vote for you, +it is evident they mean you shall take the oath as you have given +notice that you understand it. +</p> +<p> +Well, the voters in Boston, with this understanding, elect me to +Congress, and I proceed to Washington. But here arises a difficulty,—my +constituents at home have assented—but when I get to Congress, +I find I am not the representative of Boston only, but of the whole +country. The interests of Carolina are committed to my hands as well +as those of Massachusetts; I find that the contract I made by my +oath was not with Boston, but with the whole nation. It is the +<i>nation</i> that gives me the power to declare war and make peace—to +lay taxes on cotton, and control the commerce of New Orleans. The +nation prescribed the conditions in 1789, when the Constitution was +settled, and though Boston may be willing to accept me on other terms, +Carolina is not willing. Boston has accepted my protest, and says, +"Take office." Carolina says, "The oath you swear is sworn to me, as +well as to the rest—I demand the whole bond." In other words, when +I have made my protest, what evidence is there that <i>the nation</i>, +the other party to the contract, assents to it? There can be none +until that nation amends its Constitution. Massachusetts when she +accepted that Constitution, bound herself to send only such men as +could swear to return slaves. If by an underhand compromise with +some of her citizens, she sends persons of other sentiments, she is +perjured, and any one who goes on such an errand is a partner in the +perjury. Massachusetts has no right to assent to my protest—she has +no right to send representatives, except on certain conditions. She +cannot vary those conditions, without leave from those whose +interests are to be affected by the change, that is, the whole nation. +Those conditions are written down in the Constitution. Do she and +South Carolina differ, as to the meaning? The Court will decide for +them. +</p> +<p> +But, says the objector, do you mean to say that I swear to support +the Constitution, not as I understand it, but as some judge +understands it? Yes, I do—otherwise there is no such thing as law. +This right of private judgment, for which he contends, exists in +religion—but not in Government. Law is a rule <i>prescribed</i>. The +party prescribing must have the right to construe his own rule, +otherwise there would be as many laws as there are individual +consciences. Statutes would be but recommendations if every man was +at liberty to understand and obey them as he thought proper. But I +need not argue this. The absurdity of a Government that has no right +to govern—and of laws which have no fixed meaning—but which each +man construes to mean what he pleases and obeys accordingly—must be +evident to every one. +</p> +<p> +What more power did the most despotic of the English Stuarts ask, +than the right, after having sworn to laws, to break such as their +consciences disapproved? It is the essence of tyranny. +</p> +<p> +What is the Constitution of the United States? In good old fashioned +times we thought we knew, when we had read it and listened to the +court's exposition. But we have improved upon that. The Liberty +party man says, it is for him "what he understands it." John C. +Calhoun, of course, has the same right, and instead of "Liberty +regulated by law," we have liberty regulated by fourteen millions of +understandings! +</p> +<p> +The Liberty party man takes office on conditions, which, he says, +are not binding upon him. He gives us notice that he shall use the +power as he thinks right, without any regard to these conditions of +his oath. Well, if this is law, it is good for all. John C. Calhoun +can of course take office with the same broad liberty, and swear to +support the Constitution "as <i>he</i> understands it." He has told us +often what that "understanding" is—"to sustain Slavery." Of course +having made this public, if, after that, Carolina sends him, +according to Liberty party logic, it is evidence that Massachusetts +assents to his "understanding," and accepts his oath with that +meaning! Why I thought I had fathomed the pro-slavery depths of the +Constitution when I read over all its wicked clauses—but that is +skimming only the surface, if the Constitution allows every man, to +whom it commits power to use it, as he chooses to "understand" the +conditions, and not as the nation understands them. If with this +right, Abolitionists may take office and help Liberty, we must +remember that by the same rule, slaveholders may take office and +lawfully use all their power to help Slavery. If this be so, how +absurd to keep crying out of this and the other thing it is +"unconstitutional." +</p> +<p> +Away with such logic! If we have a Constitution, let us remember +Jefferson's advice, and not make it "waste paper by construction." +The man who tampers thus with the sacred obligation of an oath,—swears, +and Jesuit like, keeps "reserved meanings" in his own +breast,—does more harm to society by loosening the foundations of +morals, than he would do good, did his one falsehood free every +slave from the Potomac to the Del Norte. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION IV. +</h3> +<p> +"The oath does not mean that I will positively do what I swear to do, +but only that I will do it, <i>or submit</i> to the penalty the law awards. +If my actions in office don't suit the nation, let them impeach me." +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. That is, John Tyler may, without consulting Congress, plunge +us into war with Mexico—incur fifty millions of public debt—lose a +hundred thousand lives—and the <i>sufficient recompense</i> to this +nation will be to impeach John Tyler, Esq., and send him home to his +slaves! These are the wise safeguards of Constitutional liberty! He +has faithfully kept it "as he understands it." What is a Russian +slave? One who holds life, property, and all, at the mercy of the +Czar's idea of right. Does not this description of the power every +officer has here, under our Constitution, reduce Americans to the +same condition? +</p> +<p> +But, is it true that the bearing of the penalty is an excuse for +breach of our official oaths? +</p> +<p> +The Judge who, in questions of divorce, has trifled with the +sanctity of the marriage tie—who, in matters of property has +decided unjustly, and taken bribes—in capital cases has so dealt +judgment as to send innocent men to the gallows—may cry out, +"If you don't like me, impeach me." But will impeachment restore the +dead to life, or the husband to his defamed wife? Would the community +consider his submission to impeachment as equivalent to the keeping +of his oath of office, and thenceforward view him as an honest, +truth-speaking, unperjured man? It is idle to suppose so. Yet the +interests committed to some of our officeholders' keeping, are more +important often than even those which a Judge controls. And we must +remember that men's ideas of right always differ. To admit such a +principle into the construction of oaths, if it enable one man to do +much good, will enable scoundrels who creep into office to do much +harm, "according to <i>their</i> consciences." But yet the rule, if it be +admitted, must be universal. Liberty becomes, then, matter of +accident. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION V. +</h3> +<p> +I shall resign whenever a case occurs that requires me to aid in +returning a fugitive slave. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. "The office-holder has promised active obedience to the +Constitution in every exigency which it has contemplated and sought +to provide for. If he promised, not meaning to perform in certain +cases, is he not doubly dishonest? Dishonest to his own conscience +in promising to do wrong, and to his fellow-citizens in purposing +from the first to break his oath, as he knew they understood it? If +he had sworn, not regarding anything as immoral which he bound +himself to do, and afterwards found in the oath something against +his conscience of which he was not at first aware, or if by change +of views he had come to deem sinful what before he thought right, +then doubtless, by promptly resigning, he might escape guilt. But is +not the case different, when among the acts promised are some known +at the time to be morally wrong? 'It is a sin to swear unto sin,' +says the poet, although it be, as he truly adds, 'a greater sin to +keep the sinful oath.'" +</p> +<p> +The captain has no right to put to sea, and resign when the storm +comes. Besides what supports a wicked government more than good men +taking office under it, even though they secretly determine not to +carry out all its provisions? The slave balancing in his lonely +hovel the chance of escape, knows nothing of your secret reservations, +your future intentions. He sees only the swarming millions at the +North ostensibly sworn to restore him to his master, if he escape a +little way. Perchance it is your false oath, which you don't mean to +keep, that makes him turn from the attempt in despair. He knows you +only—the world knows only by your <i>actions</i>, not your <i>intentions</i>, +and those side with his master. The prayer which he lifts to Heaven, +in his despair, numbers you rightly among his oppressors. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION VI. +</h3> +<p> +I shall only take such an office as brings me into no connection +with slavery. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. Government is a whole; unless each in his circle aids his +next neighbor, the machine will stand still. The Senator does not +himself return the fugitive slave, but he appoints the Marshal, +whose duty it is to do so. The State representative does not himself +appoint the Judge who signs the warrant for the slave's recapture, +but he chooses the United States Senator who does appoint that Judge. +The elector does not himself order out the militia to resist +"domestic violence," but he elects the President, whose duty requires, +that a case occurring, he should do so. +</p> +<p> +To suppose that each of these may do that part of his duty that +suits him, and leave the rest undone, is <i>practical anarchy</i>. It is +bringing ourselves precisely to that state which the Hebrew describes. +"In those days there was no king in Israel, but each man did what +was right in his own eyes." This is all consistent in us, who hold +that man is to do right, even if anarchy follows. How absurd to set +up such a scheme, and miscall it a <i>government</i>,—where nobody +governs, but everybody does as he pleases. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION VII. +</h3> +<p> +As men and all their works are imperfect, we may innocently +"support a Government which, along with many blessings, assists in +the perpetration of some wrong." +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. As nobody disputes that we may rightly assist the worst +Government in doing good, provided we can do so without at the same +time aiding it in the wrong it perpetrates, this must mean, of course, +that it is right to aid and obey a Government <i>in doing wrong</i>, if +we think that, on the whole, the Government effects more good than +harm. Otherwise the whole argument is irrelevant, for this is the +point in dispute; since every office of any consequence under the +United States Constitution has some immediate connection with Slavery. +Let us see to what lengths this principle will carry one. Herod's +servants, then, were right in slaying every child in Bethlehem, from +two years old and under, provided they thought Herod's Government, +on the whole, more a blessing than a curse to Judea! The soldiers of +Charles II. were justified in shooting the Covenanters on the muirs +of Scotland, if they thought his rule was better, on the whole, for +England, than anarchy! According to this theory, the moment the +magic wand of Government touches our vices, they start up into +virtues! But has Government any peculiar character or privilege in +this respect? Oh, no—Government is only an association of +individuals, and the same rules of morality which govern my conduct +in relation to a thousand men, ought to regulate my conduct to any +one. Therefore, I may innocently aid a man in doing wrong, if I +think that, on the whole, he has more virtues than vices. If he +gives bread to the hungry six days in the week, I may rightly help +him, on the seventh, in forging bank notes, or murdering his father! +The principle goes this length, and every length, or it cannot be +proved to exist at all. It ends at last, practically, in the old +maxim, that the subject and the soldier have no right to keep any +conscience, but have only to obey the rulers they serve: for there +are few, if any, Governments this side of Satan's, which could not, +in some sense, be said to do more good than harm. Now I candidly +confess, that I had rather be covered all over with inconsistencies, +in the struggle to keep my hands clean, than settle quietly down on +such a principle as this. It is supposing that we may— +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"To do a great right, do a little wrong;" +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +a rule, which the master poet of human nature has rebuked. It is +doing evil that good may come—a doctrine, of which an Apostle has +pronounced the condemnation. +</p> +<p> +And let it be remembered that in dealing with the question of slavery, +we are not dealing with extreme cases. Slavery is no minute evil +which lynx-eyed suspicion has ferreted out. Every sixth man is a +slave. The ermine of justice is stained. The national banner clings +to the flag-staff heavy with blood. "The preservation of slavery," +says our oldest and ablest statesman, "is the vital and animating +<i>spirit</i> of the National Government." +</p> +<p> +Surely IF it be true that a man may justifiably stand connected with +a government in which he sees some slight evils—still it is also +true, even then, that governments <i>may</i> sin so atrociously, so +enormously, may make evil so much the <i>purpose</i> of their being, as +to render it the duty of honest men to wash their hands of them. +</p> +<p> +I may give money to a friend whose life has some things in it which +I do not fully approve—but when his nights are passed in the brothel, +and his days in drunkenness, when he uses his talents to seduce +others, and his gold to pave their road to ruin, surely the case is +changed. +</p> +<p> +I may perhaps sacrifice health by staying awhile in a room rather +overheated, but I shall certainly see it to be my duty to rush out, +when the whole house is in full blaze. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION VIII. +</h3> +<p> +God intended that society and governments should exist. We therefore +are bound to support them. He has conferred upon us the rights of +citizenship in this country, and we cannot escape from the +responsibility of exercising them. God made us <i>citizens</i>. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. This reminds me of an old story I have heard. When the +Legislature were asked to set off a portion of the town of +Dorchester and call it South Boston, the old minister of the town is +said to have objected, saying, "God made it Dorchester, and +Dorchester it ought to be." +</p> +<p> +God made us social beings, it is true, but <i>society</i> is not +necessarily the Constitution of the United States! Because God meant +some form of government should exist, does not at all prove that we +are justified in supporting a wicked one. Man confers the rights and +regulates the duties of citizenship. God never made a <i>citizen</i>, and +no one will escape, as a man, from the sins he commits as a citizen. +This is the first time that it has ever been held an excuse for sin +that we "went with the multitude to do evil!" +</p> +<p> +Certainly we can be under no <i>such</i> responsibility to become and +remain <i>citizens</i>, as will excuse us from the sinful acts which as +such citizens we are called to commit. Does God make obligatory on +his creature the support of institutions which require him to do +acts in themselves wrong? To suppose so, were to confound all the +rules of God's moral kingdom. +</p> +<p> +President Wayland has lately been illustrating, and giving his +testimony to the principle, that a combination of men cannot change +the moral character of an act, which is in itself sinful—that the +law of morals is binding the same on communities, corporations, &c. +as on individuals. +</p> +<p> +After describing slavery, and saying that to hold a man in such a +state is wrong—he goes on: +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"I will offer but one more supposition. Suppose that any number, for +instance one half of the families in our neighborhood, should by law +enact that the weaker half should be slaves, that we would exercise +over them the authority of masters, prohibit by law their instruction, +and concert among ourselves means for holding them permanently in +their present situation. In what manner would this alter the moral +aspect of the case?" +</p> +<p> +A law in this case is merely a determination of one party, in which +all unite, to hold the other party in bondage; and a compact by +which the whole party bind themselves to assist every individual of +themselves to subdue all resistance from the other party, and +guaranteeing to each other that exercise of this power over the +weaker party which they now possess. +</p> +<p> +Now I cannot see that this in any respect changes the nature of the +parties. They remain, as before, human beings, possessing the same +intellectual and moral nature, holding the same relations to each +other and to God, and still under the same unchangeable law, Thou +shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. By the act of holding a man in +bondage, this law is violated. Wrong is done, moral evil is committed. +In the former case it was done by the individual; now it is done by +the individual and the society. Before, the individual was +responsible only for his own wrong; now he is responsible both for +his own, and also, as a member of the society, for all the wrong +which the society binds itself to uphold and render perpetual. +</p> +<p> +The scriptures frequently allude to the fact, that wrong done by law, +that is by society, is amenable to the same retribution as wrong +done by the individual. Thus, Psalm 94:20-23. 'Shall the throne of +iniquity have fellowship with them which frame mischief by a law, +and gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, +and condemn the innocent blood? But the Lord is my defence; and my +God is the rock of my refuge. And he shall bring upon them their own +iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the +Lord our God shall cut them off' So also Isaiah 10:1-4. 'Wo unto +them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness +which they have prescribed.' &c. Besides, persecution for the sake +of religious opinion is always perpetrated by law; but this in no +manner affects its moral character. +</p> +<p> +There is, however, one point of difference, which arises from the +fact that this wrong has been established by law. It becomes a +social wrong. The individual, or those who preceded him, may have +surrendered their individual right over it to the society. In this +case it may happen that the individual cannot act as he might act, +if the law had not been made. In this case the evil can only be +eradicated by changing the opinions of the society, and inducing +them to abolish the law. It will however be apparent that this, as I +said before, does not change the relation of the parties either to +each other or to God. The wrong exists as before. The individual act +is wrong. The law which protects it is wrong. The whole society, in +putting the law into execution, is wrong. Before only the individual, +now, the whole society, becomes the wrong doer, and for that wrong, +both the individuals and the society are held responsible in the +sight of God." +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +If such "individual act is wrong," the man who knowingly does it is +surely a sinner. Does God, through society, require men to sin? +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION IX. +</h3> +<p> +If not being non-resistants, we concede to mankind the right to +frame Governments, which must, from the very nature of man, be more +or less evil, the right or duty to support them, when framed, +necessarily follows. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. I do not think it follows at all. Mankind, that is, any +number of them, have a right to set up such forms of worship as they +see fit, but when they have done so, does it necessarily follow that +I am in duty bound to support any one of them, whether I approve it +or not? Government is precisely like any other voluntary association +of individuals—a temperance or anti-slavery society, a bank or +railroad corporation. I join it, or not, as duty dictates. If a +temperance society exists in the village where I am, that love for +my race which bids me seek its highest good, commands me to join it. +So if a Government is formed in the land where I live, the same +feeling bids me to support it, if I innocently can. This is the +whole length of my duty to Government. From the necessity of the case, +and that constitution of things which God has ordained, it follows +that in any specified district, the majority must rule—hence +results the duty of the minority to submit. But we must carefully +preserve the distinction between <i>submission</i> and <i>obedience</i> +—between <i>submission</i> and <i>support</i>. If the majority set up an +immoral Government, I obey those laws which seem to me good, because +they are good—and I submit to all the penalties which my +disobedience of the rest brings on me. This is alike the dictate of +common sense, and the command of Christianity. And it must be the +true doctrine, since any other obliges me to obey the majority if +they command me to commit murder, a rule which even the Tory +Blackstone has denied. Of course for me to do anything I deem wrong, +is the same, in quality, as to commit murder. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION X. +</h3> +<p> +But it is said, your theory results in good men leaving government +to the dishonest and wicked. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. Well, if to sustain government we must sacrifice honesty, +government could not be in a more appropriate place, than in the +hands of dishonest men. +</p> +<p> +But it by no means follows, that if I go out of government, I leave +nothing but dishonest men behind. An act may be sin to me, which +another may sincerely think right—and if so, let him do it, till he +changes his mind. I leave government in the hands of those whom I do +not think as clear-sighted as myself, but not necessarily in the +hands of the dishonest. Whether it be so in this country now, is not, +at present, the question, but whether it would be so necessarily, in +all cases. The real question is, what is the duty of those who +presume to think that God has given them clearer views of duty than +the bulk of those among whom they live? +</p> +<p> +Don't think us conceited in supposing ourselves a little more enlightened than +our neighbors. It is no great thing after all to be a little better than a +lynching—mobocratic—slaveholding—debt repudiating community. +</p> +<p> +What then is the duty of such men? Doubtless to do all they can to +extend to others the light they enjoy. +</p> +<p> +Will they best do so by compromising their principles? by letting +their political life give the lie to their life of reform? Who will +have the most influence, he whose life is consistent, or he who says +one thing to-day, and swears another thing to-morrow—who looks one +way and rows another? My object is to let men <i>understand me</i>, and I +submit that the body of the Roman people understood better, and felt +more earnestly, the struggle between the people and the princes, +when the little band of democrats <i>left the city</i> and encamped on +<i>Mons Sacer, outside</i>, than while they remained mixed up and +voting with their masters, shoulder to shoulder. <i>Dissolution</i> is +our <i>Mons Sacer</i>—God grant that it may become equally famous in the +world's history as the spot where the right triumphed. +</p> +<p> +It is foolish to suppose that the position of such men, divested of +the glare of official distinction, has no weight with the people. If +it were so, I am still bound to remember that I was not sent into +the world <i>to have influence</i>, but to do my duty according to my own +conscience. But it is not so. People do know an honest man when they +see him. (I allow that this is so rare an event now-a-days, as +almost to justify one in supposing they might have forgotten how he +looked.) They will give a man credit, when his life is one manly +testimony to the truthfulness of his lips. Even Liberty party, blind +as she is, has light enough to see that "Consistency is the jewel, +the everything of such a cause as ours." The position of a non-voter, +in a land where the ballot is so much idolized, kindles in every +beholder's bosom something of the warm sympathy which waits on the +persecuted, carries with it all the weight of a disinterested +testimony to truth, and pricks each voter's conscience with an +uneasy doubt, whether after all voting <i>is</i> right. There is +constantly a Mordecai in the gate. +</p> +<p> +I admit that we should strive to have a <i>political</i> influence—for +with politics is bound up much of the welfare of the people. But +this objection supposes that the ballot box is the <i>only</i> means of +political influence. Now it is a good thing that every man should +have the right to vote. But it is by no means necessary that every +man should actually vote, in order to influence his times. We by no +means necessarily desert our social duty when we refuse to take +office, or to confer it. Lafayette did better service to the cause +of French liberty when he retired to Lagrange and refused to +acknowledge Napoleon, than he could have done had he stood, for years, +at the tyrant's right hand. From the silence of that chamber there +went forth a voice—from the darkness of that retreat there burst +forth a light; feeble indeed at first, like the struggling beams of +the morning, but destined like them to brighten into perfect day. +</p> +<p> +This objection, that we non-voters shall lose all our influence, +confounds the broad distinction between <i>influence</i> and <i>power</i>. +<i>Influence</i> every honest man must and will have, in exact +proportion to his honesty and ability. God always annexes influence +to worth. The world, however unwilling, can never get free from the +influence of such a man. This influence the possession of office +cannot give, nor the want of it take away. For the exercise of such +influence as this, man is responsible. <i>Power</i> we buy of our fellow +men at a certain price. Before making the bargain it is our duty to +see that we do not pay "too dear for our whistle." He who buys it at +the price of truth and honor, buys only weakness—and sins beside. +</p> +<p> +Of those who go to the utmost verge of honesty in order to reach the +seats of worldly power, and barter a pure conscience for a weighty +name, it may be well said with old Fuller, "They need to have steady +heads who can dive into these gulfs of policy, and come out with a +safe conscience." +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION XI. +</h3> +<p> +This withdrawing from government is pharisaical—"Shall we, 'weak, +sinful men,'" one says, "perhaps even more sinful than the +slaveholder, cry out, No Union with Slaveholders?" Such a course is +wanting in brotherly kindness. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. Because we refuse to aid a wrong-doer in his sin, we by no +means proclaim, or assume, that we think our <i>whole character</i> +better than his. It is neither pharisaical to have opinions, nor +presumptuous to guide our lives by them. If I have joined with +others in doing wrong, is it either presumptuous or unkind, when my +eyes are opened, to refuse to go any further with them in their +career of guilt? Does love to the thief require me to help him in +stealing? Yet this is all we refuse to do. We will extend to the +slaveholder all the courtesy he will allow. If he is hungry, we will +feed him; if he is in want, both hands shall be stretched out for +his aid. We will give him full credit for all the good that he does, +and our deep sympathy in all the temptations under whose strength he +falls. But to help him in his sin, to remain partners with him in +the slave-trade, is more than he has a right to ask. He would be a +strange preacher who should set out to reform his circle by joining +in all their sins! It is a principle similar to that which the tipsy +Duke of Norfolk acted on, when seeing a drunken friend in the gutter, +he cried out, "My dear fellow, I can't help you out, but I'll do +better, I'll lie down by your side." +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION XII. +</h3> +<p> +But consider, the abstaining from all share in Government will leave +bad men to have everything their own way—admit Texas—extend +slavery, &c. &c. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. That is no matter of mine. God, the great conservative power +of the Universe, when he established the right, saw to it that it +should always be the safest and best. He never laid upon a poor +finite worm the staggering load of following out into infinity the +complex results of his actions. We may rest on the bosom of +Infinite Wisdom, confident that it is enough for us to do justice, +he will see to it that happiness results. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION XIII. +</h3> +<p> +But the same conscientious objection against promising your support +to government, ought to lead you to avoid actually giving your +support to it by paying taxes or sueing in the courts. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. This is what logicians call a <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>: an +attempt to prove our principle unsound by showing that, fairly +carried out, it leads to an absurdity. But granting all it asks, it +does not saddle us with any absurdity at all. It is perfectly +possible to live without petitioning, sueing, or holding stocks. +Thousands in this country have lived, died, and been buried, without +doing either. And does it load us with any absurdity to prove that +we shall be obliged to do from principle, what the majority of our +fellow-citizens do from choice? We lawyers may think it is an +absurdity to say a man can't sue, for, like the Apostle at Ephesus, +it touches our "craft," but that don't go far to prove it. Then, as +to taxes, doubtless many cases might be imagined, when every one +would allow it to be our duty to resist the slightest taxation, did +Christianity allow it, with "war to the hilt." If such cases may +ever arise, why may not this be one? +</p> +<p> +Until I become an Irishman, no one will ever convince me that I +ought to vote, by proving that I ought not to pay taxes! Suppose +all these difficulties do really encompass us, it will not be +the first time that the doing of one moral duty has revealed a +dozen others which we never thought of. The child has climbed the +hill over his native village, which he thought the end of the world, +and lo! there are mountains beyond! He won't remedy the matter by +creeping back to his cradle and disbelieving in mountains! +</p> +<p> +But then, is there any such inconsistency in non-voters sueing and +paying taxes? +</p> +<p> +Look at it. A. and B. have agreed on certain laws, and appointed C. +to execute them. A. owes me, who am no party to the contract, a just +debt, which his laws oblige him to pay. Do I acknowledge the +rightfulness of his relation to B. and C. by asking C. to use the +power given him, in my behalf? It appears to me that I do not. I may +surely ask A. to pay me my debt—why not then ask the keeper, whom +he has appointed over himself, to make him do so? +</p> +<p> +I am a prisoner among pirates. The mate is abusing me in some way +contrary to their laws. Do I recognize the rightfulness of the +Captain's authority, by asking him to use the power the mate has +consented to give him, to protect me? It seems to me that I do not +necessarily endorse the means by which a man has acquired money or +power, when I ask him to use either in my behalf. +</p> +<p> +An alien does not recognize the rightfulness of a government by +living under it. It has always been held that an English subject may +swear allegiance to an usurper and yet not be guilty of treason to +the true king. Because he may innocently acknowledge the king +<i>de facto</i> (the king <i>in deed</i>,) without assuming him to be king +<i>de jure</i> (king by <i>right</i>.) The distinction itself is as old as +the time of Edward the First. The principle is equally applicable to +suits. It has been universally acted on and allowed. The Catholic, +who shrank from acknowledging the heretical Government of England, +always, I believe, sued in her courts. +</p> +<p> +Who could convince a common man, that by sueing in Constantinople or +Timbuctoo, he does an act which makes him responsible for the +character of those governments? +</p> +<p> +Then, as for taxes. It is only our voluntary acts for which we are +responsible. And when did government ever trust tax-paying to the +voluntary good will of its subjects? When it does so, I, for one, +will refuse to pay. +</p> +<p> +When did any sane man conclude that our Saviour's voluntary payment +of a tax acknowledged the rightfulness of Rome's authority over Judea? +</p> +<p> +"The States," says Chief Justice Marshall, "have only not to elect +Senators, and this government expires without a struggle." +</p> +<p> +Every November, then, we <i>create</i> the government anew. Now, what +"instinct" will tell a common-sense man, that the act of a +<i>sovereign</i>,—voting—which creates a wicked government, is, +<i>essentially</i> the +same as the submission of a <i>subject</i>,—tax-paying,—an act done +without our consent. It should be remembered, that we vote as +<i>sovereigns</i>,—we pay taxes as <i>subjects</i>. Who supposes that the +humble tax-payer of Austria, who does not, perhaps, know in what +name the charter of his bondage runs, is responsible for the doings +of Metternich? And what sane man likens his position to that of the +voting sovereign of the United States? My innocent acts may, through +others' malice, result in evil. In that case, it will be for my best +judgment to determine whether to continue or cease them. They are +not thereby rendered essentially sinful. For instance, I walk +out on Sabbath morning. The priest over the way will exclaim, +"Sabbath-breaker," and the infidel will delude his followers, by +telling them I have no regard for Christianity. Still, it will be +for me to settle which, in present circumstances, is best,—to +remain in, and not be misconstrued, or to go out and bear a +testimony against the superstitious keeping of the day. Different +circumstances will dictate different action on such a point. +</p> +<p> +I may often be the <i>occasion</i> of evil when I am not responsible for +it. Many innocent acts <i>occasion</i> evil, and in such case all I am +bound to ask myself before doing such <i>innocent act</i>, is, "Shall I +occasion, on the whole, more harm or good." There are many cases +where doing a duty even, we shall occasion evil and sin in others. +To save a slaveholder from drowning, when we know he has made a will +freeing his slaves, would put off, perhaps forever, their +emancipation, but of course that is not my fault. This making a man +responsible for all the evil his acts, <i>incidentally</i>, without his +will, occasion, reminds me of that principle of Turkish law which +Dr. Clarke mentions, in his travels, and which they call "homicide +by an intermediate cause." The case he relates is this: A young man +in love poisoned himself, because the girl's father refused his +consent to the marriage. The Cadi sentenced the father to pay a fine +of $80, saying "if you had not had a daughter, this young man had +not loved; if he had not loved, he had never been disappointed; if +not disappointed, he would never have taken poison." It was the same +Cadi possibly, who sentenced the island of Samos to pay for the +wrecking of a vessel, on the principle that "if the island had not +been in the way, the vessel would never have been wrecked!" +</p> +<p> +Then of taxes on imports. Buying and selling, and carrying from +country to country, is good and innocent. But government, if I trade +here, will take occasion to squeeze money out of me. Very well. I +shall deliberate whether I will cease trading, and deprive them of +the opportunity, or go on and use my wealth to reform them. 'Tis a +question of expediency, not of right, which my judgment, not my +conscience, must settle. An act of mine, innocent in itself, and +done from right motives, no after act of another's can make a sin. +To import, is rightful. After-taxation, against my consent, cannot +make it wrong. Neither am I obliged to smuggle, in order to avoid it. +I include in these remarks, all taxes, whether on property, or +imports, or railroads. +</p> +<p> +A chemist, hundreds of years ago, finds out how to temper steel. The +art is useful for making knives, lancets, and machinery. But he +knows that the bad will abuse it by making swords and daggers. Is he +responsible? Certainly not. +</p> +<p> +Similar to this is trading in America,—knowing government will thus +have an opportunity to increase its revenue. +</p> +<p> +But suppose the chemist to see two men fighting, one has the other +down,—to the first our chemist presents a finely tempered dagger. +</p> +<p> +Such is voting under the United States Constitution—appointing an +officer to help the oppressor. +</p> +<p> +The difference between voting and +tax-paying is simply this: I may do an act right in itself, though I +know some evil will result. Paul was bound to preach the gospel to +the Jews, though he knew some of them would thereby be led to add to +their sins by cursing and mobbing him. +</p> +<p> +So I may locate property in Philadelphia, trade there, and ride on +its railroads, though I know government will, without my consent, +thereby enrich itself. Other things being equal, of course I shall +not allow it the opportunity. But the advantages and good results of +my doing so, <i>may be</i> such as would make it my duty there to live +and trade, even subject to such an evil. +</p> +<p> +But on the other hand, I may not do an act wrong in itself to secure +any amount of fancied good. +</p> +<p> +Now, appointing a man by my vote to a pro-slavery office, (and such +is every one under the United States Constitution,) is wrong in +itself, and no other good deeds which such officer may do, will +justify an abolitionist in so appointing him. +</p> +<p> +Let it not be said, that this reasoning will apply to voting—that +voting is the right of every human being, (which I grant only for +the sake of argument,) and innocent in itself. +</p> +<p> +Voting <i>under our Constitution</i> is appointing a man to swear to +protect, and actually to protect slavery. Now, appointing agents +generally is the right of every man, and innocent in itself, but +appointing an agent to commit a murder is sin. +</p> +<p> +I trade, and government taxes me; do I authorize it? No. +</p> +<p> +I vote, and the marshal whom my agent appoints, returns a slave to +South Carolina. Do I authorize it? <i>Yes</i>. I knew it would be his +<i>sworn duty</i>, when I voted; and I assented to it, by voting under +the Constitution which makes it his duty. If I trade, it is said, I +may foresee that government will be helped by the taxes I pay, +therefore I ought not to trade. But I do not trade <i>for the purpose</i> +of paying taxes! And if I am to be charged with all the foreseen +results of my actions, then Garrison is responsible for the Boston +mob! +</p> +<p> +The reason why I am responsible for the pro-slavery act of a United +States officer, for whom I have voted, is this: I must be supposed +to have <i>intended</i> that which my agent is <i>bound</i> by his contract +with me (that is, his oath of office) to do. +</p> +<p> +Allow me to request our opposers to keep distinctly in view the +precise point in debate. This is not whether Massachusetts can +rightfully trade and make treaties with South Carolina, although she +knows that such a course will result in strengthening a wrongdoer. +Such are most of the cases which they consider parallel to ours, and +for permitting which they charge us with inconsistency. But the +question really is, whether Massachusetts can join hands and +strength with South Carolina, for the express and avowed purpose of +sustaining Slavery. This she does in the Constitution. For he who +swears to support an instrument of twelve clauses, swears to support +one as well as another,—and though one only be immoral,—still he +swears to do an immoral act. Now, my conviction is, "which fire will +not burn out of me," that to return fugitive slaves is sin—to +promise so to do, and not do it, is, if possible, baser still; and +that any conjunction of circumstances which makes either necessary, +is of the Devil, and not of God. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION XIV. +</h3> +<p> +Duty requires of a non-voter to quit the country, and go where his +taxes will not help to build up slavery. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. God gave me my birth here. Because bad men about me +"play such tricks before high Heaven, as make the angels weep," does +it oblige me to quit? I have as good right here as they. If they +choose to leave, let them—I Shall remain. 'Twould be a pretty thing, +indeed, if, as often as I found myself next door to a bad man, who +would bring up his children to steal my apples and break my windows, +I were obliged to take the temptation away by cutting down all my +apple trees and moving my house further west, into the wilderness. +This would be, in good John Wesley's phrase, "giving up all the good +times to the devil," with a witness. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION XV. +</h3> +<p> +"Society has the right to prescribe the terms, upon the expressed or +implied agreement to comply with which a person may reside within +its limits." +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. This principle I utterly deny. All that Society has a right +to demand is peaceful submission to its exactions:—<i>consent</i> they +have neither the power nor the right to exact or to imply. Twenty +men live on a lone island. Nineteen set up a government and say, +every man who lives there shall worship idols. The twentieth submits +to all their laws, but refuses to commit idolatry. Have they the +<i>right</i> to say, "Do so, or quit;" or, to say, "If you stay, we +will consider you as impliedly worshipping idols?" Doubtless they +have the <i>power</i>, but the majority have no <i>rights</i>, except those +which justice sanctions. Will the objector show me the justice of +his principle? I was born here. I ask no man's permission to remain. +All that any man or body of men have a right to infer from my +staying here, is that, in doing this <i>innocent act</i>, I think, that on +the whole, I am effecting more good than harm. Lawyers say, I cannot +find this right laid down in the books. That will not trouble me. +Some old play has a character in it who never ties his neckcloth +without a warrant from Mr. Justice Overdo. I claim no relationship +to that very scrupulous individual. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION XVI. +</h3> +<p> +These clauses, to which you refer, are inconsistent with the +Preamble of the Constitution, which describes it as made "to +establish justice" and "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves +and our posterity:" And as, when two clauses of the same instrument +are inconsistent, one must yield and be held void—we hold these +three clauses void. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. A <i>specific</i> clause is not to be held void on account of +general terms, such as those of the preamble. It is rather to be +taken as an exception, allowed and admitted at the time, to those +general terms. +</p> +<p> +Again. You say they are inconsistent. But the Courts and the People +do not think so. Now they, being the majority, settle the law. The +question then is, whether the law being settled,—and according to +your belief settled immorally,—you will <i>volunteer</i> your services +to execute it and carry it into effect? This you do by becoming an +officeholder. It seems to me this question can receive but one +answer from honest men. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +LAST OF ALL, THE OBJECTOR CRIES OUT, +</h3> +<p> +The Constitution may be <i>amended</i>, and I shall vote to have it +changed. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. But at present it is necessary to swear to support it +<i>as it is</i>. What the Constitution may become, a century hence, we +know not; we speak of it <i>as it is</i>, and repudiate it <i>as it is</i>. +How long may one promise to do evil, in hope some time or other to +get the power to do good? We will not brand the Constitution of the +United States as pro-slavery, after—it had ceased to be so! This +objection reminds me of Miss Martineau's story of the little boy, +who hurt himself, and sat crying on the sidewalk. "Don't cry!" said +a friend, "it won't hurt you tomorrow."—"Well then," said the child, +"I won't cry tomorrow." +</p> +<p> +We come then, it seems to me, back to our original conclusion: that +the man who swears to support the Constitution, swears to support +the whole of it, pro-slavery clauses and all,—that he swears to +support it <i>as it is</i>, not as it hereafter may become,—that he +swears to support it in the sense given to it by the Courts and the +Nation, not as he chooses to understand it,—and that the Courts and +the Nation expect such an one in office to do his share toward the +suppression of slave, as well as other, insurrections, and to aid +the return of fugitive slaves. After an <i>abolitionist</i> has taken +such an oath, or by his vote sent another to take it for him, I do +not see how he can look his own principles in the face. +</p> +<p> +Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou lie? +</p> +<p> +We who call upon the slaveholder to do right, no matter what the +consequences or the cost, are certainly bound to look well to our +own example. At least we can hardly expect to win the master to do +justice by <i>setting him an example of perjury</i>. It is almost an +insult in an abolitionist, while not willing to sacrifice even a +petty ballot for his principles, to demand of the slaveholder that +he give up wealth, home, old prejudices and social position at their +call. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +EXTRACTS FROM J.Q. ADAMS. +</h2> +<p> </p> +<p> +The benefits of the Constitution of the United States, were the +restoration of credit and reputation, to the country—the revival of +commerce, navigation, and ship building—the acquisition of the +means of discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection +and encouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the +country. All this, however, as is now well ascertained, was +insufficient to propitiate the rulers of the Southern States to +the adoption of the Constitution. What they specially wanted was +<i>protection</i>. Protection from the powerful and savage tribes of +Indians within their borders, and who were harassing them with the most +terrible of wars—and protection from their own negroes—protection +from their insurrections—protection from their +escape—protection even to the trade by which they were brought into +this country—protection, shall I not blush to say, protection to +the very bondage by which they were held. Yes! it cannot be +denied—the slaveholding lords of the South prescribed, as a +condition of their assent to the Constitution, three special +provisions to secure the perpetuity of their dominion over their +slaves. The first was the immunity for twenty years of preserving +the African slave-trade; the second was the stipulation to surrender +fugitive slaves—an engagement positively prohibited by the laws of +God, delivered from Sinai; and thirdly, the exaction, fatal to the +principles of popular representation, of a representation for +slaves—for articles of merchandise, under the name of persons. +</p> +<p> +In outward show, it is a representation of persons in bondage; in +fact, it is a representation of their masters,—the oppressor +representing the oppressed.—Is it in the compass of human +imagination to devise a more perfect exemplification of the art of +committing the lamb to the tender custody of the wolf?—The +representative is thus constituted, not the friend, agent and trustee +of the person whom he represents, but the most inveterate of his foes. +To call government thus constituted a democracy, is to insult the +understanding of mankind. It is doubly tainted with the infection of +riches and of slavery. <i>There is no name in the language of national +jurisprudence that can define it</i>—no model in the records of +ancient history, or in the political theories of Aristotle, with +which it can be likened. Here is one class of men, consisting of not +more than one-fortieth part of the whole people, not more than +one-thirtieth part of the free population, exclusively devoted to +their personal interests identified with their own as slaveholders +of the same associated wealth, and wielding by their votes, upon +every question of government or of public policy, two-fifths of the +whole power of the House. In the Senate of the Union, the proportion +of the slaveholding power is yet greater. Its operation upon the +government of the nation is, to establish an artificial majority in +the slave representation over that of the free people, in the +American Congress, and thereby to make the <b>PRESERVATION, PROPAGATION, +AND PERPETUATION OF SLAVERY THE VITAL AND ANIMATING SPIRIT OF THE +NATIONAL GOVERNMENT</b>.—The result is seen in the fact that, at this day, +the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the +Speaker of the House of Representatives, and five out of nine of the +Judges of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the United States, are not +only citizens of slaveholding States, but individual slaveholders +themselves. So are, and constantly have been, with scarcely an +exception, all the members of both Houses of Congress from the +slaveholding States; and so are, in immensely disproportionate +numbers, the commanding officers of the army and navy; the officers +of the customs; the registers and receivers of the land offices, and +the post-masters throughout the slaveholding States. +</p> +<p> +Fellow-citizens,—with a body of men thus composed, for legislators +and executors of the laws, what will, what must be, what has been +your legislation? The numbers of freemen constituting your nation +are much greater than those of the slaveholding States, bond and free. +You have at least three-fifths of the whole population of the Union. +Your influence on the legislation and the administration of the +Government ought to be in the proportion of three to two. But how +stands the fact? Besides the legitimate portion of influence +exercised by the slaveholding States by the measure of their numbers, +here is an intrusive influence in every department, by a +representation, nominally of persons, but really of property, +ostensibly of slaves, but effectively of their masters, overbalancing +your superiority of numbers, adding two-fifths of supplementary +power to the two-fifths fairly secured to them by the compact, +<b>CONTROLLING AND OVERRULING THE WHOLE ACTION OF YOUR GOVERNMENT AND +HOME AND ABROAD</b>, and warping it to the sordid private interest and +oppressive policy of 300,000 owners of slaves. +</p> +<p> +In the Articles of Confederation, there was no guaranty for the +property of the slaveholder—no double representation of him in the +Federal councils—no power of taxation—no stipulation for the +recovery of fugitive slaves. But when the powers of <i>government</i> came +to be delegated to the Union, the South—that is, South Carolina and +Georgia—refused their subscription to the parchment, till it should +be saturated with the infection of slavery, which no fumigation +could purify, no quarantine could extinguish. The freemen of the +North gave way, and the deadly venom of slavery was infused into the +Constitution of freedom. Its first consequence has been to invert +the first principle of Democracy, that the will of the majority +shall rule the land. By means of the double representation, the +minority command the whole, and a <b>KNOT OF SLAVEHOLDERS GIVE THE LAW +AND PRESCRIBE THE POLICY OF THE COUNTRY</b>. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +<a name="AE_addr"></a> +THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. +</h2> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> + ADDRESS TO THE FRIENDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY, +</h2> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> + ON THE VIOLATION BY THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES +</h2> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> + OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION AT THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE +</h2> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> + OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. +</h2> +<p> </p> +<p class="centered"> +NEW YORK: +<br> +PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, +<br> +NO. 143 NASSAU STREET. +<br> +</p> +<p> </p> +<p class="centered"> +1840. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +This No. contains 1 sheet.—Postage, under 100 miles, 1-1/2 ct. +over 100, 2-1/2 cts. Please Read and circulate. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +ADDRESS. +</h2> +<p> +<b>TO THE FRIENDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY</b>:— +</p> +<p> +There was a time, fellow citizens, when the above address would have +included the <b>PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES</b>. But, alas! the freedom of +the press, freedom of speech, and the right of petition, are now +hated and dreaded by our Southern citizens, as hostile to the +perpetuity of human bondage; while, by their political influence in +the Federal Government, they have induced numbers at the North to +unite with them in their sacrilegious crusade against these +inestimable privileges. +</p> +<p> +On the 28th January last, the House of Representatives, on motion of +Mr. Johnson, from Maryland, made it a standing RULE of the House +that "no petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper, praying the +abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any State or +Territory of the United States, in which it now exists, <b>SHALL BE +RECEIVED BY THE HOUSE, OR ENTERTAINED IN ANY WAY WHATEVER</b>." +</p> +<p> +Thus has the <b>RIGHT OF PETITION</b> been immolated in the very Temple of +Liberty, and offered up, a propitiatory sacrifice to the demon of +slavery. Never before has an outrage so unblushingly profligate been +perpetrated upon the Federal Constitution. Yet, while we mourn the +degeneracy which this transaction evinces, we behold, in its +attending circumstances, joyful omens of the triumph which awaits +our struggle with the hateful power that now perverts the General +Government into an engine of cruelty and loathsome oppression. +</p> +<p> +Before we congratulate you on these omens, let us recall to your +recollection the steps by which the enemies of human rights have +advanced to their present rash and insolent defiance of moral and +constitutional obligation. +</p> +<p> +In 1831, a newspaper was established in Boston, for the purpose of +disseminating facts and arguments in favor of the duty and policy of +immediate emancipation. The Legislature of Georgia, with all the +recklessness of despotism, passed a law, offering a reward of $5000, +for the abduction of the Editor, and his delivery in Georgia. As +there was no law, by which a citizen of Massachusetts could be tried +in Georgia, for expressing his opinions in the capital of his own +State, this reward was intended as the price of <b>BLOOD</b>. Do you start +at the suggestion? Remember the several sums of $25,000, of $50,000, +and of $100,000, offered in Southern papers for kidnapping certain +abolitionists. Remember the horrible inflictions by Southern Lynch +clubs. Remember the declaration, in the United States Senate, by the +brazen-fronted Preston, that, should an abolitionist be caught in +Carolina, he would be <b>HANGED</b>. But, as the Slaveholders could not +destroy the lives of the Abolitionists, they determined to murder +their characters. Hence, the President of the United States was +induced, in his Message of 1835, to Congress, to charge them with +plotting the massacre of the Southern planters; and even to stultify +himself, by affirming that, for this purpose, they were engaged in +sending, by <i>mail</i>, inflammatory appeals to the <i>slaves</i>—sending +papers to men who could not read them, and by a conveyance through +which they could not receive them! He well knew that the papers +alluded to were appeals on the immorality of converting men, women, +and children, into beasts of burden, and were sent to the masters, +for <i>their</i> consideration. The masters in Charleston, dreading the +moral influence of these appeals on the conscience of the +slaveholding community, forced the Post Office, and made a bonfire +of the papers. The Post Master General, with the sanction of the +President, also hastened to their relief, and, in violation of oaths, +and laws, and the constitution, established ten thousand censors of +the press, each one of whom was authorized to abstract from the mail +every paper which <i>he</i> might think too favorable to the rights of man. +</p> +<p> +For more than twenty years, petitions have been presented to Congress, +for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. The right +to present them, and the power of Congress to grant their prayer, +were, until recently, unquestioned. But the rapid multiplication of +these petitions alarmed the slaveholders, and, knowing that they +tended to keep alive at the North, an interest in the slave, they +deemed it good policy to discourage and, if possible, suppress all +such applications. Hence Mr. Pinckney's famous resolution, in 1836, +declaring, "that all petitions, or papers, relating <i>in any way, or +to any extent</i> whatever to the <i>subject of slavery</i>, shall, without +being printed or referred, be laid on the table; and no further +action, whatever shall be had thereon!" +</p> +<p> +The peculiar atrocity of this resolution was, that it not merely +trampled upon the rights of the petitioners, but took from each +member of the House his undoubted privilege, as a legislator of the District, +to introduce any proposition he might think proper, for the +protection of the slaves. In every Slave State there are laws +affording, at least, some nominal protection to these unhappy beings; +but, according to this resolution, slaves might be flayed alive in +the streets of Washington, and no representative of the people could +offer even a resolution for inquiry. And this vile outrage upon +constitutional liberty was avowedly perpetrated "to repress agitation, +to allay excitement, and re-establish harmony and tranquillity among +the various sections of the Union!!" +</p> +<p> +But this strange opiate did not produce the stupefying effects +anticipated from it. In 1836, the petitioners were only 37,000—the +next session they numbered 110,000. Mr. Hawes, of Ky., now essayed +to restore tranquillity, by gagging the uneasy multitude; but, alas! +at the next Congress, more than 300,000 petitioners carried new +terror to the hearts of the slaveholders. The next anodyne was +prescribed by Mr. Patton, of Va., but its effect was to rouse from +their stupor some of the Northern Legislatures, and to induce them +to denounce his remedy as "a usurpation of power, a violation of the +Constitution, subversive of the fundamental principles of the +government, and at war with the prerogatives of the people."[<a name="rnote12-105"></a><a href="#note12-105">105</a>] It +was now supposed that the people most be drugged by a <i>northern</i> man, +and <i>Atherton</i> was found a fit instrument for this vile purpose; but +the dose proved only the more nauseous and exciting from the foul +hands by which it was administered. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-105"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-105">105</a>: Resolutions of Massachusetts and Connecticut, April and +May, 1838.] +</p> +<p> +In these various outrages, although all action on the petitions was +prohibited, the papers themselves were received and laid on the table, +and <i>therefore</i> it was contended, that the right of petition had +been preserved inviolate. But the slaveholders, maddened by the +failure of all their devices, and fearing the influence which the +mere sight of thousands and tens of thousands of petitions in behalf +of liberty, would exert, and, taking advantage of the approaching +presidential election to operate upon the selfishness of some +northern members, have succeeded in crushing the right of petition +itself. +</p> +<p> +That you may be the more sensible, fellow citizens, of the exceeding +profligacy of the late <b>RULE</b> and of its palpable violation of both the +spirit and the letter of the Constitution, which those who voted for +it had sworn to support, suffer us to recall to your recollection a +few historical facts. +</p> +<p> +The framers of the Federal Constitution supposed the right of +petition too firmly established in the habits and affections of the +people, to need a constitutional guarantee. Their omission to notice +it, roused the jealousy of some of the State conventions, called to +pass upon the constitution. The <i>Virginia</i> convention proposed, +as an amendment, "that every <i>freeman</i> has a right to petition, +or apply to the Legislature, for a redress of grievances." And this +amendment, with others, was ordered to be forwarded to the different +States, for their consideration. The Conventions of North Carolina, +New York, and Rhode Island, were held subsequently, and, of course, +had before them the Virginia amendment. The North Carolina Convention +adopted a declaration of rights, embracing the very words of the +proposed amendment; and this declaration was ordered to be submitted +to Congress, before that State would enter the Union. The Conventions +of New York and of Rhode Island incorporated in their <i>certificates +of ratification</i>, the assertion that "Every <i>person</i> has a right to +petition or apply to the legislature for a redress of grievances"—using +the Virginia phraseology, merely substituting the word +<i>person</i> for <i>freeman</i>, thus claiming the right of petition even +for slaves; while Virginia and North Carolina confined it to freemen. +</p> +<p> +The first Congress, assembled under the Constitution, gave effect to +the wishes thus emphatically expressed, by proposing, as an amendment, +that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of +religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or <i>abridging</i> +the freedom of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to +assemble, and <i>to petition Government</i> for a redress of grievances." +This amendment was duly ratified by the States, and when members of +Congress swear to support the Constitution of the United States, +they are as much bound by their oath to refrain from abridging the +right of petition, as they are to fulfil any other constitutional +obligation. And will the slaveholders and their abettors, dare to +maintain that they have not foresworn themselves, because they have +abridged the right of the people to petition for a redress of +grievances, by a <b>RULE</b> of the House, and not by a <i>law</i>? If so, they +may by a <b>RULE</b> require every member, on taking his seat, to subscribe +the creed of a particular church, and then call their Maker to +witness that they are guiltless of making a <i>law</i> "respecting an +establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." +</p> +<p> +The right to petition is one thing, and the disposition of a petition +after it is received, is another. But the new rule makes no +disposition of the petitions; it <b>PROHIBITS THEIR RECEPTION</b>; they may +not be brought into the legislative chamber. Hundreds of thousands +of the people are debarred all access to their representatives, for +the purpose of offering them a prayer. +</p> +<p> +It is said that the manifold abominations perpetrated in the District +are no grievances to the petitioners, and <i>therefore</i> they have no +right to ask for their removal. But the right guaranteed by the +Constitution, is a right to ask for the redress of <i>grievances</i>, +whether personal, social, or moral. And who, except a slaveholder, +will dare to contend that it is no grievance that our agents, our +representatives, our servants, in our name and by our authority, +enact laws erecting and licensing markets in the Capital of the +Republic, for the sale of human beings, and converting free men into +slaves, for no other crime, than that of being too poor to pay +United States' officers the <b>JAIL FEES</b> accruing from an iniquitous +imprisonment? +</p> +<p> +Again, it is pretended that the objects prayed for, are palpably +unconstitutional, and that <i>therefore</i> the petitions ought not to be +received. And by what authority are the people deprived of their +right to petition for any object which a majority of either +House of Congress, for the time being, may please to regard as +unconstitutional? If this usurpation be submitted to, it will not be +confined to abolition petitions. It is well known that most of the +slaveholders <i>now</i> insist, that all protecting duties are +unconstitutional, and that on account of the tariff the Union was +nearly rent by the very men who are now horrified by the danger to +which it is exposed by these <i>petitions</i>! Should our Northern +Manufacturers again presume to ask Congress to protect them from +foreign competition, the Southern members will find a precedent, +sanctioned by Northern votes, for a rule that "no petition, memorial, +resolution, or other paper, praying for the <b>IMPOSITION OF DUTIES FOR +THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF MANUFACTURES</b>, shall be received by the House, +or entertained in any way whatever." +</p> +<p> +It does indeed, require Southern arrogance, to maintain that, +although Congress is invested by the Constitution with "exclusive +jurisdiction, in all cases whatsoever," over the District of Columbia, +yet that it would be so palpably unconstitutional to abolish the +slave-trade, and to emancipate the slaves in the District, that +petitions for these objects ought not to be received. Yet this is +asserted in that very House, on whose minutes is recorded a +resolution, in 1816, appointing a committee, with power to send for +persons and papers, "to inquire into the existence of an inhuman and +illegal traffic in slaves, carried on, in and through the District +of Columbia, and report whether any, and what means are necessary +for putting a stop to the same:" and another, in 1829, instructing +the Committee on the District of Columbia to inquire into the +expediency of providing by law, "for the gradual abolition of +slavery in the District." +</p> +<p> +In the very first Congress assembled under the Federal Constitution, +petitions were presented, asking its interposition for the +mitigation of the evils, and final abolition of the African +slave-trade, and also praying it, as far as it possessed the power, +to take measures for the abolition of slavery. These petitions +excited the wrath and indignation of many of the slave-holding +members, yet no one thought of refusing to receive them. They were +referred to a select committee, at the instance of Mr. Madison, +himself, who "entered into a critical review of the circumstances +respecting the adoption of the Constitution, and the ideas upon the +limitation of the powers of Congress to interfere in the regulation +of the commerce of slaves, and showed that they undoubtedly were not +precluded from interposing in their importation; and generally to +regulate the mode in which every species of business shall be +transacted. He adverted to the western country, and the Cession of +Georgia, in which Congress have certainly the power to <i>regulate the +subject of slavery</i>; which shows that gentlemen are mistaken in +supposing, that Congress cannot constitutionally interfere in the +business, in any degree, whatever. He was in favor of committing the +petition, and justified the measure by repeated precedents in the +proceedings of the House."—<i>U.S. Gazette, 17th Feb.</i>, 1790. +</p> +<p> +Here we find one of the earliest and ablest expounders of the +Constitution, maintaining the power of Congress to "regulate the +subject of slavery" in the national territories, and urging the +reference of abolition petitions to a special committee. +</p> +<p> +The committee made a report; for which, after a long debate, was +substituted a declaration, by the House, that Congress could not +abolish the slave trade prior to the year 1808, but had a right so +to regulate it as to provide for the humane treatment of the slaves +on the passage; and that Congress could not interfere in the +emancipation or treatment of slaves in the <i>States</i>. +</p> +<p> +This declaration gave entire satisfaction, and no farther abolition +petitions were presented, till after the District of Columbia had +been placed under the "exclusive jurisdiction" of the General +Government. +</p> +<p> +You all remember, fellow citizens, the wide-spread excitement which +a few years since prevailed on the subject of SUNDAY MAILS. Instead +of attempting to quiet the agitation, by outraging the rights of the +petitioners, Congress referred the petitions to a committee, and +made no attempt to stifle discussion. +</p> +<p> +Why, then, we ask, with such authorities and precedents before them, +do the slaveholders in Congress, regardless of their oaths, strive to +gag the friends of freedom, under <i>pretence</i> of allaying agitation? +Because conscience does make cowards of them all—because they know +the accursed system they are upholding will not bear the +light—because they fear, if these petitions are discussed, the +abominations of the American slave trade, the secrets of the +prison-houses in Washington and Alexandria, and the horrors of the +human shambles licensed by the authority of Congress, will be +exposed to the score and indignation of the civilized world. +</p> +<p> +Unquestionably the late <b>RULE</b> surpasses, in its profligate contempt of +constitutional obligation, any act in the annals of the Federal +Government. As such it might well strike every patriot with dismay, +were it not that attending circumstances teach us that it is the +expiring effort of desperation. When we reflect on the past +subserviency of our northern representatives to the mandates of the +slaveholders, we may well raise, on the present occasion, the shout +of triumph, and hail the vote on the recent <b>RULE</b> as the pledge of a +glorious victory. Suffer us to recall to your recollection the +majorities by which the successive attempts to crush the right of +petition and the freedom of debate have been carried. +</p> +<table summary="details on gag votes" border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2"> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Pinckney's Gag was passed +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +May, 1836, by a majority of +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +51 +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Hawes's do. +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Jan. 1837, +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +58 +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Patton's do. +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Dec. 1837, +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +48 +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Atherton's do. +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Dec. 1838, +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +48 +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +JOHNSON's do. +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Jan. 1840, +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +6 +</td> +</tr> +</table> +<p> +Surely, when we find the majority against us reduced from 58 to +6, we need no new incentive to perseverance. +</p> +<p> +Another circumstance which marks the progress of constitutional +liberty, is the gradual diminution in the number of our northern +<i>serviles</i>. The votes from the free States in favor of the several +gags were as follows:— +</p> +<table summary="Free State Votes pro-gag" border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2"> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +For Pinckney's +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +62 +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +For Hawes's +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +70 +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +For Patton's +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +52 +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +For Atherton's +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +49 +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +For JOHNSON's +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +28 +</td> +</tr> +</table> +<p> +There is also another cheering fact connected with the passage of +the <b>RULE</b> which deserves to be noticed. Heretofore the slaveholders +have uniformly, by enforcing the previous question, imposed their +several gags by a silent vote. On the present occasion they were +twice baffled in their efforts to stifle debate, and were, for days +together, compelled to listen to speeches on a subject which they +have so often declared should not be discussed. +</p> +<p> +A base strife for southern votes has hitherto, to no small extent, +enlisted both the political parties at the north in the service of +the slaveholders. The late unwonted independence of northern +politicians, and the deference paid by them to the wishes of their +own constituents, in preference to those of their southern colleagues, +indicates the advance of public opinion. No less than 49 northern +members of the administration party voted for the Atherton gag, +while only 27 dared to record their names in favor of Johnson's; and +of the representation of <b>SIX</b> States, <i>every vote</i> was given <i>against</i> +the rule, without distinction of party. The tone in which opposite +political journals denounce the late outrage may warn the +slaveholders that they will not much longer hold the north in bonds. +The leading administration paper in the city of New York regards the +<b>RULE</b> with "utter abhorrence;" while the official paper of the +opposition, edited by the state printer, trusts that the names of +the recreant northerners who voted for it may be "handed down to +eternal infamy and execration." +</p> +<p> +The advocates of abolition are no longer consigned to unmitigated +contempt and obloquy. Passing by the various living illustrations of +our remark, we appeal for our proofs to the dead. The late WILLIAM +LEGGETT, the editor of a Democratic Journal in the city of New York, +was denounced, in 1835, by the "Democratic Republican General +Committee," for his abolition doctrines. Far from faltering in his +course, on account of the censure of his own party, he exclaimed, +with a presentiment almost amounting to prophecy, "The stream of +public opinion now sets against us, but it is about to turn, and the +regurgitation will be tremendous. Proud in that day may well be the +man who can float in triumph on the first refluent wave, swept +onward by the deluge which he himself, in advance of his fellows, +had largely shared in occasioning. Such be my fate; and, living or +dying, it will in some measure be mine. I have written my name in +ineffaceable letters on the abolition record." And he did live to +behold the first swelling of the refluent wave. The denounced +abolitionist was honored by a democratic President with a diplomatic +mission; and since his death, the resolution condemning him has been +EXPUNGED from the minutes of the democratic committee. +</p> +<p> +Of the many victims of the recent awful calamity in our waters, what +name has been most frequently uttered by the pulpit and the press in +the accents of lamentation and panegyric? On whose tomb have freedom, +philanthropy, and letters been invoked to strew their funeral wreaths? +All who have heard of the loss of the Lexington are familiar with +the name of CHARLES FOLLEN. And who was he? One of the men +officially denounced by President Jackson as a gang of miscreants, +plotting insurrection and murder—and, recently, a member of the +Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society. +</p> +<p> +Let us then, fellow citizens, in view of all these things, thank God +and take courage. We are now contending, not merely for the +emancipation of our unhappy fellow men, kept in bondage under the +authority of our own representatives—not merely for the overthrow +of the human shambles erected by Congress on the national +domain—but also for the preservation of those great constitutional +rights which were acquired by our fathers, and are now assailed by +the slaveholders and their northern auxiliaries. That you may +remember these auxiliaries and avoid giving them new opportunities +of betraying your rights, we annex a list of their dishonored names. +</p> +<p> +The following twenty-eight members from the Free States voted in the +affirmative on the recent GAG RULE. +</p> +<table summary="Free State members in favor of recent gag" border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2"> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="center" valign="top"> +MAINE. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Virgil D. Parris</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Albert Smith</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="center" valign="top"> +NEW HAMPSHIRE. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Charles G. Atherton</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Edmund Burke</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Ira A. Eastman</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Tristram Shaw</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="center" valign="top"> +NEW YORK. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Nehemiah H. Earle</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>John Fine</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Nathaniel Jones</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Governeur Kemble</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>James de la Montayne</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>John H. Prentiss</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Theron R. Strong</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="center" valign="top"> +PENNSYLVANIA. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>John Davis</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Joseph Fornance</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>James Gerry</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>George M'Cullough</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>David Petriken</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>William S. Ramsey</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="center" valign="top"> +OHIO. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>D.P. Leadbetter</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>William Medill</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Isaac Parrish</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>George Sweeney</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Jonathan Taylor</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>John B. Weller</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="center" valign="top"> +INDIANA. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>John Davis</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>George H. Proffit</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="center" valign="top"> +ILLINOIS. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>John Reynolds</b> +</td> +</tr> +</table> +<p> +Let us turn to our more immediate representatives, and we trust more +faithful servants. Our State Legislatures will not refuse to hear +our prayers. Let us petition them immediately to rebuke the treason +by which the Constitution has been surrendered into the hands of the +slaveholders—let us implore them to demand from Congress, in the +name of the free States, that they shall neither destroy nor abridge +the right of petition—a right without which our government would be +converted into a despotism. +</p> +<p> +We call on you, fellow citizens of every religious faith and party +name, to unite with us in guarding the citadel of our country's +freedom. If there are any who will not co-operate with us in +laboring for the emancipation of the slave, surely there are none +who will stand aloof from us while contending for the liberty of +themselves, their children, and their children's children. +</p> +<p> +To the rescue, then, fellow citizens! and, trusting in HIM without +whom all human effort is weakness, let us not doubt that our faithful +endeavors to preserve the rights HE has given us will, through HIS +blessing, be crowned with success. +</p> +<p class="centered"> +ARTHUR TAPPAN, +<br> +JAMES G. BIRNEY, +<br> +JOSHUA LEAVITT, +<br> +LEWIS TAPPAN, +<br> +SAMUEL E. CORNISH, +<br> +SIMEON S. JOCELYN, +<br> +LA ROY SUNDERLAND, +<br> +THEODORE S. WRIGHT, +<br> +DUNCAN DUNBAR, +<br> +JAMES S. GIBBONS, +<br> +HENRY B. STANTON +<br> +</p> +<p class="centered"> +<i>Executive Committee +<br> +of the +<br> +American +<br> +Anti-Slavery Society</i>. +</p> +<p> +<i>New York, February</i> 13, 1840. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 11274 ***</div> +</body> +</html> diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8819bf2 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #11274 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11274) diff --git a/old/11274-h.zip b/old/11274-h.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..3100418 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/11274-h.zip diff --git a/old/11274-h/11274-h.htm b/old/11274-h/11274-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..28d0f7b --- /dev/null +++ b/old/11274-h/11274-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,9510 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> +<html> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" +content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> +<title>THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER, Part 4 of 4</title> +<STYLE TYPE="text/css">.centered {text-align: center;}</STYLE> +<style type="text/css"> + <!-- + * { font-family: Times;} + P { margin-top: .75em; + font-size: 12pt; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; } + HR { width: 33%; } + PRE { font-family: Courier, monospaced; } + + // --> +</style> +</head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Part 4 of 4 +by American Anti-Slavery Society + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Part 4 of 4 + +Author: American Anti-Slavery Society + +Release Date: February 25, 2004 [EBook #11274] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: US-ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER, PART 4 OF 4 *** + + + + +Produced by Stan Goodman, Amy Overmyer, Robert Prince and PG Distributed +Proofreaders + + + + + + +</pre> + + +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h1 class="maintitle">THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER Part 4 of 4</h1> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p>By The American Anti-Slavery Society 1839</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<div class="contents"> +<ol> +<li><a href="#AE12" class="ref">No. 12. Chattel Principle The Abhorrence of Jesus Christ and the Apostles; Or No Refuge for American Slavery in the New Testament.</a></li> +<li><a href="#AE13cond" class="ref">On the Condition of the Free People of Color in the United States.</a></li> +<li><a href="#AE13vote" class="ref">No. 13. Can Abolitionists Vote or Take Office Under the United States Constitution?</a></li> +<li><a href="#AE_addr" class="ref">Address to the Friends of Constitutional Liberty, on the Violation by the United States House of Representatives of the Right of Petition at the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society.</a></li> +</ol> +</div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h1 class="centered"> +<a name="AE12"></a> +No. 12. +<br> +ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. +<br> +<br> +CHATTEL PRINCIPLE +<br> +<br> +THE ABHORRENCE OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES; OR, +<br> +NO REFUGE FOR AMERICAN SLAVERY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. +<br> +</h1> +<p class="centered"> +<b>BY BERIAH GREEN. </b> +</p> +<p class="centered"> +NEW YORK +</p> +<p class="centered"> +PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, +<br> +NO. 143 NASSAU STREET +</p> +<p class="centered"> +1839 +</p> +<p> +This No. contains 4-1/2 sheet—Postage under 100 miles, 7 cts. over +100, 10 cts. +</p> +<p> +Please Read and circulate. +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +THE NEW TESTAMENT AGAINST SLAVERY. +</h2> +<blockquote> +<p> +"THE SON OF MAN IS COME TO SEEK AND TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST." +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? In 1776 THOMAS +JEFFERSON, supported by a noble band of patriots and surrounded by +the American people, opened his lips in the authoritative declaration: +"We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are +created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain +inalienable rights; that among these are life, LIBERTY, and the +pursuit of happiness." And from the inmost heart of the multitudes +around, and in a strong and clear voice, broke forth the unanimous +and decisive answer: Amen—such truths we do indeed hold to be +self-evident. And animated and sustained by a declaration, so +inspiring and sublime, they rushed to arms, and as the result of +agonizing efforts and dreadful sufferings, achieved under God the +independence of their country. The great truth, whence they derived +light and strength to assert and defend their rights, they made the +foundation of their republic. And in the midst of this republic, +must we prove, that He, who was the Truth, did not contradict +"the truths" which He Himself; as their Creator, had made +self-evident to mankind? +</p> +<p> +Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? What, according to +those laws which make it what it is, is American slavery? In the +Statute-book of South Carolina thus it is written:[<a name="rnote12-1"></a><a href="#note12-1">1</a>] "Slaves shall +be deemed, held, taken, reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels +personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their +executors, administrators and assigns, to all intents, construction +and purposes whatever." The very root of American slavery consists +in the assumption, that law has reduced men to chattels. But this +assumption is, and must be, a gross falsehood. Men and cattle are +separated from each other by the Creator, immutably, eternally, and +by an impassable gulf. To confound or identify men and cattle must +be to lie most wantonly, impudently, and maliciously. And must we +prove, that Jesus Christ is not in favor of palpable, monstrous +falsehood? +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-1"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-1">1</a>: Stroud's Slave Laws, p. 23.] +</p> +<p> +Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? How can a system, +built upon a stout and impudent denial of self-evident truth—a +system of treating men like cattle—operate? Thomas Jefferson shall +answer. Hear him. "The whole commerce between master and slave is a +perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most +unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on +the other. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the +lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller +slaves, gives loose to his worst passions, and thus nursed, educated, +and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with +odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy, who can retain his +manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances."[<a name="rnote12-2"></a><a href="#note12-2">2</a>] Such is the +practical operation of a system, which puts men and cattle into the +same family and treats them alike. And must we prove, that Jesus +Christ is not in favor of a school where the worst vices in their +most hateful forms are systematically and efficiently taught and +practiced? Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? What, in +1818, did the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church affirm +respecting its nature and operation? "Slavery creates a paradox in +the moral system—it exhibits rational, accountable, and immortal +beings, in such circumstances as scarcely to leave them the power of +moral action. It exhibits them as dependent on the will of others, +whether they shall receive religious instruction; whether they shall +know and worship the true God; whether they shall enjoy the +ordinances of the gospel; whether they shall perform the duties and +cherish the endearments of husbands and wives, parents and children, +neighbors and friends; whether they shall preserve their chastity +and purity, or regard the dictates of justice and humanity. Such are +some of the consequences of slavery; consequences not imaginary, but +which connect themselves with its very existence. The evils to which +the slave is <i>always</i> exposed, <i>often take place</i> in their very +worst degree and form; and where all of them do not take place, +still the slave is deprived of his natural rights, degraded as a +human being, and exposed to the danger of passing into the hands of +a master who may inflict upon him all the hardship and injuries +which inhumanity and avarice may suggest."[<a name="rnote12-3"></a><a href="#note12-3">3</a>] Must we prove, that +Jesus Christ is not in favor of such things? +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-2"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-2">2</a>: Notes on Virginia, Boston Ed. 1832, pp. 169, 170.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-3"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-3">3</a>: Minutes of the General assembly for 1818, p. 29.] +</p> +<p> +Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? It is already widely +felt and openly acknowledged at the South, that they cannot support +slavery without sustaining the opposition of universal Christendom. +And Thomas Jefferson declared, "I tremble for my country when I +reflect that God is just; that his justice can not sleep forever; +that considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a +revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is +among possible events; that it may become practicable by +supernatural influences! The Almighty has no attribute which can +take sides with us in such a contest."[<a name="rnote12-4"></a><a href="#note12-4">4</a>] And must we prove, that +Jesus Christ is not in favor of what universal Christendom is +impelled to abhor, denounce, and oppose; is not in favor of what +every attribute of Almighty God is armed against? +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-4"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-4">4</a>: Notes on Virginia, Boston Ed. 1832, pp. 170, 171.] +</p> +<p class="centered"> +"YE HAVE DESPISED THE POOR." +</p> +<p> +It is no man of straw, with whom, in making out such proof, we are +called to contend. Would to God we had no other antagonist! Would to +God that our labor of love could be regarded as a work of +supererogation! But we may well be ashamed and grieved to find it +necessary to "stop the mouths" of grave and learned ecclesiastics, +who from the heights of Zion have undertaken to defend the +institution of slavery. We speak not now of those, who amidst the +monuments of oppression are engaged in the sacred vocation; who, as +ministers of the Gospel, can "prophesy smooth things" to such as +pollute the altar of Jehovah with human sacrifices; nay, who +themselves bind the victim and kindle the sacrifice. That they +should put their Savior to the torture, to wring from his lips +something in favor of slavery, is not to be wondered at. They +consent to the murder of the children; can they respect the rights +of the Father? But what shall we say of distinguished theologians of +the north—professors of sacred literature at our oldest divinity +schools—who stand up to defend, both by argument and authority, +southern slavery! And from the Bible! Who, Balaam-like, try a +thousand expedients to force from the mouth of Jehovah a sentence +which they know the heart of Jehovah abhors! Surely we have here +something more mischievous and formidable than a man of straw. More +than two years ago, and just before the meeting of the General +Assembly of the Presbyterian church, appeared an article in the +Biblical Repertory,[<a name="rnote12-5"></a><a href="#note12-5">5</a>] understood to be from the pen of the +Professor of Sacred Literature at Princeton, in which an effort is +made to show, that slavery, whatever may be said of any abuses of +it, is not a violation of the precepts of the Gospel. This article, +we are informed, was industriously and extensively distributed among +the members of the General Assembly—a body of men, who by a +frightful majority seemed already too much disposed to wink at the +horrors of slavery. The effect of the Princeton Apology on the +southern mind, we have high authority for saying, has been most +decisive and injurious. It has contributed greatly to turn the +public eye off from the sin—from the inherent and necessary evils +of slavery to incidental evils, which the abuse of it might be +expected to occasion. And how few can be brought to admit, that +whatever abuses may prevail nobody knows where or how, any such +thing is chargeable upon them! Thus our Princeton prophet has done +what he could to lay the southern conscience asleep upon ingenious +perversions of the sacred volume! +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-5"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-5">5</a>: For April, 1836. The General Assembly of the +Presbyterian Church met in the following May, at Pittsburgh, where, +in pamphlet form, this article was distributed. The following +appeared upon the title page: +<br> +PITTSBURGH: +<br> +1836. +<br> +<i>For gratuitous distribution.</i> +<br> +] +</p> +<p> +About a year after this, an effort in the same direction was jointly +made by Dr. Fisk and Professor Stuart. In a letter to a Methodist +clergyman, Mr. Merrit, published in Zion's Herald, Dr. Fisk gives +utterance to such things as the following:— +</p> +<p> +"But that you and the public may see and feel, that you have the +ablest and those who are among the honestest men of this age, +arrayed against you, be pleased to notice the following letter from +Prof. Stuart. I wrote to him, knowing as I did his integrity of +purpose, his unflinching regard for truth, as well as his deserved +reputation as a scholar and biblical critic, proposing the following +questions:—" +</p> +<p> +1. Does the New Testament directly or indirectly teach, that slavery +existed in the primitive church? +</p> +<p> +2. In 1 Tim. vi. 2, And they that have believing masters, &c., what +is the relation expressed or implied between "they" (servants) and +"believing masters?" And what are your reasons for the construction +of the passage? +</p> +<p> +3. What was the character of ancient and eastern slavery?— +Especially what (legal) power did this relation give the master over +the slave? +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +PROFESSOR STUART'S REPLY. +</h2> + +<blockquote> +<p> +ANDOVER, 10th Apr., 1837 +</p> + +<p> +REV. AND DEAR SIR,—Yours is before me. A sickness of three +month's standing (typhus fever) in which I have just escaped death, +and which still confines me to my house, renders it impossible for me +to answer your letter at large. +</p> +<p> +1. The precepts of the New Testament respecting the demeanor of +slaves and of their masters, beyond all question, recognize the +existence of slavery. The masters are in part "believing masters," so +that a precept to them, how they are to behave as masters, +recognizes that the relation may still exist, <i>salva fide et salva +ecclesia</i>, ("without violating the Christian faith or the church.") +Otherwise, Paul had nothing to do but to cut the band asunder at once. +He could not lawfully and properly temporize with a <i>malum in se</i>, +("that which is in itself sin.") +</p> +<p> +If any one doubts, let him take the case of Paul's sending Onesimus +back to Philemon, with an apology for his running away, and sending +him back to be his servant for life. The relation did exist, may +exist. The <i>abuse</i> of it is the essential and fundamental wrong. +Not that the theory of slavery is in itself right. No; "Love thy +neighbor as thyself," "Do unto others that which ye would that others +should do unto you," decide against this. But the relation once +constituted and continued, is not such a <i>malum in se</i> as calls +for immediate and violent disruption at all hazards. So Paul did not +counsel. +</p> +<p> +2. 1 Tim. vi. 2, expresses the sentiment, that slaves, who are +Christians and have Christian masters, are not, on that account, and +because <i>as Christians they are brethren</i>, to forego the reverence +due to them as masters. That is, the relation of master and slave +is not, as a matter of course, abrogated between all Christians. Nay, +servants should in such a case, <i>a fortiori</i>, do their duty +cheerfully. This sentiment lies on the very face of the case. What +the master's duty in such a case may be in respect to <i>liberation</i>, +is another question, and one which the apostle does not here treat of. +</p> +<p> +3. Every one knows, who is acquainted with Greek or Latin antiquities, +that slavery among heathen nations has ever been more unqualified +and at looser ends than among Christian nations. Slaves were +<i>property</i> in Greece and Rome. That decides all questions about +their <i>relation</i>. Their treatment depended, as it does now, on the +temper of their masters. The power of the master over the slave was, +for a long time, that of <i>life and death</i>. Horrible cruelties at +length mitigated it. In the apostle's day, it was at least as great +as among us. +</p> +<p> +After all the spouting and vehemence on this subject, which have been +exhibited, the <i>good old Book</i> remains the same. Paul's conduct +and advice are still safe guides. Paul knew well that Christianity +would ultimately destroy slavery, as it certainly will. He knew, +too, that it would destroy monarchy and aristocracy from the earth: +for it is fundamentally a doctrine of <i>true liberty and equality</i>. +Yet Paul did not expect slavery or anarchy to be ousted in a day; and +gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor <i>ad interim</i>. +</p> +<p class="center"> +With sincere and paternal regard, +</p> +<p class="center"> +Your friend and brother, +</p> +<p class="center"> +M. STUART. +</p> +</blockquote> +<blockquote> +<p> +—This, sir, is doctrine that will stand, because it is <i>Bible +doctrine</i>. The abolitionists, then, are on a wrong course. They have +traveled out of the record; and if they would succeed, they must +take a different position, and approach the subject in a different +manner. +</p> +<p class="center"> +Respectfully yours, +</p> +<p class="center"> +W. FISK" +</p> +</blockquote> +<h2 class="centered"> + "SO THEY WRAP [SNARL] IT UP." +</h2> +<p> +What are we taught here? That in the ecclesiastical organizations +which grew up under the hands of the apostles, slavery was admitted +as a relation that did not violate the Christian faith; that the +relation may now in like manner exist; that "the abuse of it is the +essential and fundamental wrong;" and of course, that American +Christians may hold their own brethren in slavery without incurring +guilt or inflicting injury. Thus, according to Prof. Stuart, Jesus +Christ has not a word to say against "the peculiar institutions" of +the South. If our brethren there do not "abuse" the privilege of +enacting unpaid labor, they may multiply their slaves to their +hearts' content, without exposing themselves to the frown of the +Savior or laying their Christian character open to the least +suspicion. Could any trafficker in human flesh ask for greater +latitude! And to such doctrines, Dr. Fisk eagerly and earnestly +subscribes. He goes further. He urges it on the attention of his +brethren, as containing important truth, which they ought to embrace. +According to him, it is "<i>Bible doctrine</i>," showing, that "the +abolitionists are on a wrong course," and must, "if they would +succeed, take a different position." +</p> +<p> +We now refer to such distinguished names, to show, that in attempting +to prove that Jesus Christ is not in favor of American slavery, we +contend with something else than a man of straw. The ungrateful task, +which a particular examination of Professor Stuart's letter lays +upon us, we hope fairly to dispose of in due season. Enough has now +been said to make it clear and certain, that American slavery has its +apologists and advocates in the northern pulpit; advocates and +apologists, who fall behind few if any of their brethren in the +reputation they have acquired, the stations they occupy, and the +general influence they are supposed to exert. +</p> +<p> +Is it so? Did slavery exist in Judea, and among the Jews, in its +worst form, during the Savior's incarnation? If the Jews held slaves, +they must have done in open and flagrant violation of the letter and +the spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Whoever has any doubts of +this may well resolve his doubts in the light of the Argument +entitled "The Bible against Slavery." If, after a careful and +thorough examination of that article, he can believe that +slaveholding prevailed during the ministry of Jesus Christ among the +Jews and in accordance with the authority of Moses, he would do the +reading public an important service to record the grounds of his +belief—especially in a fair and full refutation of that Argument. +Till that is done, we hold ourselves excused from attempting to +prove what we now repeat, that if the Jews during our Savior's +incarnation held slaves, they must have done so in open and flagrant +violation of the letter and spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Could +Christ and the Apostles every where among their countrymen come in +contact with slaveholding, being as it was a gross violation of that +law which their office and their profession required them to honor +and enforce, without exposing and condemning it? +</p> +<p> +In its worst forms, we are told, slavery prevailed over the whole +world, not excepting Judea. As, according to such ecclesiastics as +Stuart, Hodge and Fisk, slavery in itself is not bad at all, the term +"<i>worst</i>" could be applied only to "<i>abuses</i>" of this innocent +relation. Slavery accordingly existed among the Jews, disfigured and +disgraced by the "worst abuses" to which it is liable. These abuses +in the ancient world, Professor Stuart describes as "horrible +cruelties." And in our own country, such abuses have grown so rank, +as to lead a distinguished eye-witness—no less a philosopher and +statesman than Thomas Jefferson—to say, that they had armed against +us every attribute of the Almighty. With these things the Savior +every where came in contact, among the people to whose improvement +and salvation he devoted his living powers, and yet not a word, not +a syllable, in exposure and condemnation of such "horrible cruelties" +escaped his lips! He saw—among the "covenant people" of Jehovah he +saw, the babe plucked from the bosom of its mother; the wife torn +from the embrace of her husband; the daughter driven to the market +by the scourge of her own father;—he saw the word of God sealed up +from those who, of all men, were especially entitled to its +enlightening, quickening influence;—nay, he saw men beaten for +kneeling before the throne of heavenly mercy;—such things he saw +without a word of admonition or reproof! No sympathy with them who +suffered wrong—no indignation at them who inflicted wrong, moved +his heart! +</p> +<p> +From the alleged silence of the Savior, when in contact with slavery +among the Jews, our divines infer, that it is quite consistent with +Christianity. And they affirm, that he saw it in its worst forms; +that is, he witnessed what Professor Stuart ventures to call +"horrible cruelties." But what right have these interpreters of the +sacred volume to regard any form of slavery which the Savior found, +as "worst," or even bad? According to their inference—which they +would thrust gag-wise into the mouths of abolitionists—his silence +should seal up their lips. They ought to hold their tongues. They +have no right to call any form of slavery bad—an abuse; much less, +horribly cruel! Their inference is broad enough to protect the most +brutal driver amidst his deadliest inflictions! +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS; +<br> +I AM NOT COME TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFIL." +</h2> +<p> +And did the Head of the new dispensation, then, fall so far behind +the prophets of the old in a hearty and effective regard for +suffering humanity? The forms of oppression which they witnessed, +excited their compassion and aroused their indignation. In terms the +most pointed and powerful, they exposed, denounced, threatened. They +could not endure the creatures, "who used their neighbors' service +without wages, and gave him not for his work;"[<a name="rnote12-6"></a><a href="#note12-6">6</a>] who imposed +"heavy burdens"[<a name="rnote12-7"></a><a href="#note12-7">7</a>] upon their fellows, and loaded them with +"the bands of wickedness;" who, "hiding themselves from their own +flesh," disowned their own mothers' children. Professions of piety +joined with the oppression of the poor, they held up to universal +scorn and execration, as the dregs of hypocrisy. They warned the +creature of such professions, that he could escape the wrath of +Jehovah only by heart-felt repentance. And yet, according to the +ecclesiastics with whom we have to do, the Lord of these prophets +passed by in silence just such enormities as he commanded them to +expose and denounce! Every where, he came in contact with slavery in +its worst forms—"horrible cruelties" forced themselves upon his +notice; but not a word of rebuke or warning did he utter. He saw +"a boy given for a harlot, and a girl sold for wine, that they might +drink,"[<a name="rnote12-8"></a><a href="#note12-8">8</a>] without the slightest feeling of displeasure, or any mark +of disapprobation! To such disgusting and horrible conclusions, do +the arguings which, from the haunts of sacred literature, are +inflicted on our churches, lead us! According to them, Jesus Christ, +instead of shining as the light of the world, extinguished the +torches which his own prophets had kindled, and plunged mankind into +the palpable darkness of a starless midnight! O savior, in pity to +thy suffering people, let thy temple be no longer used as a +"den of thieves!" +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-6"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-6">6</a>: Jeremiah, xxii. 13.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-7"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-7">7</a>: Isaiah, lviii. 6, 7.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-8"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-8">8</a>: Joel, iii. 3.] +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"THOU THOUGHTEST THAT I WAS ALTOGETHER SUCH AN ONE AS THYSELF." +</h2> +<p> +In passing by the worst forms of slavery, with which he every where +came in contact among the Jews, the Savior must have been +inconsistent with himself. He was commissioned to preach glad +tidings to the poor; to heal the broken-hearted; to preach +deliverance to the captives; to set at liberty them that are bruised; +to preach the year of Jubilee. In accordance with this commission, +he bound himself, from the earliest date of his incarnation, to the +poor, by the strongest ties; himself "had not where to lay his head;" +he exposed himself to misrepresentation and abuse for his +affectionate intercourse with the outcasts of society; he stood up +as the advocate of the widow, denouncing and dooming the heartless +ecclesiastics, who had made her bereavement a source of gain; and in +describing the scenes of the final judgment, he selected the very +personification of poverty, disease and oppression, as the test by +which our regard for him should be determined. To the poor and +wretched; to the degraded and despised, his arms were ever open. +They had his tenderest sympathies. They had his warmest love. His +heart's blood he poured out upon the ground for the human family, +reduced to the deepest degradation, and exposed to the heaviest +inflictions, as the slaves of the grand usurper. And yet, according +to our ecclesiastics, that class of sufferers who had been reduced +immeasurably below every other shape and form of degradation and +distress; who had been most rudely thrust out of the family of Adam, +and forced to herd with swine; who, without the slightest offence, +had been made the footstool of the worst criminals; whose "tears +were their meat night and day," while, under nameless insults and +killing injuries they were continually crying, O Lord, O Lord:—this +class of sufferers, and this alone, our biblical expositors, +occupying the high places of sacred literature, would make us +believe the compassionate Savior coldly overlooked. Not an emotion +of pity; not a look of sympathy; not a word of consolation, did his +gracious heart prompt him to bestow upon them! He denounces +damnation upon the devourer of the widow's house. But the monster, +whose trade it is to make widows and devour them and their babes, he +can calmly endure! O Savior, when wilt thou stop the mouths of such +blasphemers! +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH." +</h2> +<p> +It seems that though, according to our Princeton professor, +"the subject" of slavery "is hardly alluded to by Christ in any +of his personal instructions,"[<a name="rnote12-9"></a><a href="#note12-9">9</a>] he had a way of "treating it." +What was that? Why, "he taught the true nature, DIGNITY, EQUALITY, +and destiny of men," and "inculcated the principles of justice and +love."[<a name="rnote12-10"></a><a href="#note12-10">10</a>] And according to Professor Stuart, the maxims which our +Savior furnished, "decide against" "the theory of slavery." All, then, +that these ecclesiastical apologists for slavery can make of the +Savior's alleged silence is, that he did not, in his personal +instructions, "<i>apply his own principles to this particular form of +wickedness</i>." For wicked that must be, which the maxims of the +Savior decide against, and which our Princeton professor assures +us the principles of the gospel, duly acted on, would speedily +extinguish.[<a name="rnote12-11"></a><a href="#note12-11">11</a>] How remarkable it is, that a teacher should +"hardly allude to a subject in any of his personal instructions," +and yet inculcate principles which have a direct and vital bearing +upon it!—should so conduct, as to justify the inference, that +"slaveholding is not a crime,"[<a name="rnote12-12"></a><a href="#note12-12">12</a>] and at the same time lend its +authority for its "speedy extinction!" +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-9"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-9">9</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, (already alluded to,) p. 9.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-10"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-10">10</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-11"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-11">11</a>: The same, p. 34.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-12"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-12">12</a>: The same, p. 13.] +</p> +<p> +Higher authority than sustains +<i>self-evident truths</i> there cannot be. As forms of reason, they are +rays from the face of Jehovah. Not only are their presence and power +self-manifested, but they also shed a strong and clear light around +them. In their light, other truths are visible. Luminaries themselves, +it is their office to enlighten. To their authority, in every department +of thought, the same mind bows promptly, gratefully, fully. And by their +authority, he explains, proves, and disposes of whatever engages his +attention and engrosses his powers as a reasonable and reasoning +creature. For what, when thus employed and when most successful, is +the utmost he can accomplish? Why, to make the conclusions which he +would establish and commend, <i>clear in the light of reason</i>;—in +other words, to evince that <i>they are reasonable</i>. He expects that +those with whom he has to do will acknowledge the authority of +principle—will see whatever is exhibited in the light of reason. If +they require him to go further, and, in order to convince them, to +do something more than show that the doctrines he maintains, and the +methods he proposes, are accordant with reason—are illustrated and +supported with "self-evident truths"—they are plainly "beside +themselves." They have lost the use of reason. They are not to be +argued with. They belong to the mad-house. +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"COME NOW, LET US REASON TOGETHER, SAITH THE LORD." +</h2> +<p> +Are we to honor the Bible, which Professor Stuart quaintly calls +"the good old book," by turning away from "self-evident truths" to +receive its instructions? Can these truths be contradicted or denied +there? Do we search for something there to obscure their clearness, +or break their force, or reduce their authority? Do we long to find +something there, in the form of premises or conclusions, of arguing +or of inference, in broad statement or blind hints, creed-wise or +fact-wise, which may set us free from the light and power of first +principles? And what if we were to discover what we were thus in +search of?—something directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly +prejudicial to the principles, which reason, placing us under the +authority of, makes self-evident? In what estimation, in that case, +should we be constrained to hold the Bible? Could we longer honor +it as the book of God? <i>The book of God opposed to the authority of</i> +REASON! Why, before what tribunal do we dispose of the claims of the +sacred volume to divine authority? The tribunal of reason. <i>This +every one acknowledges the moment he begins to reason on the subject</i>. +And what must reason do with a book, which reduces the authority of +its own principles—breaks the force of self-evident truths? Is he +not, by way of eminence, the apostle of infidelity, who, as a +minister of the gospel or a professor of sacred literature, exerts +himself, with whatever arts of ingenuity or show of piety, to exalt +the Bible at the expense of reason? Let such arts succeed and such +piety prevail, and Jesus Christ is "crucified afresh and put to an +open shame." +</p> +<p> +What saith the Princeton professor? Why, in spite of "general +principles," and "clear as we may think the arguments against +DESPOTISM, there have been thousands of ENLIGHTENED <i>and good men</i>, +who <i>honestly</i> believe it to be of all forms of government the best +and most acceptable to God."[<a name="rnote12-13"></a><a href="#note12-13">13</a>] Now these "good men" must have been +thus warmly in favor of despotism, in consequence of, or in +opposition to, their being "enlightened." In other words, the light, +which in such abundance they enjoyed, conducted them to the position +in favor of despotism, where the Princeton professor so heartily +shook hands with them, or they must have forced their way there in +despite of its hallowed influence. Either in accordance with, or in +resistance to the light, they became what he found them—the +advocates of despotism. If in resistance to the light—and he says +they were "enlightened men"—what, so far as the subject with which +alone he and we are now concerned, becomes of their "honesty" and +"goodness?" Good and honest resisters of the light, which was freely +poured around them! Of such, what says Professor Stuart's "good old +Book?" Their authority, where "general principles" command the least +respect, must be small indeed. But if in accordance with the light, +they have become the advocates of despotism, then is despotism +"the best form of government and most acceptable to God." It is +sustained by the authority of reason, by the word of Jehovah, by the +will of Heaven! If this be the doctrine which prevails at certain +theological seminaries, it must be easy to account for the spirit +which they breathe, and the general influence which they exert. Why +did not the Princeton professor place this "general principle" as a +shield, heaven-wrought and reason approved, over that cherished form +of despotism which prevails among the churches of the South, and +leave the "peculiar institutions" he is so forward to defend, under +its protection? +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-13"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-13">13</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 12.] +</p> +<p> +What is the "general principle" to which, whatever may become of +despotism, with its "honest" admirers and "enlightened" supporters, +human governments should be universally and carefully adjusted? +Clearly this—<i>that as capable of, man is entitled to, self +government</i>. And this is a specific form of a still more +general principle, which may well be pronounced self-evident—<i>that +every thing should be treated according to its nature</i>. The +mind that can doubt this, must be incapable of rational conviction. +Man, then,—it is the dictate of reason, it is the voice of +Jehovah—must be treated as <i>a man</i>. What is he? What are his +distinctive attributes? The Creator impressed his own image on him. +In this were found the grand peculiarities of his character. Here +shone his glory. Here REASON manifests its laws. Here the WILL puts +forth its volitions. Here is the crown of IMMORTALITY. Why such +endowments? Thus furnished—the image of Jehovah—is he not capable +of self-government? And is he not to be so treated? <i>Within the +sphere where the laws of reason place him</i>, may he not act according +to his choice—carry out his own volitions?—may he not enjoy life, +exult in freedom, and pursue as he will the path of blessedness? If +not, why was he so created and endowed? Why the mysterious, awful +attribute of will? To be a source, profound as the depths of hell, +of exquisite misery, of keen anguish, of insufferable torment! Was man, +formed "according to the image of Jehovah," to be crossed, thwarted, +counteracted; to be forced in upon himself; to be the sport of +endless contradictions; to be driven back and forth forever between +mutually repellant forces; and all, all "<i>at the discretion of +another</i>!"[<a name="rnote12-14"></a><a href="#note12-14">14</a>] How can man be treated according to his nature, as +endowed with reason or will, if excluded from the powers and +privileges of self-government?—if "despotism" be let loose upon +him, to "deprive him of personal liberty, oblige him to serve at the +discretion of another" and with the power of "transferring" such +"authority" over him and such claim upon him, to "another master?" +If "thousands of enlightened and good men" can so easily be found, +who are forward to support "despotism" as "of all governments the +best and most acceptable to God," we need not wonder at the +testimony of universal history, that "the whole creation groaneth +and travaileth in pain together until now." Groans and travail pangs +must continue to be the order of the day throughout "the whole +creation," till the rod of despotism be broken, and man be treated +as man—as capable of, and entitled to, self-government. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-14"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-14">14</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 12.] +</p> +<p> +But what is the despotism whose horrid features our smooth professor +tries to hide beneath an array of cunningly selected words and +nicely-adjusted sentences? It is the despotism of American +slavery—which crushes the very life of humanity out of its victims, +and transforms them to cattle! At its touch, they sink from men to +things! "Slaves," saith Professor Stuart, "were <i>property</i> in Greece +and Rome. That decides all questions about their <i>relation</i>." Yes, +truly. And slaves in republican America are <i>property</i>; and as that +easily, clearly, and definitely settles "all questions about their +<i>relation</i>," why should the Princeton professor have put himself +to the trouble of weaving a definition equally ingenious and +inadequate—at once subtle and deceitful. Ah, why? Was he willing thus +to conceal the wrongs of his mother's children even from himself? If +among the figments of his brain, he could fashion slaves, and make +them something else than property, he knew full well that a very +different pattern was in use among the southern patriarchs. Why did +he not, in plain words and sober earnest, and good faith, describe +the thing as it was, instead of employing honied words and courtly +phrases, to set forth with all becoming vagueness and ambiguity, +what might possibly be supposed to exist in the regions of fancy. +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"FOR RULERS ARE NOT A TERROR TO GOOD WORKS, BUT TO THE EVIL." +</h2> +<p> +But are we, in maintaining the principle of self-government, to +overlook the unripe, or neglected, or broken powers of any of our +fellow-men with whom we may be connected?—or the strong passions, +vicious propensities, or criminal pursuits of others? Certainly not. +But in providing for their welfare, we are to exert influences and +impose restraints suited to their character. In wielding those +prerogatives which the social of our nature authorizes us to employ +for their benefit, we are to regard them as they are in truth, not +things, not cattle, not articles of merchandize, but men, our +fellow-men—reflecting, from however battered and broken a surface, +reflecting with us the image of a common Father. And the great +principle of self-government is to be the basis, to which the whole +structure of discipline under which they may be placed, should be +adapted. From the nursery and village school on to the work-house +and state-prison, this principle is ever and in all things to be +before the eyes, present in the thoughts, warm on the heart. +Otherwise, God is insulted, while his image is despised and abused. +Yes, indeed; we remember, that in carrying out the principle of +self-government, multiplied embarrassments and obstructions grow out +of wickedness on the one hand and passion on the other. Such +difficulties and obstacles we are far enough from overlooking. But +where are they to be found? Are imbecility and wickedness, bad +hearts and bad heads, confined to the bottom of society? Alas, the +weakest of the weak, and the desperately wicked, often occupy the +high places of the earth, reducing every thing within their reach to +subserviency to the foulest purposes. Nay, the very power they have +usurped, has often been the chief instrument of turning their heads, +inflaming their passions, corrupting their hearts. All the world +knows, that the possession of arbitrary power has a strong tendency +to make men shamelessly wicked and insufferably mischievous. And +this, whether the vassals over whom they domineer, be few or many. +If you cannot trust man with himself, will you put his fellows +under his control?—and flee from the inconveniences incident to +self-government, to the horrors of despotism? +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"THOU THAT PREACHEST A MAN SHOULD NOT STEAL, DOST THOU STEAL." +</h2> +<p> +Is the slaveholder, the most absolute and shameless of all despots, +to be entrusted with the discipline of the injured men who he +himself has reduced to cattle?—with the discipline with which they +are to be prepared to wield the powers and enjoy the privileges of +freemen? Alas, of such discipline as <i>he</i> can furnish, in the +relation of owner to property, they have had enough. From this +sprang the very ignorance and vice, which in the view of many, lie +in the way of their immediate enfranchisement. He it is, who has +darkened their eyes and crippled their powers. And are they to look +to him for illumination and renewed vigor!—and expect "grapes from +thorns and figs from thistles!" Heaven forbid! When, according to +arrangements which had usurped the sacred name of law, he consented +to receive and use them as property, he forfeited all claims to the +esteem and confidence, not only of the helpless sufferers themselves, +but also of every philanthropist. In becoming a slaveholder, he +became the enemy of mankind. The very act was a declaration of war +upon human nature. What less can be made of the process of turning +men to cattle? It is rank absurdity—it is the height of madness, to +propose to employ <i>him</i> to train, for the places of freemen, those +whom he has wantonly robbed of every right—whom he has stolen from +themselves. Sooner place Burke, who used to murder for the sake of +selling bodies to the dissector, at the head of a hospital. Why, +what have our slaveholders been about these two hundred years? Have +they not been constantly and earnestly engaged in the work of +education?—training up their human cattle? And how? Thomas +Jefferson shall answer. "The whole commerce between master and slave, +is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most +unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on +the other." Is this the way to fit the unprepared for the duties and +privileges of American citizens? Will the evils of the dreadful +process be diminished by adding to its length? What, in 1818, was +the unanimous testimony of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian +Church? Why, after describing a variety of influences growing out of +slavery, most fatal to mental and moral improvement, the General +Assembly assure us, that such "consequences are not imaginary, but +connect themselves WITH THE VERY EXISTENCE[<a name="rnote12-15"></a><a href="#note12-15">15</a>] of slavery. The evils to +which the slave is <i>always</i> exposed, <i>often</i> take place in fact, and +IN THEIR VERY WORST DEGREE AND FORM; and where all of them do not +take place," "still the slave is deprived of his natural right, +degraded as a human being, and exposed to the danger of passing into +the hands of a master who may inflict upon him all the hardships and +injuries which inhumanity and avarice may suggest." Is this the +condition in which our ecclesiastics would keep the slave, at least +a little longer, to fit him to be restored to himself? +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-15"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-15">15</a>: The words here marked as emphatic, were so distinguished +by ourselves.] +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"AND THEY STOPPED THEIR EARS." +</h2> +<p> +The methods of discipline under which, as slaveholders; the Southrons +now place their human cattle, they with one consent and in great +wrath, forbid us to examine. The statesman and the priest unite in +the assurance, that these methods are none of our business. Nay, they +give us distinctly to understand, that if we come among them to take +observations, and make inquiries, and discuss questions, they will +dispose of us as outlaws. Nothing will avail to protect us from +speedy and deadly violence! What inference does all this warrant? +Surely, not that the methods which they employ are happy and worthy +of universal application. If so, why do they not take the praise, +and give us the benefit of their wisdom, enterprise, and success? Who, +that has nothing to hide, practices concealment? "He that doeth +truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest, that they +are wrought in God." Is this the way of slaveholders? Darkness they +court—they will have darkness. Doubtless "because their deeds are +evil." Can we confide in methods for the benefit of our enslaved +brethren, which it is death for us to examine? What good ever came, +what good can we expect, from deeds of darkness? +</p> +<p> +Did the influence of the masters contribute any thing in the West +Indies to prepare the apprentices for enfranchisement? Nay, verily. +All the world knows better. They did what in them lay, to turn back +the tide of blessings, which, through emancipation, was pouring in +upon the famishing around them. Are not the best minds and hearts in +England now thoroughly convinced, that slavery, under no modification, +can be a school for freedom? +</p> +<p> +We say such things to the many who allege, that slaves cannot at +once be entrusted with the powers and privileges of self-government. +However this may be, they cannot be better qualified under the +<i>influence of slavery</i>. <i>That must be broken up</i> from which their +ignorance, and viciousness, and wretchedness proceeded. That which +can only do what it has always done, pollute and degrade, must not +be employed to purify and elevate. <i>The lower their character and +condition, the louder, clearer, sterner, the just demand for +immediate emancipation</i>. The plague-smitten sufferer can derive no +benefit from breathing a little longer an infected atmosphere. +</p> +<p> +In thus referring to elemental principles—in thus availing ourselves +of the light of self-evident truths—we bow to the authority and tread +in the foot-prints of the great Teacher. He chid those around him for +refusing to make the same use of their reason in promoting their +spiritual, as they made in promoting their temporal welfare. He gives +them distinctly to understand, that they need not go out of themselves +to form a just estimation of their position, duties, and prospects, +as standing in the presence of the Messiah. "Why, EVEN OF YOURSELVES," +he demands of them, "judge ye not what is <i>right</i>?"[<a name="rnote12-16"></a><a href="#note12-16">16</a>] How could +they, unless they had a clear light, and an infallible standard <i>within +them</i>, whereby, amidst the relations they sustained and the interests +they had to provide for, they might discriminate between truth and +falsehood, right and wrong, what they ought to attempt and what they +ought to eschew? From this pointed, significant appeal of the Savior, +it is clear and certain, that in human consciousness may be found +self-evident truths, self-manifested principles; that every man, +studying his own consciousness, is bound to recognize their presence +and authority, and in sober earnest and good faith to apply them to +the highest practical concerns of "life and godliness." It is in +obedience to the Bible, that we apply self-evident truths, and walk +in the light of general principles. When our fathers proclaimed +these truths, and at the hazard of their property, reputation, and +life, stood up in their defence, they did homage to the sacred +Scriptures—they honored the Bible. In that volume, not a syllable +can be found to justify that form of infidelity, which in the abused +name of piety, reproaches us for practising the lessons which nature +teacheth. These lessons, the Bible requires us [<a name="rnote12-17"></a><a href="#note12-17">17</a>] reverently to listen +to, earnestly to appropriate, and most diligently and faithfully to +act upon in every direction, and on all occasions. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-16"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-16">16</a>: Luke, xii. 57.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-17"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-17">17</a>: Cor. xi. 14.] +</p> +<p> +Why, our Savior goes so far in doing honor to reason, as to encourage +men universally to dispose of the characteristic peculiarities and +distinctive features of the Gospel in the light of its principles. +"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether +it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."[<a name="rnote12-18"></a><a href="#note12-18">18</a>] Natural religion—the +principles which nature reveals, and the lessons which nature teaches—he +thus makes a test of the truth and authority of revealed religion. So +far was he, as a teacher, from shrinking from the clearest and most +piercing rays of reason—from calling off the attention of those around +him from the import, bearings, and practical application of general +principles. And those who would have us escape from the pressure of +self-evident truths, by betaking ourselves to the doctrines and precepts +of Christianity, whatever airs of piety they may put on, do foul dishonor +to the Savior of mankind. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-18"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-18">18</a>: John, vii. 17.] +</p> +<p> +And what shall we say of the Golden Rule, which, according to the +Savior, comprehends all the precepts of the Bible? "Whatsoever ye +would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is +the law and the prophets." +</p> +<p> +According to this maxim, in human consciousness, universally, may be +found, +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. The standard whereby, in all the relations and circumstances of +life, we may determine what Heaven demands and expects of us. +</li> +<li> +2. The just application of this standard, is practicable for, and +obligatory upon, every child of Adam. +</li> +<li> +3. The qualification requisite to a just application of this rule to +all the cases in which we can be concerned, is simply this—<i>to +regard all the members of the human family as our brethren, our +equals</i>. +</li> +</ul> +<p> +In other words, the Savior here teaches us, that in the principles +and laws of reason, we have an infallible guide in all the relations +and circumstances of life; that nothing can hinder our following +this guide, but the bias of <i>selfishness</i>; and that the moment, in +deciding any moral question, we place <i>ourselves in the room of our +brother</i>, before the bar of reason, we shall see what decision ought +to be pronounced. Does this, in the Savior, look like fleeing +self-evident truths!—like decrying the authority of general +principles!—like exalting himself at the expense of reason!—like +opening a refuge in the Gospel for those whose practice is at +variance with the dictates of humanity! +</p> +<p> +What then is the just application of the Golden Rule—that +fundamental maxim of the Gospel, giving character to, and shedding +light upon, all its precepts and arrangements—to the subject of +slavery?—<i>that we must "do to" slaves as we would be done by</i>, AS +SLAVES, <i>the</i> RELATION <i>itself being justified and continued</i>? Surely +not. A little reflection will enable us to see, that the Golden Rule +reaches farther in its demands, and strikes deeper in its influences +and operations. The <i>natural equality</i> of mankind lies at the very +basis of this great precept. It obviously requires <i>every man to +acknowledge another self in every other man</i>. With my powers and +resources, and in my appropriate circumstances, I am to recognize in +any child of Adam who may address me, another self in his +appropriate circumstances and with his powers and resources. This is +the natural equality of mankind; and this the Golden Rule requires +us to admit, defend, and maintain. +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"WHY DO YE NOT UNDERSTAND MY SPEECH; EVEN BECAUSE YE CANNOT HEAR MY WORD." +</h2> +<p> +They strangely misunderstand and grossly misrepresent this doctrine, +who charge upon it the absurdities and mischiefs which <i>any +"levelling system"</i> cannot but produce. In all its bearings, +tendencies, and effects, it is directly contrary and powerfully +hostile to any such system. EQUALITY OF RIGHTS, the doctrine asserts; +and this necessarily opens the way for <i>variety of condition</i>. In +other words, every child of Adam has, from the Creator, the +inalienable right of wielding, within reasonable limits, his own +powers, and employing his own resources, according to his own choice;—the +right, while he respects his social relations, to promote as +he will his own welfare. But mark—HIS OWN powers and resources, and +NOT ANOTHER'S, are thus inalienably put under his control. The +Creator makes every man free, in whatever he may do, to exert HIMSELF, +and not <i>another</i>. Here no man may lawfully cripple or embarrass +another. The feeble may not hinder the strong, nor may the strong +crush the feeble. Every man may make the most of himself, in his own +proper sphere. Now, as in the constitutional endowments; and natural +opportunities, and lawful acquisitions of mankind, infinite variety +prevails, so in exerting each HIMSELF, in his own sphere, according +to his own choice, the variety of human condition can be little less +than infinite. Thus equality of rights opens the way for variety of +condition. +</p> +<p> +But with all this variety of make, means, and condition, considered +individually, the children of Adam are bound together by strong ties +which can never be dissolved. They are mutually united by the social +of their nature. Hence mutual dependence and mutual claims. While +each is inalienably entitled to assert and enjoy his own personality +as a man, each sustains to all and all to each, various relations. +While each owns and honors the individual, all are to own and honor +the social of their nature. Now, the Golden Rule distinctly +recognizes, lays its requisitions upon, and extends its obligations +to, the whole nature of man, in his individual capacities and social +relations. What higher honor could it do to man, as <i>an individual</i>, +than to constitute him the judge, by whose decision, when fairly +rendered, all the claims of his fellows should be authoritatively +and definitely disposed of? "Whatsoever YE WOULD" have done to you, +so do ye to others. Every member of the family of Adam, placing +himself in the position here pointed out, is competent and +authorized to pass judgment on all the cases in social life in which +he may be concerned. Could higher responsibilities or greater +confidence be reposed in men individually? And then, how are their +<i>claims upon each other</i> herein magnified! What inherent worth and +solid dignity are ascribed to the social of their nature! In every +man with whom I may have to do, I am to recognize the presence of +<i>another self</i>, whose case I am to make <i>my own</i>. And thus I am to +dispose of whatever claims he may urge upon me. +</p> +<p> +Thus, in accordance with the Golden Rule, mankind are naturally +brought, in the voluntary use of their powers and resources, to +promote each other's welfare. As his contribution to this great +object, it is the inalienable birthright of every child of Adam, +to consecrate whatever he may possess. With exalted powers and large +resources, he has a natural claim to a correspondent field of effort. +If his "abilities" are small, his task must be easy and his burden +light. Thus the Golden Rule requires mankind mutually to serve each +other. In this service, each is to exert <i>himself</i>—employ <i>his own</i> +powers, lay out his own resources, improve his own opportunities. A +division of labor is the natural result. One is remarkable for his +intellectual endowments and acquisitions; another, for his wealth; +and a third, for power and skill in using his muscles. Such +attributes, endlessly varied and diversified, proceed from the basis +of a <i>common character</i>, by virtue of which all men and each—one as +truly as another—are entitled, as a birthright, to "life, liberty, +and the pursuit of happiness." Each and all, one as well as another, +may choose his own modes of contributing his share to the general +welfare, in which his own is involved and identified. Under one +great law of mutual dependence and mutual responsibility, all are +placed—the strong as well as the weak, the rich as much as the poor, +the learned no less than the unlearned. All bring their wares, the +products of their enterprise, skill and industry, to the same market, +where mutual exchanges are freely effected. The fruits of muscular +exertion procure the fruits of mental effort. John serves Thomas +with his hands, and Thomas serves John with his money. Peter wields +the axe for James, and James wields the pen for Peter. Moses, Joshua, +and Caleb, employ their wisdom, courage, and experience, in the +service of the community, and the community serve Moses, Joshua, and +Caleb, in furnishing them with food and raiment, and making them +partakers of the general prosperity. And all this by mutual +understanding and voluntary arrangement. And all this according to +the Golden Rule. +</p> +<p> +What then becomes of <i>slavery</i>—a system of arrangements in which +one man treats his fellow, not as another self, but as a thing—a +chattel—an article of merchandize, which is not to be consulted in +any disposition which may be made of it;—a system which is built on +the annihilation of the attributes of our common nature—in which +man doth to others what he would sooner die than have done to himself? +The Golden Rule and slavery are mutually subversive of each other. If +one stands, the other must fall. The one strikes at the very root of +the other. The Golden Rule aims at the abolition of THE RELATION +ITSELF, in which slavery consists. It lays its demands upon every +thing within the scope of <i>human action</i>. To "whatever MEN DO," it +extends its authority. And the relation itself, in which slavery +consists, is the work of human hands. It is what men have done to +each other—contrary to nature and most injurious to the general +welfare. This RELATION, therefore, the Golden Rule condemns. +Wherever its authority prevails, this relation must be annihilated. +Mutual service and slavery—like light and darkness, life and +death—are directly opposed to, and subversive of, each other. The +one the Golden Rule cannot endure; the other it requires, honors, +and blesses. +</p> +<h2 class="center"> +"LOVE WORKETH NO ILL TO HIS NEIGHBOR." +</h2> +<p> +Like unto the Golden Rule is the second great commandment—"<i>Thou +shalt love thy neighbor as thyself</i>." "A certain lawyer," who seems +to have been fond of applying the doctrine of limitation of human +obligations, once demanded of the Savior, within what limits the +meaning of the word "neighbor" ought to be confined. "And who is my +neighbor?" The parable of the good Samaritan set that matter in the +clearest light, and made it manifest and certain, that every man +whom we could reach with our sympathy and assistance, was our +neighbor, entitled to the same regard which we cherished for +ourselves. Consistently with such obligations, can <i>slavery, +as a</i> RELATION, be maintained? Is it then a <i>labor of love</i>—such +love as we cherish for ourselves—to strip a child of Adam of all +the prerogatives and privileges which are his inalienable birthright? +To obscure his reason, crush his will, and trample on his immortality?—To +strike home to the inmost of his being, and break the heart of +his heart?—To thrust him out of the human family, and dispose of +him as a chattel—as a thing in the hands of an owner, a beast under +the lash of a driver? All this, apart from every thing incidental +and extraordinary, belongs to the RELATION, in which slavery, as such, +consists. All this—well fed or ill fed, underwrought or overwrought, +clothed or naked, caressed or kicked, whether idle songs break from +his thoughtless tongue or "tears be his meat night and day," fondly +cherished or cruelly murdered;—<i>all this</i> ENTERS VITALLY INTO THE +RELATION ITSELF, <i>by which every slave</i>, AS A SLAVE, <i>is set apart +from the rest of the human family</i>. Is it an exercise of love, to +place our "neighbor" under the crushing weight, the killing power, +of such a relation?—to apply the murderous steel to the very vitals +of his humanity? +</p> +<h2 class="center"> +"YE THEREFORE APPLAUD AND DELIGHT IN THE DEEDS OF YOUR FATHERS; +</h2> +<h2 class="center"> +FOR THEY KILLED THEM, AND YE BUILD THEIR SEPULCHRES."[<a name="rnote12-19"></a><a href="#note12-19">19</a>] +</h2> +<p> +The slaveholder may eagerly and loudly deny, that any such thing is +chargeable upon him. He may confidently and earnestly allege, that +he is not responsible for the state of society in which he is placed. +Slavery was established before he began to breathe. It was his +inheritance. His slaves are his property by birth or testament. But +why will he thus deceive himself? Why will he permit the cunning and +rapacious spiders, which in the very sanctuary of ethics and +religion are laboriously weaving webs from their own bowels, to +catch him with their wretched sophistries?—and devour him, body, +soul, and substance? Let him know, as he must one day with shame and +terror own, that whoever holds slaves is himself responsible for +<i>the relation</i>, into which, whether reluctantly or willingly, he +thus enters. <i>The relation cannot be forced upon him</i>. What though +Elizabeth countenanced John Hawkins in stealing the natives of Africa?—what +though James, and Charles, and George, opened a market for +them in the English colonies?—what though modern Dracos have +"framed mischief by law," in legalizing man-stealing and slaveholding?—what +though your ancestors, in preparing to go "to their own place," +constituted you the owner of the "neighbors" whom they had used as +cattle?—what of all this, and as much more like this, as can be +drawn from the history of that dreadful process by which men are +"deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be <i>chattels +personal</i>?" Can all this force you to put the cap upon the +climax—to clinch the nail by doing that, without which nothing in +the work of slave-making would be attempted? <i>The slaveholder is the +soul of the whole system</i>. Without him, the chattel principle is a +lifeless abstraction. Without him, charters, and markets, and laws, +and testaments, are empty names. And does <i>he</i> think to escape +responsibility? Why, kidnappers, and soul-drivers, and law-makers, +are nothing but his <i>agents</i>. He is the guilty <i>principal</i>. Let him +look to it. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-19"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-19">19</a>: You join with them in their bloody work. They murder, +and you bury the victims.] +</p> +<p> +But what can he do? Do? Keep his hands off his "neighbor's" throat. +Let him refuse to finish and ratify the process by which the chattel +principle is carried into effect. Let him refuse, in the face of +derision, and reproach, and opposition. Though poverty should fasten +its bony hand upon him, and persecution shoot forth its forked tongue; +whatever may betide him—scorn, flight, flames—let him promptly and +steadfastly refuse. Better the spite and hate of men than the wrath +of Heaven! "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it +from thee; for it is profitable for thee, that one of thy members +should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." +</p> +<p> +Professor Stewart admits, that the Golden Rule and the second great +commandment "decide against the theory of slavery, as being in +itself right." What, then, is their relation to the particular +precepts, institutions, and usages, which are authorized and +enjoined in the New Testament? Of all these, they are the summary +expression—the comprehensive description. No precept in the Bible, +enforcing our mutual obligations, can be more or less than <i>the +application of these injunctions to specific relations or particular +occasions and conditions</i>. Neither in the Old Testament nor the New, +do prophets teach or laws enjoin, any thing which the Golden Rule +and the second great command do not contain. Whatever they forbid, +no other precept can require; and whatever they require, no other +precept can forbid. What, then, does he attempt, who turns over the +sacred pages to find something in the way of permission or command, +which may set him free from the obligations of the Golden Rule? What +must his objects, methods, spirit be, to force him to enter upon +such inquiries?—to compel him to search the Bible for such a purpose? +Can he have good intentions, or be well employed? Is his frame of +mind adapted to the study of the Bible?—to make its meaning plain +and welcome? What must he think of God, to search his word in quest +of gross inconsistencies, and grave contradictions! Inconsistent +legislation in Jehovah! Contradictory commands! Permissions at war +with prohibitions! General requirements at variance with particular +arrangements! +</p> +<p> +What must be the moral character of any institution which the Golden +Rule decides against?—which the second great command condemns? +<i>It cannot but be wicked</i>, whether newly established or long +maintained. However it may be shaped, turned, colored—under every +modification and at all times—<i>wickedness must be its proper +character. It must be</i>, IN ITSELF, <i>apart from its circumstances</i>, +IN ITS ESSENCE, <i>apart from its incidents</i>, SINFUL. +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"THINK NOT TO SAY WITHIN YOURSELVES, +</h2> +<h2 class="centered"> +WE HAVE ABRAHAM FOR OUR FATHER." +</h2> +<p> +In disposing of those precepts and exhortations which have a +specific bearing upon the subject of slavery, it is greatly important, +nay, absolutely essential, that we look forth upon the objects +around us from the right post of observation. Our stand we must take +at some central point, amidst the general maxims and fundamental +precepts, the known circumstances and characteristic arrangements, +of primitive Christianity. Otherwise, wrong views and false +conclusions will be the result of our studies. We cannot, therefore, +be too earnest in trying to catch the general features and prevalent +spirit of the New Testament institutions and arrangements. For to +what conclusions must we come, if we unwittingly pursue our +inquiries under the bias of the prejudice, that the general maxims +of social life which now prevail in this country, were current, on +the authority of the Savior, among the primitive Christians! That, +for instance, wealth, station, talents, are the standard by which +our claims upon, and our regard for, others, should be modified?—That +those who are pinched by poverty, worn by disease, tasked in +menial labors, or marked by features offensive to the taste of the +artificial and capricious, are to be excluded from those refreshing +and elevating influences which intelligence and refinement may be +expected to exert; that thus they are to constitute a class by +themselves, and to be made to know and keep their place at the very +bottom of society? Or, what if we should think and speak of the +primitive Christians, as if they had the same pecuniary resources as +Heaven has lavished upon the American churches?—as if they were as +remarkable for affluence, elegance, and splendor? Or, as if they had +as high a position and as extensive an influence in politics and +literature?—having directly or indirectly, the control over the +high places of learning and of power? +</p> +<p> +If we should pursue our studies and arrange our arguments—if we +should explain words and interpret language—under such a bias, what +must inevitably be the results? What would be the worth of our +conclusions? What confidence could be reposed in any instruction we +might undertake to furnish? And is not this the way in which the +advocates and apologists of slavery dispose of the bearing which +primitive Christianity has upon it? They first ascribe, unwittingly, +perhaps, to the primitive churches; the character, relations, and +condition of American Christianity, and amidst the deep darkness and +strange confusion thus produced, set about interpreting the language +and explaining the usages of the New Testament! +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +"SO THAT YE ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE." +</h2> +<p> +Among the lessons of instruction which our Savior imparted, having a +general bearing on the subject of slavery, that in which he sets up +the <i>true standard of greatness</i>, deserves particular attention. In +repressing the ambition of his disciples, he held up before them the +methods by which alone healthful aspirations for eminence could be +gratified, and thus set the elements of true greatness in the +clearest light. "Ye know, that they which are accounted to rule over +the Gentiles, exercise lordship over them; and their great ones +exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you; but +whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister; <i>and +whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all</i>." In +other words, through the selfishness and pride of mankind, the maxim +widely prevails in the world, that it is the privilege, prerogative, +and mark of greatness, TO EXACT SERVICE; that our superiority to +others, while it authorizes us to relax the exertion of our own +powers, gives us a fair title to the use of theirs; that "might," +while it exempts us from serving, "gives the right" to be served. +The instructions of the Savior open the way to greatness for us in +the opposite direction. Superiority to others, in whatever it may +consist, gives us a claim to a wider field of exertion, and demands +of us a larger amount of service. We can be great only as we <i>are +useful</i>. And "might gives right" to bless our fellow men, by +improving every opportunity and employing every faculty, +affectionately, earnestly, and unweariedly, in their service. Thus +the greater the man, the more active, faithful, and useful the +servant. +</p> +<p> +The Savior has himself taught us how this doctrine must be applied. +He bids us improve every opportunity and employ every power, even +through the most menial services, in blessing the human family. And +to make this lesson shine upon our understandings and move our hearts, +he embodied in it a most instructive and attractive example. On a +memorable occasion, and just before his crucifixion, he discharged +for his disciples the most menial of all offices—taking, <i>in +washing their feet</i>, the place of the lowest servant. He took great +pains to make them understand, that only by imitating this example +could they honor their relations to him as their Master; that thus +only would they find themselves blessed. By what possibility could +slavery exist under the influence of such a lesson, set home by such +an example? <i>Was it while washing the disciples' feet, that our +Savior authorized one man to make a chattel of another</i>? +</p> +<p> +To refuse to provide for ourselves by useful labor, the apostle Paul +teaches us to regard as a grave offence. After reminding the +Thessalonian Christians, that in addition to all his official +exertions he had with his own muscles earned his own bread, he calls +their attention to an arrangement which was supported by apostolical +authority, "that if any would not work, neither should he eat." In +the most earnest and solemn manner, and as a minister of the Lord +Jesus Christ, he commanded and exhorted those who neglected useful +labor, "<i>with quietness to work and eat their own bread.</i>" What must +be the bearing of all this upon slavery? Could slavery be maintained +where every man eat the bread which himself had earned?—where +idleness was esteemed so great a crime, as to be reckoned worthy of +starvation as a punishment? How could unrequited labor be exacted, +or used, or needed? Must not every one in such a community +contribute his share to the general welfare?—and mutual service and +mutual support be the natural result? +</p> +<p> +The same apostle, in writing to another church, describes the true +source whence the means of liberality ought to be derived. "Let him +that stole steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his +hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that +needeth." Let this lesson, as from the lips of Jehovah, be proclaimed +throughout the length and breadth of South Carolina. Let it be +universally welcomed and reduced to practice. Let thieves give up +what they had stolen to the lawful proprietors, cease stealing, and +begin at once to "labor, working with their hands," for necessary +and charitable purposes. Could slavery, in such a case, continue to +exist? Surely not! Instead of exacting unpaid services from others, +every man would be busy, exerting himself not only to provide for +his own wants, but also to accumulate funds, "that he might have to +give to" the needy. Slavery must disappear, root and branch, at once +and forever. +</p> +<p> +In describing the source whence his ministers should expect their +support, the Savior furnished a general principle, which has an +obvious and powerful bearing on the subject of slavery. He would +have them remember, while exerting themselves for the benefit of +their fellow men, that "the laborer is worthy of his hire." He has +thus united wages with work. Whoever renders the one is entitled to +the other. And this manifestly according to a mutual understanding +and a voluntary arrangement. For the doctrine that I may force you +to work for me for whatever consideration I may please to fix upon, +fairly opens the way for the doctrine, that you, in turn, may force +me to render you whatever wages you may choose to exact for any +services you may see fit to render. Thus slavery, even as +involuntary servitude, is cut up by the root. Even the Princeton +professor seems to regard it as a violation of the principle which +unites work with wages. +</p> +<p> +The apostle James applies this principle to the claims of manual +laborers—of those who hold the plough and thrust in the sickle. He +calls the rich lordlings who exacted sweat and withheld wages, to +"weeping and howling," assuring them that the complaints of +the injured laborer had entered into the ear of the Lord of Hosts, +and that, as a result of their oppression, their riches were +corrupted, and their garments moth-eaten; their gold and silver were +cankered; that the rust of them should be a witness against them, +and should eat their flesh as it were fire; that, in one word, they +had heaped treasures together for the last days, when "miseries were +coming upon them," the prospect of which might well drench them in +tears and fill them with terror. If these admonitions and warnings +were heeded there, would not "the South" break forth into "weeping +and wailing, and gnashing of teeth?" What else are its rich men about, +but withholding by a system of fraud, his wages from the laborer, +who is wearing himself out under the impulse of fear, in cultivating +their fields and producing their luxuries! Encouragement and support +do they derive from James, in maintaining the "peculiar institution" +which they call patriarchal, and boast of as the "corner-stone" of +the republic? +</p> +<p> +In the New Testament, we have, moreover, the general injunction, +"<i>Honor all men</i>." Under this broad precept, every form of humanity +may justly claim protection and respect. The invasion of any human +right must do dishonor to humanity, and be a transgression of this +command. How then, in the light of such obligations, must slavery be +regarded? Are those men honored, who are rudely excluded from a +place in the human family, and shut up to the deep degradation and +nameless horrors of chattelship? <i>Can they be held as slaves, and at +the same time be honored as men?</i> +</p> +<p> +How far, in obeying this command, we are to go, we may infer from +the admonitions and instructions which James applies to the +arrangements and usages of religious assemblies. Into these he can +not allow "respect of persons" to enter. "My brethren," he exclaims, +"have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, +with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a +man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel; and there come in also +a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth +the gay clothing, and say unto him, sit thou here in a good place; +and say to the poor, stand thou there, or sit here under my +footstool; are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become +judges of evil thoughts?" <i>If ye have respect to persons, ye commit +sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors</i>. On this general +principle, then, religious assemblies ought to be regulated—that +every man is to be estimated, not according to his +<i>circumstances</i>—not according to anything incidental to his +<i>condition</i>; but according to his <i>moral worth</i>—according to the +essential features and vital elements of his <i>character</i>. Gold rings +and gay clothing, as they qualify no man for, can entitle no man to, +a "good place" in the church. Nor can the "vile raiment of the poor +man," fairly exclude him from any sphere, however exalted, which his +heart and head may fit him to fill. To deny this, in theory or +practice, is to degrade a man below a thing; for what are gold rings, +or gay clothing, or vile raiment, but things, "which perish with the +using?" And this must be "to commit sin, and be convinced of the law +as transgressor." +</p> +<p> +In slavery, we have "respect of persons," strongly marked, and +reduced to system. Here men are despised not merely for "the vile +raiment," which may cover their scarred bodies. This is bad enough. +But the deepest contempt of humanity here grows out of birth or +complexion. Vile raiment may be, often is, the result of indolence, +or improvidence, or extravagance. It may be, often is, an index of +character. But how can I be responsible for the incidents of my birth?—how +for my complexion? To despise or honor me for these, is to be +guilty of "respect of persons" in its grossest form, and with its +worst effects. It is to reward or punish me for what I had nothing +to do with; for which, therefore, I cannot, without the greatest +injustice, be held responsible. It is to poison the very fountains +of justice, by confounding all moral distinctions. What, then, so +far as the authority of the New Testament is concerned, becomes of +slavery, which cannot be maintained under any form nor for a single +moment, without "respect of persons" the most aggravated and +unendurable? And what would become of that most pitiful, silly, and +wicked arrangement in so many of our churches, in which worshippers +of a dark complexion are to be sent up to the negro pew? [<a name="rnote12-20"></a><a href="#note12-20">20</a>] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-20"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-20">20</a>: In Carlyle's Review of the Memoirs of Mirabeau, we +have the following anecdote illustrative of the character of a +"grandmother" of the Count. "Fancy the dame Mirabeau sailing stately +towards the church font; another dame striking in to take precedence +of her; the dame Mirabeau despatching this latter with a box on the +ear, and these words, '<i>Here, as in the army</i>, THE BAGGAGE <i>goes +last</i>!'" Let those who justify the negro-pew arrangement, throw +a stone at this proud woman—if they dare.] +</p> +<p> +Nor are we permitted to confine this principle to <i>religious</i> +assemblies. It is to pervade social life everywhere. Even where +plenty, intelligence and refinement, diffuse their brightest rays, +the poor are to be welcomed with especial favor. "Then said he to +him that bade him, when thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not +thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich +neighbors, lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made +thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor and the maimed, +the lame and the blind, and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot +recompense thee, but thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection +of the just." +</p> +<p> +In the high places of social life then—in the parlor, the +drawing-room, the saloon—special reference should be had, in every +arrangement, to the comfort and improvement of those who are least +able to provide for the cheapest rites of hospitality. For these, +ample accommodations must be made, whatever may become of our +kinsmen and rich neighbors. And for this good reason, that while +such occasions signify little to the latter, to the former they are +pregnant with good—raising their drooping spirits, cheering their +desponding hearts, inspiring them with life, and hope, and joy. The +rich and the poor thus meeting joyfully together, cannot but +mutually contribute to each other's benefit; the rich will be led to +moderation, sobriety, and circumspection, and the poor to industry, +providence, and contentment. The recompense must be great and sure. +</p> +<p> +A most beautiful and instructive commentary on the text in which +these things are taught, the Savior furnished in his own conduct. He +freely mingled with those who were reduced to the very bottom of +society. At the tables of the outcasts of society he did not +hesitate to be a cheerful guest, surrounded by publicans and sinners. +And when flouted and reproached by smooth and lofty ecclesiastics, +as an ultraist and leveler, he explained and justified himself by +observing, that he had only done what his office demanded. It was +his to seek the lost, to heal the sick, to pity the wretched;—in a +word, to bestow just such benefits as the various necessities of +mankind made appropriate and welcome. In his great heart, there was +room enough for those who had been excluded from the sympathy of +little souls. In its spirit and design, the gospel overlooked +none—least of all, the outcasts of a selfish world. +</p> +<p> +Can slavery, however modified, be consistent with such a gospel?—a +gospel which requires us, even amidst the highest forms of social +life, to exert ourselves to raise the depressed by giving our +warmest sympathies to those who have the smallest share in the favor +of the world? +</p> +<p> +Those who are in "bonds" are set before us as deserving an especial +remembrance. Their claims upon us are described as a modification of +the Golden Rule—as one of the many forms to which its obligations +are reducible. To them we are to extend the same affectionate regard +as we would covet for ourselves, if the chains upon their limbs were +fastened upon ours. To the benefits of this precept, the enslaved +have a natural claim of the greatest strength. The wrongs they +suffer spring from a persecution which can hardly be surpassed in +malignancy. Their birth and complexion are the occasion of the +insults and injuries which they can neither endure nor escape. It is +for <i>the work of God</i>, and not their own deserts, that they are +loaded with chains. <i>This is persecution</i>. +</p> +<p> +Can I regard the slave as another self—can I put myself in his +place—and be indifferent to his wrongs? Especially, can I, thus +affected, take sides with the oppressor? Could I, in such a state of +mind as the gospel requires me to cherish, reduce him to slavery or +keep him in bonds? Is not the precept under hand naturally +subversive of every system and every form of slavery? +</p> +<p> +The <i>general descriptions</i> of the church, which are found here and +there in the New Testament, are highly instructive in their bearing +on the subject of slavery. In one connection, the following words +meet the eye: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond +nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in +Christ Jesus."[<a name="rnote12-21">21</a><a href="#note12-21">21</a>] Here we have— +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. A clear and strong description of the doctrine of <i>human equality</i>. +"Ye are all ONE;"—so much alike, so truly placed on common ground, +all wielding each his own powers with such freedom, <i>that one is the +same as another</i>. +</li> +<li> +2. This doctrine, self-evident in the light of reason, is affirmed on +divine authority. "IN CHRIST JESUS, <i>ye are all one</i>." The natural +equality of the human family is a part of the gospel. For— +</li> +<li> +3. All the human family are included in this description. Whether +men or women, whether bond or free, whether Jews or Gentiles, all +are alike entitled to the benefit of this doctrine. Whether +Christianity prevails, the <i>artificial</i> distinctions which grow out +of birth, condition, sex, are done away. <i>Natural distinctions</i> are +not destroyed. <i>They</i> are recognized, hallowed, confirmed. The +gospel does not abolish the sexes, forbid a division of labor, or +extinguish patriotism. It takes woman from beneath the feet, and +places her by the side of man; delivers the manual laborer from +"the yoke," and gives him wages for his work; and brings the Jew and +the Gentile to embrace each other with fraternal love and confidence. +Thus it raises all to a common level, gives to each the free use of +his own powers and resources, binds all together in one dear and +loving brotherhood. Such, according to the description of the apostle, +was the influence, and such the effect of primitive Christianity. +"Behold the picture!" Is it like American slavery, which, in all its +tendencies and effects, is destructive of all oneness among brethren? +</li> +</ul> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-21"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-21">21</a>: Gal. iii. 28.] +</p> +<p> +"Where the spirit of the Lord is," exclaims the same apostle, with +his eye upon the condition and relations of the church, "<i>where the +spirit of the Lord is</i>, THERE IS LIBERTY." Where, then, may we +reverently recognize the presence, and bow before the manifested +power, of this spirit? <i>There</i>, where the laborer may not choose how +he shall be employed!—in what way his wants shall be supplied!—with +whom he shall associate!—who shall have the fruit of his +exertions! <i>There</i>, where he is not free to enjoy his wife and +children! <i>There</i>, where his body and his soul, his very "destiny," +[<a name="rnote12-22"></a><a href="#note12-22">22</a>] are placed altogether beyond his control! <i>There</i>, where every +power is crippled, every energy blasted, every hope crushed! <i>There</i>, +where in all the relations and concerns of life, he is legally +treated as if he had nothing to do with the laws of reason, the +light of immortality, or the exercise of will! Is the spirit of the +Lord <i>there</i>, where liberty is decried and denounced, mocked at and +spit upon, betrayed and crucified! In the midst of a church which +justified slavery, which derived its support from slavery, which +carried on its enterprises by means of slavery, would the apostle +have found the fruits of the Spirit of the Lord! Let that Spirit +exert his influences, and assert his authority, and wield his power, +and slavery must vanish at once and for ever. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-22"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-22">22</a>: "The legislature (of South Carolina) from time to time, +has passed many restricted and penal acts, with a view to bring +under direct control and subjection the DESTINY <i>of the black +population</i>." See the Remonstrance of James S. Pope and 352 others +against home missionary efforts for the benefit of the enslaved—a +most instructive paper.] +</p> +<p> +In more than one connection, the apostle James describes Christianity +as "<i>the law of liberty</i>." It is, in other words, the law under +which liberty cannot but live and flourish—the law in which liberty +is clearly defined, strongly asserted, and well protected. As the law +of liberty, how can it be consistent with the law of slavery? The +presence and the power of this law are felt wherever the light of +reason shines. They are felt in the uneasiness and conscious +degradation of the slave, and in the shame and remorse which the +master betrays in his reluctant and desperate efforts to defend +himself. This law it is which has armed human nature against the +oppressor. Wherever it is obeyed, "every yoke is broken." +</p> +<p> +In these references to the New Testament we have a <i>general +description</i> of the primitive church, and the <i>principles</i> on which +it was founded and fashioned. These principles bear the same +relation to Christian <i>history</i> as to Christian <i>character</i>, since +the former is occupied with the development of the latter. What then +is Christian character but Christian principle <i>realized</i>, acted out, +bodied forth, and animated? Christian principle is the soul, of +which Christian character is the expression—the manifestation. It +comprehends in itself, as a living seed, such Christian character, +under every form, modification, and complexion. The former is, +therefore, the test and interpreter of the latter. In the light of +Christian principle, and in that light only, we can judge of and +explain Christian character. Christian history is occupied with the +forms, modifications, and various aspects of Christian character. +The facts which are there recorded serve to show, how Christian +principle has fared in this world—how it has appeared, what it has +done, how it has been treated. In these facts we have the various +institutions, usages, designs, doings, and sufferings of the church +of Christ. And all these have of necessity, the closest relation to +Christian principle. They are the production of its power. Through +them, it is revealed and manifested. In its light, they are to be +studied, explained, and understood. Without it they must be as +unintelligible and insignificant as the letters of a book scattered +on the wind. +</p> +<p> +In the principles of Christianity, then, we have a comprehensive and +faithful account of its objects, institutions, and usages—of how it +must behave, and act, and suffer, in a world of sin and misery. For +between the principles which God reveals, on the one hand, and the +precepts he enjoins, the institutions he establishes, and the usages +he approves, on the other, there must be consistency and harmony. +Otherwise we impute to God what we must abhor in man—practice at war +with principle. Does the Savior, then, lay down the <i>principle</i> that +our standing in the church must depend upon the habits formed within +us, of readily and heartily subserving the welfare of others; and +permit us <i>in practice</i> to invade the rights and trample on the +happiness of our fellows, by reducing them to slavery. Does he, +<i>in principle</i> and by example, require us to go all lengths in +rendering mutual service, or comprehending offices the most menial, +as well as the most honorable; and permit us <i>in practice</i> to EXACT +service of our brethren, as if they were nothing better than +"articles of merchandize!" Does he require us <i>in principle</i> +"to work with quietness and eat our own bread;" and permit us +<i>in practice</i> to wrest from our brethren the fruits of their +unrequited toil? Does he <i>in principle</i> require us, abstaining from +every form of theft, to employ our powers in useful labor, not only +to provide for ourselves but also to relieve the indigence of others; +and permit us <i>in practice</i>, abstaining from every form of labor, to +enrich and aggrandize ourselves with the fruits of man-stealing? +Does he require us <i>in principle</i> to regard "the laborer as worthy +of his hire"; and permit us <i>in practice</i> to defraud him of his wages? +Does he require us <i>in principle</i> to honor ALL men; and permit us +<i>in practice</i> to treat multitudes like cattle? Does he <i>in +principle</i> prohibit "respect of persons;" and permit us <i>in practice</i> +to place the feet of the rich upon the necks of the poor? Does he +<i>in principle</i> require us to sympathize with the bondman as +another self; and permit us <i>in practice</i> to leave him unpitied and +unhelped in the hands of the oppressor? <i>In principle</i>, "where the +Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;" <i>in practice</i>, is <i>slavery</i> +the fruit of the Spirit? <i>In principle</i>, Christianity is the law of +liberty; <i>in practice</i>, it is the law of slavery? Bring practice in +these various respects into harmony with principle, and what becomes +of slavery? And if, where the divine government is concerned, +practice is the expression of principle, and principle the standard +and interpreter of practice, such harmony cannot but be maintained +and must be asserted. In studying, therefore, fragments of history +and sketches of biography—in disposing of references to institutions, +usages, and facts in the New Testament, this necessary harmony +between principle and practice in the government <i>of God</i>, should be +continually present to the thoughts of the interpreter. Principles +assert what practice must be. Whatever principle condemns, God +condemns. It belongs to those weeds of the dung-hill which, planted +by "an enemy," his hand will assuredly "root up." It is most certain +then, that if slavery prevailed in the first ages of Christianity, +it could nowhere have prevailed under its influence and with its +sanction. +</p> +<hr> +<p> +The condition in which in its efforts to bless mankind, the +primitive church was placed, must have greatly assisted the early +Christians in understanding and applying the principles of the gospel. +Their <i>Master</i> was born in great obscurity, lived in the deepest +poverty, and died the most ignominious death. The place of his +residence, his familiarity with the outcasts of society, his +welcoming assistance and support from female hands, his casting his +beloved mother, when he hung upon the cross, upon the charity of a +disciple—such things evince the depth of his poverty, and show to +what derision and contempt he must have been exposed. Could such an +one, "despised and rejected of men—a man of sorrows and acquainted +with grief," play the oppressor, or smile on those who made +merchandize of the poor! +</p> +<p> +And what was the history of the <i>apostles</i>, but an illustration of +the doctrine, that "it is enough for the disciple, that he be as his +Master?" Were they lordly ecclesiastics, abounding with wealth, +shining with splendor, bloated with luxury! Were they ambitious of +distinction, fleecing, and trampling, and devouring "the flocks," +that they themselves might "have the pre-eminence!" Were they +slaveholding bishops! Or did they derive their support from the +wages of iniquity and the price of blood! Can such inferences be +drawn from the account of their condition, which the most gifted and +enterprising of their number has put upon record? "Even unto this +present hour, we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and <i>are +buffetted</i>, and have <i>no certain dwelling place, and labor working +with our own hands</i>. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we +suffer it; being defamed, we entreat; we are made as <i>the filth of +the world</i>, and are THE OFFSCOURING OF ALL THINGS unto this day."[<a name="rnote12-23"></a><a href="#note12-23">23</a>] +Are these the men who practised or countenanced slavery? <i>With +such a temper, they</i> WOULD NOT; <i>in such circumstances, they</i> COULD +NOT. Exposed to "tribulation, distress, and persecution;" subject to +famine and nakedness, to peril and the sword; "killed all the day +long; accounted as sheep for the slaughter,"[<a name="rnote12-24"></a><a href="#note12-24">24</a>] they would have made +but a sorry figure at the <i>great-house</i> or slave-market. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-23"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-23">23</a>: 1 Cor. iv. 11-13.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-24"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-24">24</a>: Rom. viii. 35, 36.] +</p> +<p> +Nor was the condition of the brethren, generally, better than that of the +apostles. The position of the apostles doubtless entitled them to +the strongest opposition, the heaviest reproaches, the fiercest +persecution. But derision and contempt must have been the lot of +Christians generally. Surely we cannot think so ill of primitive +Christianity as to suppose that believers, generally, refused to +share in the trials and sufferings of their leaders; as to suppose +that while the leaders submitted to manual labor, to buffeting, to be +reckoned the filth of the world, to be accounted as sheep for the +slaughter, his brethren lived in affluence, ease, and honor! +despising manual labor and living upon the sweat of unrequited toil! +But on this point we are not left to mere inference and conjecture. +The apostle Paul in the plainest language explains the ordination of +Heaven. "But <i>God hath</i> CHOSEN the foolish things of the world to +confound the wise; and God hath CHOSEN the weak things of the world +to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, +and things which are despised hath God CHOSEN, yea, and THINGS WHICH +ARE NOT, to bring to nought things that are."[<a name="rnote12-25"></a><a href="#note12-25">25</a>] Here we may well notice, +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. That it was not by <i>accident</i>, that the primitive churches were +made up of such elements, but the result of the DIVINE CHOICE—an +arrangement of His wise and gracious Providence. The inference is +natural, that this ordination was co-extensive with the triumphs of +Christianity. It was nothing new or strange, that Jehovah had +concealed his glory "from the wise and prudent, and had revealed it +unto babes," or that "the common people heard him gladly," while +"not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, +had been called." +</li> +<li> +2. The description of character, which the apostle records, could be +adapted only to what are reckoned the <i>very dregs of humanity</i>. The +foolish and the weak, the base and the contemptible, in the +estimation of worldly pride and wisdom—these were they whose broken +hearts were reached, and moulded, and refreshed by the gospel; these +were they whom the apostle took to his bosom as his own brethren. +</li> +</ul> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-25"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-25">25</a>: 1 Cor. i. 27, 28.] +</p> +<p> +That <i>slaves</i> abounded at Corinth, may easily be admitted. <i>They</i> +have a place in the enumeration of elements of which, according to +the apostle, the church there was composed. The most remarkable +class found there, consisted of "THINGS WHICH ARE NOT"—mere nobodies, +not admitted to the privileges of men, but degraded to a level with +"goods and chattels;" of whom <i>no account</i> was made in such +arrangements of society as subserved the improvement, and dignity, +and happiness of MANKIND. How accurately the description applies to +those who are crushed under the chattel principle! +</p> +<p> +The reference which the apostle makes to the "deep poverty of the +churches of Macedonia,"[<a name="rnote12-26"></a><a href="#note12-26">26</a>] and this to stir up the sluggish +liberality of his Corinthian brethren, naturally leaves the +impression, that the latter were by no means inferior to the former +in the gifts of Providence. But, pressed with want and pinched by +poverty as were the believers in "Macedonia and Achaia, it pleased +them to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which were +at Jerusalem."[<a name="rnote12-27"></a><a href="#note12-27">27</a>] Thus it appears, that Christians everywhere were +familiar with contempt and indigence, so much so, that the apostle +would dissuade such as had no families from assuming the +responsibilities of the conjugal relation![<a name="rnote12-28"></a><a href="#note12-28">28</a>] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-26"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-26">26</a>: 2 Cor. viii. 2.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-27"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-27">27</a>: Rom. xv. 26.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-28"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-28">28</a>: Cor. vii. 26, 27.] +</p> +<p> +Now, how did these good people treat each other? Did the few among +them, who were esteemed wise, mighty, or noble, exert their +influence and employ their power in oppressing the weak, in disposing +of the "things that are not," as marketable commodities!—kneeling +with them in prayer in the evening, and putting them up at auction +the next morning! Did the church sell any of the members to swell +the "certain contribution for the poor saints at Jerusalem!" Far +other wise—as far as possible! In those Christian communities where +the influence of the apostles was most powerful, and where the +arrangements drew forth their highest commendations, believers +treated each other as <i>brethren</i>, in the strongest sense of that +sweet word. So warm was their mutual love, so strong the public +spirit, so open-handed and abundant the general liberality, that +they are set forth as "<i>having all things common.</i>" [<a name="rnote12-29"></a><a href="#note12-29">29</a>] Slaves and +their holders here? Neither the one nor the other could, in that +relation to each other, have breathed such an atmosphere. The appeal +of the kneeling bondman, "Am I not a man and a brother," must here +have met with a prompt and powerful response. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-29"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-29">29</a>: Acts, iv. 32.] +</p> +<p> +The <i>tests</i> by which our Savior tries the character of his professed +disciples, shed a strong light upon the genius of the gospel. In one +connection,[<a name="rnote12-30"></a><a href="#note12-30">30</a>] an inquirer demands of the Savior, "What good thing +shall I do that I may have eternal life?" After being reminded of the +obligations which his social nature imposed upon him, he ventured, +while claiming to be free from guilt in his relations to mankind, to +demand, "what lack I yet?" The radical deficiency under which his +character labored, the Savior was not long or obscure in pointing out. +"If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the +poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me." +On this passage it is natural to suggest— +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. That we have here a <i>test of universal application</i>. The rectitude +and benevolence of our Savior's character forbid us to suppose, that +he would subject this inquirer, especially as he was highly amiable, +to a trial, where eternal life was at stake, <i>peculiarly</i> severe. +Indeed, the test seems to have been only a fair exposition of the +second great command, and of course it must be applicable to all who +are placed under the obligations of that precept. Those who cannot +stand this test, as their character is radically imperfect and +unsound, must, with the inquirer to whom our Lord applied it, be +pronounced unfit for the kingdom of heaven. +</li> +<li> +2. The least that our Savior can in that passage be understood to +demand is, that we disinterestedly and heartily devote ourselves to +the welfare of mankind, "the poor" especially. We are to put +ourselves on a level with <i>them</i>, as we must do "in selling that we +have" for their benefit—in other words, in employing our powers and +resources to elevate their character, condition, and prospects. This +our Savior did; and if we refuse to enter into sympathy and +co-operation with him, how can we be his <i>followers</i>? Apply this +test to the slaveholder. Instead of "selling that he hath" for the +benefit of the poor, he BUYS THE POOR, and exacts their sweat with +stripes, to enable him to "clothe himself in purple and fine linen, +and fare sumptuously every day;" or, HE SELLS THE POOR to support +the gospel and convert the heathen! +</li> +</ul> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-30"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-30">30</a>: Luke, xviii. 18-25.] +</p> +<p> +What, in describing the scenes of the final judgment, does our Savior +teach us? <i>By what standard</i> must our character be estimated, and the +retributions of eternity be awarded? A standard, which both the +righteous and the wicked will be surprised to see erected. From the +"offscouring of all things," the meanest specimen of humanity will +be selected—a "stranger" in the hands of the oppressor, naked, +hungry, sickly; and this stranger, placed in the midst of the +assembled universe, by the side of the sovereign Judge, will be +openly acknowledged as his representative. "Glory, honor, and +immortality," will be the reward of those who had recognized and +cheered their Lord through his outraged poor. And tribulation, +anguish, and despair, will seize on "every soul of man" who had +neglected or despised them. But whom, within the limits of our +country, are we to regard especially as the representatives of our +final Judge? Every feature of the Savior's picture finds its +appropriate original in our enslaved countrymen. +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. They are the LEAST of his brethren. +</li> +<li> +2. They are subject to thirst and hunger, unable to command a cup of water +or a crumb of bread. +</li> +<li> +3. They are exposed to wasting sickness, without the ability to +procure a nurse or employ a physician. +</li> +<li> +4. They are emphatically "in prison," restrained by chains, goaded +with whips, tasked, and under keepers. Not a wretch groans in any +cell of the prisons of our country, who is exposed to a confinement +so vigorous and heartbreaking as the law allows theirs to be +continually and permanently. +</li> +<li> +5. And then they are emphatically, and peculiarly, and exclusively, +STRANGERS—<i>strangers</i> in the land which gave them birth. Whom +else do we constrain to remain aliens in the midst of our free +institutions? The Welch, the Swiss, the Irish? The Jews even? Alas, +it is the <i>negro</i> only, who may not strike his roots into our +soil. Every where we have conspired to treat him as a stranger—every +where he is forced to feel himself a stranger. In the stage and +steamboat, in the parlor and at our tables, in the scenes of business +and in the scenes of amusement—even in the church of God and at the +communion table, he is regarded as a stranger. The intelligent and +religious are generally disgusted and horror-struck at the thought of +his becoming identified with the citizens of our republic—so much so, +that thousands of them have entered into a conspiracy to send him off +"out of sight," to find a home on a foreign shore!—and justify +themselves by openly alleging, that a "single drop" of his blood, in +the veins of any human creature, must make him hateful to his fellow +citizens!—That nothing but banishment from "our coasts," can redeem +him from the scorn and contempt to which his "stranger" blood has +reduced him among his own mother's children! +</li> +</ul> +<p> +Who, then, in this land "of milk and honey," is "hungry and athirst," +but the man from whom the law takes away the last crumb of bread and +the smallest drop of water? +</p> +<p> +Who "naked," but the man whom the law strips of the last rag of +clothing? +</p> +<p> +Who "sick," but the man whom the law deprives of the power of +procuring medicine or sending for a physician? +</p> +<p> +Who "in prison," but the man who, all his life, is under the control +of merciless masters and cruel keepers! +</p> +<p> +Who a "stranger," but the man who is scornfully denied the cheapest +courtesies of life—who is treated as an alien in his native country? +</p> +<p> +There is one point in this awful description which deserves +particular attention. Those who are doomed to the left hand of the +Judge, are not charged with inflicting <i>positive</i> injuries on their +helpless, needy, and oppressed brother. Theirs was what is often +called <i>negative</i> character. What they <i>had done</i> is not described +in the indictment. Their <i>neglect</i> of duty, what they <i>had</i> NOT +<i>done</i>, was the ground of their "everlasting punishment." The +representative of their Judge, they had seen a hungered and they +gave him no meat, thirsty and they gave him no drink, a stranger and +they took him not in, naked and they clothed him not, sick and in +prison and they visited him not. In as much as they did NOT yield to +the claims of suffering humanity—did NOT exert themselves to bless +the meanest of the human family, they were driven away in their +wickedness. But what if the indictment had run thus: I was a +hungered and ye snatched away the crust which might have saved me +from starvation; I was thirsty and ye dashed to the ground the +"cup of cold water," which might have moistened my parched lips; I +was a stranger and ye drove me from the hovel which might have +sheltered me from the piercing wind; I was sick and ye scourged me +to my task; in prison and you sold me for my jail-fees—to what +depths of hell must not those who were convicted under such charges +be consigned! And what is the history of American slavery but one +long indictment, describing under ever-varying forms and hues just +such injuries! +</p> +<p> +Nor should it be forgotten, that those who incurred the displeasure +of their Judge, took far other views than he, of their own past +history. The charges which he brought against them, they heard with +great surprise. They were sure that they had never thus turned away +from his necessities. Indeed, when had they seen him thus subject to +poverty, insult, and oppression? Never. And as to that poor +friendless creature, whom they left unpitied and unhelped in the +hands of the oppressor, and whom their Judge now presented as his +own representative, they never once supposed, that <i>he</i> had any +claims on their compassion and assistance. Had they known, that he +was destined to so prominent a place at the final judgment, they +would have treated him as a human being, in despite of any social, +pecuniary, or political considerations. But neither their <i>negative +virtue</i> nor their <i>voluntary ignorance</i> could shield them from the +penal fire which their selfishness had kindled. +</p> +<p> +Now amidst the general maxims, the leading principles, the "great +commandments" of the gospel; amidst its comprehensive descriptions +and authorized tests of Christian character, we should take our +position in disposing of any particular allusions to such forms and +usages of the primitive churches as are supported by divine authority. +The latter must be interpreted and understood in the light of the +former. But how do the apologists and defenders of slavery proceed? +Placing themselves amidst the arrangements and usages which grew out +of the <i>corruptions</i> of Christianity, they make these the standard +by which the gospel is to be explained and understood! Some Recorder +or Justice. without the light of inquiry or the aid of a jury, +consigns the negro whom the kidnapper has dragged into his presence +to the horrors of slavery. As the poor wretch shrieks and faints, +Humanity shudders and demands why such atrocities are endured. Some +"priest" or "Levite," "passing by on the other side," quite +self-possessed and all complacent, reads in reply from his broad +phylactery, <i>Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon</i>! Yes, echoes the +negro-hating mob, made up of "gentlemen of property and standing" +together with equally gentle-men reeking from the gutter; <i>Yes—Paul +sent back Onesimus to Philemon</i>! And Humanity, brow-beaten, stunned +with noise and tumult, is pushed aside by the crowd! A fair specimen +this of the manner in which modern usages are made to interpret the +sacred Scriptures? +</p> +<p> +Of the particular passages in the New Testament on which the +apologists for slavery especially rely, the epistle to Philemon +first demands our attention. +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. This letter was written by the apostle Paul while a "prisoner of +Jesus Christ" at Rome. +</li> +<li> +2. Philemon was a benevolent and trustworthy member of the church at +Colosse, at whose house the disciples of Christ held their assemblies, +and who owed his conversion, under God, directly or indirectly to +the ministry of Paul. +</li> +<li> +3. Onesimus was the servant of Philemon; under a relation which it +is difficult with accuracy and certainty to define. His condition, +though servile, could not have been like that of an American slave; +as, in that case, however he might have "wronged" Philemon, he could +not also have "<i>owed him ought.</i>"[<a name="rnote12-31"></a><a href="#note12-31">31</a> The American slave is, according +to law, as much the property of his master as any other chattel; and +can no more "owe" his master than can a sheep or a horse. The basis +of all pecuniary obligations lies in some "value received." How can +"an article of merchandise" stand on this basis and sustain +commercial relations to its owner? There is no <i>person</i> to offer or +promise. <i>Personality is swallowed up in American slavery</i>! +</li> +<li> +4. How Onesimus found his way to Rome it is not easy to determine. +He and Philemon appear to have parted from each other on ill terms. +The general character of Onesimus, certainly, in his relation to +Philemon, had been far from attractive, and he seems to have left +him without repairing the wrongs he had done him or paying the debts +which he owed him. At Rome, by the blessing of God upon the +exertions of the apostle, he was brought to reflection and repentance. +</li> +<li> +5. In reviewing his history in the light of Christian truth, he +became painfully aware of the injuries he had inflicted on Philemon. +He longed for an opportunity for frank confession and full +restitution. Having, however, parted with Philemon on ill terms, he +knew not how to appear in his presence. Under such embarrassments, +he naturally sought sympathy and advice of Paul. <i>His</i> influence +upon Philemon, Onesimus knew must be powerful, especially as an +apostle. +</li> +<li> +6. A letter in behalf of Onesimus was therefore written by the +apostle to Philemon. After such salutations, benedictions, and +thanksgiving as the good character and useful life of Philemon +naturally drew from the heart of Paul, he proceeds to the object of +the letter. He admits that Onesimus had behaved ill in the service +of Philemon; not in running away, for how they had parted with each +other is not explained; but in being unprofitable and in refusing to +pay the debts [<a name="rnote12-32"></a><a href="#note12-32">32</a>] which +he had contracted. But his character had +undergone a radical change. Thenceforward fidelity and usefulness +would be his aim and mark his course. And as to any pecuniary +obligations which he had violated, the apostle authorized Philemon +to put them on his account.[<a name="rnote12-33"></a><a href="#note12-33">33</a>] Thus a way was fairly opened to the +heart of Philemon. And now what does the apostles ask? +</li> +<li> +7. He asks that Philemon would receive Onesimus, How? "Not as a +<i>servant</i>, but <i>above</i> a servant."[<a name="rnote12-34"></a><a href="#note12-34">34</a>] How much above? Philemon was +to receive him as "a son" of the apostle—"as a brother +beloved"—nay, if he counted Paul a partner, an equal, he was to receive +Onesimus as he would receive <i>the apostle himself</i>.[<a name="rnote12-35"></a><a href="#rnote12-35">35</a>] <i>So much</i> +above a servant was he to receive him! +</li> +<li> +8. But was not this request to be so interpreted and complied with +as to put Onesimus in the hands of Philemon as "an article of +merchandise," CARNALLY, while it raised him to the dignity of a +"brother beloved," SPIRITUALLY? In other words, might not Philemon +consistently with the request of Paul have reduced Onesimus to a +chattel, as A MAN, while he admitted him fraternally to his bosom, +as a CHRISTIAN? Such gibberish in an apostolic epistle! Never. As if, +however to guard against such folly, the natural product of mist and +moonshine, the apostle would have Onesimus raised above a servant to +the dignity of a brother beloved, "BOTH IN THE FLESH AND IN THE LORD;"[<a name="rnote12-36"></a><a href="#note12-36">36</a>] as a man and Christian, in all the relations, circumstances, and +responsibilities of life. +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-31"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-31">31</a>: Philemon, 18.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-32"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-32">32</a>: Verse 11, 18.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-33"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-33">33</a>: Verse 18.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-34"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-34">34</a>: Verse 16.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-35"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-35">35</a>: Verse 10, 16, 17.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-36"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-36">36</a>: Verse 16.] +</p> +<p> +It is easy now with definiteness and certainty to determine in what +sense the apostle in such connections uses the word "<i>brother</i>". It +describes a relation inconsistent with and opposite to the <i>servile</i>. +It is "NOT" the relation of a "SERVANT." It elevates its subject +"above" the servile condition. It raises him to full equality with +the master, to the same equality, on which Paul and Philemon stood +side by side as brothers; and this, not in some vague, undefined, +spiritual sense, affecting the soul and leaving the body in bonds, +but in every way, "both in the FLESH and in the Lord." This matter +deserves particular and earnest attention. It sheds a strong light +on other lessons of apostolic instruction. +</p> +</li> +<li> +9. It is greatly to our purpose, moreover, to observe that the +apostle clearly defines the <i>moral character</i> of his request. It was +fit, proper, right, suited to the nature and relation of things—a +thing which <i>ought</i> to be done.[<a name="rnote12-37"></a><a href="#note12-37">37</a>] On this account, he might have +urged it upon Philemon in the form of an <i>injunction</i>, on apostolic +authority and with great boldness.[<a name="rnote12-38"></a><a href="#note12-38">37</a>] <i>The very nature</i> of the +request made it obligatory on Philemon. He was sacredly bound, out +of regard to the fitness of things, to admit Onesimus to full +equality with himself—to treat him as a brother both in the Lord +and as having flesh—as a fellow man. Thus were the inalienable +rights and birthright privileges of Onesimus, as a member of the +human family, defined and protected by apostolic authority. +</li> +<li> +10. The apostle preferred a request instead of imposing a command, +on the ground of CHARITY.[<a name="rnote12-39"></a><a href="#note12-39">39</a>] He would give Philemon an opportunity +of discharging his obligations under the impulse of love. To this +impulse, he was confident Philemon would promptly and fully yield. +How could he do otherwise? The thing itself was right. The request +respecting it came from a benefactor, to whom, under God, he was +under the highest obligations.[<a name="rnote12-40"></a><a href="#note12-40">40</a>] That benefactor, now an old man, +and in the hands of persecutors, manifested a deep and tender +interest in the matter and had the strongest persuasion that +Philemon was more ready to grant than himself to entreat. The result, +as he was soon to visit Collosse, and had commissioned Philemon to +prepare a lodging for him, must come under the eye of the apostle. +The request was so manifestly reasonable and obligatory, that the +apostle, after all, described a compliance with it, by the strong +word "<i>obedience</i>."[<a name="rnote12-41"></a><a href="#note12-41">41</a>] +</li> +</ul> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-37"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-37">37</a>: Verse 8. To [Greek: anaekon]. See Robinson's New +Testament Lexicon; "<i>it is fit, proper, becoming, it ought</i>." In +what sense King James' translators used the word "convenient" any +one may see who will read Rom. i. 28 and Eph. v. 3, 4.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-38"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-38">38</a>: Verse 8.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-39"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-39">39</a>: Verse 9—[Greek: dia taen agapaen]] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-40"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-40">40</a>: Verse 19.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-41"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-41">41</a>: Verse 21.] +</p> +<p> +Now, how must all this have been understood by the church at +Colosse?—a church, doubtless, made up of such materials as the +church at Corinth, that is, of members chiefly from the humblest walks +of life. Many of them had probably felt the degradation and tasted +the bitterness of the servile condition. Would they have been likely +to interpret the apostle's letter under the bias of feelings friendly +to slavery!—And put the slaveholder's construction on its +contents! Would their past experience or present sufferings—for +doubtless some of them were still "under the yoke"—have +suggested to their thoughts such glosses as some of our theological +professors venture to put upon the words of the apostle! Far +otherwise. The Spirit of the Lord was there, and the epistle was read +in the light of "<i>liberty</i>." It contained the principles of holy +freedom, faithfully and affectionately applied. This must have made +it precious in the eyes of such men "of low degree" as were most of +the believers, and welcome to a place in the sacred canon. There let +it remain as a luminous and powerful defence of the cause of +emancipation! +</p> +<p> +But what saith Professor Stuart? "If any one doubts, let him take +the case of Paul's sending Onesimus back to Philemon, with an apology +for his running away, and sending him back to be his servant for life."[<a name="rnote12-42"></a><a href="#note12-42">42</a>] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-42"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-42">42</a>: See his letter to Dr. Fisk, supra pp. 7, 8] +</p> +<p> +"Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon." By what process? Did the +apostle, a prisoner at Rome, seize upon the fugitive, and drag him +before some heartless and perfidious "Judge," for authority to send +him back to Colosse? Did he hurry his victim away from the presence +of the fat and supple magistrate, to be driven under chains and the +lash to the field of unrequited toil, whence he had escaped? Had the +apostle been like some teachers in the American churches, he might, +as a professor of sacred literature in one of our seminaries, or a +preacher of the gospel to the rich in some of our cities, have consented +thus to subserve the "peculiar" interests of a dear slaveholding brother. +But the venerable champion of truth and freedom was himself under +bonds in the imperial city, waiting for the crown of martyrdom. He +wrote a letter to the church a Colosse, which was accustomed to meet +at the house of Philemon, and another letter to that magnanimous +disciple, and sent them by the hand of Onesimus. So much for <i>the way</i> +in which Onesimus was sent back to his master. +</p> +<p> +A slave escapes from a patriarch in Georgia, and seeks a refuge in +the parish of the Connecticut doctor of Divinity, who once gave +public notice that he saw no reason for caring for the servitude of +his fellow men.[<a name="rnote12-43"></a><a href="#note12-43">43</a>] Under his influence, Caesar becomes a Christian +convert. Burning with love for the son whom he hath begotten in the +gospel, our doctor resolves to send him back to his master. +Accordingly, he writes a letter, gives it to Caesar, and bids him +return, staff in hand, to the "corner-stone of our republican +institutions." Now, what would my Caesar do, who had ever felt a +link of slavery's chain? As he left his <i>spiritual father</i>, should +we be surprised to hear him say to himself, What, return of my own +accord to the man who, with the hand of a robber, plucked me from my +mother's bosom!—for whom I have been so often drenched in the sweat +of unrequited toil!—whose violence so often cut my flesh and +scarred my limbs!—who shut out every ray of light from my mind!—who +laid claim to those honors to which my Creator and Redeemer +only are entitled! And for what am I to return? To be cursed, and +smitten, and sold! To be tempted, and torn, and destroyed! I cannot +thus throw myself away—thus rush upon my own destruction. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-43"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-43">43</a>: "Why should I care?"] +</p> +<p> +Who ever heard of the voluntary return of a fugitive from American +oppression? Do you think that the doctor and his friends could +persuade one to carry a letter to the patriarch from whom he had +escaped? And must we believe this of Onesimus? +</p> +<p> +"Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon." On what occasion?—"If," +writes the apostle, "he hath wronged thee, or oweth the aught, put +that on my account." Alive to the claims of duty, Onesimus would +"restore" whatever he "had taken away." He would honestly pay his +debts. This resolution the apostle warmly approved. He was ready, at +whatever expense, to help his young disciple in carrying it into +full effect. Of this he assured Philemon, in language the most +explicit and emphatic. Here we find one reason for the conduct of +Paul in sending Onesimus to Philemon. +</p> +<p> +If a fugitive slave of the Rev. Dr. Smylie, of Mississippi, should +return to him with a letter from a doctor of divinity in New York, +containing such an assurance, how would the reverend slaveholder +dispose of it? What, he exclaims, have we here? "If Cato has not +been upright in his pecuniary intercourse with you—if he owes you +any thing—put that on my account." What ignorance of southern +institutions! What mockery, to talk of pecuniary intercourse between +a slave and his master! <i>The slave himself, with all he is and has, +is an article of merchandise</i>. What can <i>he</i> owe his master? A +rustic may lay a wager with his mule, and give the creature the peck +of oats which he has permitted it to win. But who, in sober earnest, +would call this a pecuniary transaction? +</p> +<p> +"TO BE HIS SERVANT FOR LIFE!" From what part of the epistle could +the expositor have evolved a thought so soothing to tyrants—so +revolting to every man who loves his own nature? From this? +"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldst +receive him for ever." Receive him how? <i>As a servant</i>, exclaims our +commentator. But what wrote the apostle? "NOT <i>now as a servant, but +above a servant</i>, a brother beloved, especially to me, but how much +more unto thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord." Who authorized +the professor to bereave the word "<i>not</i>" of its negative influence? +According to Paul, Philemon was to receive Onesimus "<i>not</i> as a +servant;"—according to Stuart, he was to receive him "<i>as a servant</i>!" +If the professor will apply the same rules of exposition to the +writings of the abolitionists, all difference between him and them +must in his view presently vanish away. The harmonizing process +would be equally simple and effectual. He has only to understand +them as affirming what they deny, and as denying what they affirm. +</p> +<p> +Suppose that Professor Stuart had a son residing, at the South. His +slave, having stolen money of his master, effected his escape. He +fled to Andover, to find a refuge among the "sons of the prophets." +There he finds his way to Professor Stuart's house, and offers to +render any service which the professor, dangerously ill "of a typhus +fever," might require. He is soon found to be a most active, skilful, +faithful nurse. He spares no pains, night and day, to make himself +useful to the venerable sufferer. He anticipates every want. In the +most delicate and tender manner, he tries to sooth every pain. He +fastens himself strongly on the heart of the reverend object of his +care. Touched with the heavenly spirit, the meek demeanor, the +submissive frame, which the sick bed exhibits, Archy becomes a +Christian. A new bond now ties him and his convalescent teacher +together. As soon as he is able to write, the professor sends Archy +with the following letter to the South, to Isaac Stuart, Esq.:— +</p> +<p> +"MY DEAR SON,—With a hand enfeebled by a distressing and dangerous +illness, from which I am slowly recovering, I address you on a +subject which lies very near my heart. I have a request to urge, +which our mutual relation to each other, and your strong obligations +to me, will, I cannot doubt, make you eager fully to grant. I say a +request, though the thing I ask is, in its very nature and on the +principles of the gospel, obligatory upon you. I might, therefore, +boldly demand, what I earnestly entreat. But I know how generous, +magnanimous, and Christ-like you are, and how readily you will "do +even more than I say"—I, your own father, an old man, almost +exhausted with multiplied exertions for the benefit of my family and +my country and now just rising, emaciated and broken, from the brink +of the grave. I write in behalf of Archy, whom I regard with the +affection of a father, and whom, indeed, 'I have forgotten in my +sickness.' Gladly would I have retained him, to be <i>an Isaac</i> to me; +for how often did not his soothing voice, and skilful hand, and +unwearied attention to my wants remind me of you! But I chose to +give you an opportunity of manifesting, voluntarily, the goodness of +your heart; as, if I had retained him with me, you might seem to +have been forced to grant what you will gratefully bestow. His +temporary absence from you may have opened the way for his permanent +continuance with you. Not now as a slave. Heaven forbid! But +superior to a slave. Superior, did I say? Take him to your bosom, as +a beloved brother; for I own him as a son, and regard him as such, +in all the relations of life, both as a man and a Christian. +'Receive him as myself.' And that nothing may hinder you from +complying with my request at once, I hereby promise, without +adverting to your many and great obligations to me, to pay you every +cent which he took from your drawer. Any preparation which my +comfort with you may require, you will make without much delay, when +you learn, that I intend, as soon as I shall be able 'to perform the +journey,' to make you a visit." +</p> +<p> +And what if Dr. Baxter, in giving an account of this letter should +publicly declare that Professor Stuart, of Andover regarded +slaveholding as lawful; for that "he had sent Archy back to his son +Isaac, with an apology for his running away" to be held in perpetual +slavery? With what propriety might not the professor exclaim: False, +every syllable false. I sent him back, NOT TO BE HELD AS A SLAVE, +<i>but recognized as a dear brother, in all respects, under every +relation, civil and ecclesiastical</i>. I bade my son receive <i>Archy as +myself</i>. If this was not equivalent to a requisition to set him +fully and most honorably free, and that, too, on the ground of +natural obligation and Christian principle, then I know not how to +frame such a requisition. +</p> +<p> +I am well aware that my supposition is by no means strong enough +fully to illustrate the case to which it is applied. Professor Stuart +lacks apostolical authority. Isaac Stuart is not a leading member of +a church consisting, as the early churches chiefly consisted, of +what the world regard as the dregs of society—"the offscouring of +all things." Nor was slavery at Colosse, it seems, supported by such +barbarous usages, such horrid laws as disgrace the South. +</p> +<p> +But it is time to turn to another passage which, in its bearing on +the subject in hand, is, in our view, as well as in the view of +Dr. Fisk. and Prof. Stuart, in the highest degree authoritative and +instructive. "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their +own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his +doctrines 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." [<a name="rnote12-44"></a><a href="#note12-44">44</a>] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-44"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-44">44</a>: 1 Tim. vi. 1. 2. The following exposition of this +passage is from the pen of ELIZUR WRIGHT, JR.:— +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"This word [Greek: antilambanesthai] in our humble opinion, has been +so unfairly used by the commentators, that we feel constrained to +take its part. Our excellent translators, in rendering the clause +'partakers of the benefit,' evidently lost sight of the component +preposition, which expresses the <i>opposition of reciprocity</i>, rather +than the <i>connection of participation</i>. They have given it exactly +the sense of [Greek: metalambanein], (2 Tim. ii. 6.) Had the apostle +intended such a sense, he would have used the latter verb, or one of +the more common words, [Greek: metochoi, koinonomtes, &c.] (See Heb. +iii. 1, and 1 Tim. v. 22, where the latter word is used in the clause, +'neither be partaker of other men's sins.' Had the verb in our text +been used, it might have been rendered, 'neither be the <i>part-taker</i> +of other men's sins.') The primary sense of [Greek: antilambans] is +<i>to take in return</i>—<i>to take instead of, &c.</i> Hence, in the middle +with the genitive, it signifies <i>assist</i>, or <i>do one's part towards</i> +the person or thing expressed by that genitive. In this sense only +is the word used in the New Testament,—(See Luke i. 54, and Acts, xx. +35.) If this be true, the word [Greek: emsgesai] cannot signify the +benefit conferred by the gospel, as our common version would make it, +but the <i>well doing</i> of the servants, who should continue to serve +their believing masters, while they were no longer under the <i>yoke</i> +of compulsion. This word is used elsewhere in the New Testament but +once (Acts. iv. 3.) in relation to the '<i>good deed</i>' done to the +impotent man. The plain import of the clause, unmystified by the +commentators, is, that beleiving masters would not fail to <i>do their part +towards</i>, or encouraged by suitable returns, the <i>free</i> service of +those who had once been under the <i>yoke</i>."] +</p> +</blockquote> +<ul> +<li> +1. The apostle addresses himself here to two classes of servants, +with instructions to each respectively appropriate. Both the one +class and the other, in Professor Stuart's eye, were <i>slaves</i>. This +he assumes, and thus begs the very question in dispute. The term +servant is <i>generic</i>, as used by the sacred writers. It comprehends +all the various offices which men discharge for the benefit of each +other, however honorable, or however menial; from that of an apostle[<a name="rnote12-45"></a><a href="#note12-45">45</a>] opening the path to heaven, to that of washing "one another's +feet."[<a name="rnote12-46"></a><a href="#note12-46">46</a>] A general term it is, comprehending every office which +belongs to human relations and Christian character.[<a name="rnote12-47"></a><a href="#note12-47">47</a>] +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-45"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-45">45</a>: Cor. iv. 5.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-46"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-46">46</a>: John, xiii, 14.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-47"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-47">47</a>: Mat, xx, 26-28.] +</p> +<p> +A leading signification gives us the <i>manual laborer</i>, to whom, in +the division of labor, muscular exertion was allotted. As in his +exertions the bodily powers are especially employed—such powers as +belong to man in common with mere animals—his sphere has generally +been considered low and humble. And as intellectual power is +superior to bodily, the manual laborer has always been exposed in +very numerous ways and in various degrees to oppression. Cunning, +intrigue, the oily tongue, have, through extended and powerful +conspiracies, brought the resources of society under the control of +the few, who stood aloof from his homely toil. Hence his dependence +upon them. Hence the multiplied injuries which have fallen so +heavily upon him. Hence the reduction of his wages from one degree +to another, till at length, in the case of millions, fraud and +violence strip him of his all, blot his name from the record of +<i>mankind</i>, and, putting a yoke upon his neck, drive him away +to toil among the cattle. <i>Here you find the slave</i>. To reduce +the servant to his condition, requires abuses altogether +monstrous—injuries reaching the very vitals of man—stabs upon the +very heart of humanity. Now, what right has Professor Stuart to make +the word "<i>servants</i>," comprehending, even as manual laborers, so +many and such various meanings, signify "<i>slaves</i>," especially where +different classes are concerned? Such a right he could never have +derived from humanity, or philosophy, or hermeneutics. It is his by +sympathy with the oppressor? +</p> +<p> +Yes, different classes. This is implied in the term "as many,"[<a name="rnote12-48"></a><a href="#note12-48">48</a>] which sets apart the class now to be addressed. From these he +proceeds to others, who are introduced by a particle,[<a name="rnote12-49"></a><a href="#note12-49">49</a>] whose +natural meaning indicates the presence of another and a different +subject. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-48"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-48">48</a>: [Greek: Ochli] See Passow's Schneider.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-49"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-49">49</a>: [Greek: Dd.] See Passow.] +</p> +</li> +<li> +2. The first class are described as "<i>under the yoke</i>"—a yoke from +which they were, according to the apostle, to make their escape if +possible.[<a name="rnote12-50"></a><a href="#note12-50">50</a>] If not, they must in every way regard the master with +respect—bowing to his authority, working his will, subserving his +interests so far as might be consistent with Christian character.[<a name="rnote12-51"></a><a href="#note12-51">51</a>] And this, to prevent blasphemy—to prevent the pagan master from +heaping profane reproaches upon the name of God and the doctrines of +the gospel. They should beware of rousing his passions, which, as his +helpless victims, they might be unable to allay or withstand. +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-50"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-50">50</a>: See 1 Cor. vii, +21—[Greek: All' ei kai dunasai eleuphoros genesthai].] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-51"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-51">51</a>: See 1 Cor. vii, +23—[Greek: Mae ginesthe doulos anthroton].] +</p> +<p> +But all the servants whom the apostle addressed were not "<i>under the +yoke</i>"[<a name="rnote12-52"></a><a href="#note12-52">52</a>]—an instrument appropriate to cattle and to slaves. These +he distinguishes from another class, who instead of a "yoke"—the +badge of a slave—had "<i>believing masters</i>." <i>To have a "believing +master," then, was equivalent to freedom from "the yoke</i>." These +servants were exhorted not <i>to despise</i> their masters. What need of +such an exhortation, if their masters had been slaveholders, holding +them as property, wielding them as mere instruments, disposing of +them as "articles of merchandise." But this was not consistent with +believing. Faith, "breaking every yoke," united master and servants +in the bonds of brotherhood. Brethren they were, joined in a +relation which, excluding the yoke,[<a name="rnote12-53"></a><a href="#note12-53">53</a>] placed them side by side on +the ground of equality, where, each in his appropriate sphere, they +might exert themselves freely and usefully, to the mutual benefit of +each other. Here, servants might need to be cautioned against getting +above their appropriate business, putting on airs, despising their +masters, and thus declining or neglecting their service.[<a name="rnote12-54"></a><a href="#note12-54">54</a>] +Instead of this, they should be, as emancipated slaves often +have been, [<a name="rnote12-55"></a><a href="#note12-55">55</a>] models of enterprise, fidelity, activity, and +usefulness—especially as their masters were "worthy of their +confidence and love," their helpers in this well-doing. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-52"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-52">52</a>: See Lev. xxvi. 13; Isa lviii. 6, 9.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-53"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-53">53</a>53: Supra p. 44.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-54"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-54">54</a>54: See Mat. vi. 24.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-55"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-55">55</a>: Those, for instance, set free by that "believing master" James G. Birney.] +</p> +</li> +</ul> +<p> +Such, then, is the relation between those who, in the view of +Professor Stuart, were Christian masters and Christian slaves[<a name="rnote12-56"></a><a href="#note12-56">56</a>]—the relation of "brethren," which, excluding "the yoke," and of +course conferring freedom, placed them side by side on the common +ground of mutual service, both retaining, for convenience sake, the +one while giving and the other while receiving employment, the +correlative name, <i>as is usual in such cases</i>, under which they had +been known. Such was the instruction which Timothy was required, as +a Christian minister, to give. Was it friendly to slaveholding? +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-56"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-56">56</a>: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra, p. 7.] +</p> +<p> +And on what ground, according to the Princeton professor, did these +masters and these servants stand in their relation to each other? On +that <i>of a "perfect religious equality."</i>[<a name="rnote12-57"></a><a href="#note12-57">57</a>] In all the relations, +duties, and privileges—in all the objects, interests, and prospects, +which belong to the province of Christianity, servants were as free +as their master. The powers of the one, were allowed as wide a range +and as free an exercise, with as warm encouragements, as active aids, +and as high results, as the other. Here, the relation of a servant +to his master imposed no restrictions, involved no embarrassments, +occasioned no injury. All this, clearly and certainly, is implied in +"<i>perfect religious equality</i>," which the Princeton professor +accords to servants in relation to their master. Might the <i>master</i>, +then, in order more fully to attain the great ends for which he was +created and redeemed, freely exert himself to increase his +acquaintance with his own powers, and relations, and resources—with +his prospects, opportunities, and advantages? So might his <i>servants</i>. +Was <i>he</i> at liberty to "study to approve himself to God," to submit +to his will and bow to his authority, as the sole standard of +affection and exertion? So were <i>they</i>. Was <i>he</i> at liberty to +sanctify the Sabbath, and frequent the "solemn assembly?" So were +<i>they</i>. Was <i>he</i> at liberty so to honor the filial, conjugal, and +paternal relations, as to find in them that spring of activity and +that source of enjoyment, which they are capable of yielding? So +were <i>they</i>. In every department of interest and exertion, they +might use their capacities, and wield their powers, and improve +their opportunities, and employ their resources, as freely as he, in +glorifying God, in blessing mankind, and in laying up imperishable +treasures for themselves! Give perfect religious equality to the +American slave, and the most eager abolitionist must be satisfied. +Such equality would, like the breath of the Almighty, dissolve the +last link of the chain of servitude. Dare those who, for the benefit +of slavery, have given so wide and active a circulation to the +Pittsburg pamphlet, make the experiment? +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-57"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-57">57</a>: Pittsburg Pamphlet, p. 9.] +</p> +<p> +In the epistle to the Colossians, the following passage deserves +earnest attention:—"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: and whatsoever ye do, do it +heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing, that of the +Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance; for ye serve +the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong +which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.—Masters, +give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that +ye have a Master in heaven."[<a name="rnote12-58"></a><a href="#note12-58">58</a>] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-58"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-58">58</a>: Col. iii. 22 to iv. 1.] +</p> +<p> +Here it is natural to remark— +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. That in maintaining the relation, which mutually united them, +both masters and servants were to act in conformity with the +principles of the divine government. Whatever <i>they</i> did, servants +were to do in hearty obedience to the Lord, by whose authority they +were to be controlled and by whose hand they were to be rewarded. To +the same Lord, and according to the same law, was the <i>master</i> to +hold himself responsible. <i>Both the one and the other were of course +equally at liberty and alike required to study and apply the standard, +by which they were to be governed and judged.</i> +</li> +<li> +2. The basis of the government under which they thus were placed, +was <i>righteousness</i>—strict, stern, impartial. Nothing here of bias +or antipathy. Birth, wealth, station,—the dust of the balance not +so light! Both master and servants were hastening to a tribunal, +where nothing of "respect of persons" could be feared or hoped for. +There the wrong-doer, whoever he might be, and whether from the top +or bottom of society, must be dealt with according to his deservings. +</li> +<li> +3. Under this government, servants were to be universally and +heartily obedient; and both in the presence and absence of the master, +faithfully to discharge their obligations. The master on his part, +in his relations to the servants, was to make JUSTICE AND EQUALITY +the <i>standard of his conduct</i>. Under the authority of such +instructions, slavery falls discountenanced, condemned, abhorred. It +is flagrantly at war with the government of God, consists in +"respect of persons" the most shameless and outrageous, treads +justice and equality under foot, and in its natural tendency and +practical effects is nothing else than a system of wrong-doing. What +have <i>they</i> to do with the just and the equal who in their "respect of +persons" proceed to such a pitch as to treat one brother as a thing +because he is a servant, and place him, without the least regard to +his welfare here, or his prospects hereafter, absolutely at the +disposal of another brother, under the name of master, in the relation +of owner to property? Justice and equality on the one hand, and the +chattel principle on the other, are naturally subversive of each +other—proof clear and decisive that the correlates, masters and +servants, cannot here be rendered slaves and owners, without the +grossest absurdity and the greatest violence. +</li> +<li> +"Servants, be obedient to them that are <i>your</i> 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; with good +will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that +whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the +Lord, whether <i>he be</i> bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same +things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master +also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."[<a name="rnote12-59"></a><a href="#note12-59">59</a>] +</li> +</ul> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-59"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-59">59</a>: Ephesians, vi. 5-9.] +</p> +<p> +Without repeating here what has already been offered in exposition +of kindred passages, it may be sufficient to say:— +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. That the relation of the servants here addressed, to their master, +was adapted to make him the object of their heart-felt attachment. +Otherwise they could not have been required to render him an +affectionate service. +</li> +<li> +2. This relation demanded a perfect reciprocity of benefits. It had +its soul in <i>good-will</i>, mutually cherished and properly expressed. +Hence "THE SAME THINGS," the same in principle, the same in substance, +the same in their mutual bearing upon the welfare of the master and +the servants, was to be rendered back and forth by the one and the +other. It was clearly the relation of mutual service. Do we here +find the chattel principle? +</li> +<li> +3. Of course, the servants might not be slack, time-serving, +unfaithful. Of course, the master must "FORBEAR THREATENING." Slavery +without threatening! Impossible. Wherever maintained, it is of +necessity a <i>system of threatening</i>, injecting into the bosom of the +slave such terrors, as never cease for a moment to haunt and torment +him. Take from the chattel principle the support, which it derives +from "threatening," and you annihilate it at once and forever. +</li> +<li> +4. This relation was to be maintained in accordance with the +principles of the divine government, where "RESPECT OF PERSONS" +could not be admitted. It was, therefore, totally inconsistent with, +and submissive of, the chattel principle, which in American slavery +is developed in a system of "respect of persons," equally gross and +hurtful. No Abolitionist, however eager and determined in his +opposition to slavery, could ask for more than these precepts, once +obeyed, would be sure to confer. +</li> +</ul> +<p> +"The relation of slavery," according to Professor Stuart, is recognized +in "the precepts of the New Testament," as one which "may still +exist without violating the Christian faith or the church."[<a name="rnote12-60"></a><a href="#note12-60">60</a>] +Slavery and the chattel principle! So our professor thinks; +otherwise his reference has nothing to do with the subject—with the +slavery which the abolitionist, whom he derides, stands opposed to. +How gross and hurtful is the mistake into which he allows himself to +fall. The relation recognized in the precepts of the New Testament +had its basis and support in "justice and equality;" the very +opposite of the chattel principle; a relation which may exist as +long as justice and equality remain, and thus escape the destruction +to which, in the view of Professor Stuart, slavery is doomed. The +description of Paul obliterates every feature of American slavery, +raising the servant to equality with his master, and placing his +rights under the protection of justice; yet the eye of Professor +Stuart can see nothing in his master and servant but a slave and his +owner. With this relation he is so thoroughly possessed, that, like +an evil angel, it haunts him even when he enters the temple of +justice! +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-60"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-60">60</a>: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra p. 7.] +</p> +<p> +"It is remarkable," saith the Princeton professor, "that there is +not even an exhortation" in the writings of the apostles "to masters +to liberate their slaves, much less is it urged as an imperative and +immediate duty."[<a name="rnote12-61"></a><a href="#note12-61">61</a>] It would be remarkable, indeed, if they were +chargeable with a defect so great and glaring. And so they have +nothing to say upon the subject? <i>That</i> not even the Princeton +professor has the assurance to affirm. He admits that KINDNESS, MERCY, +AND JUSTICE, were enjoined with a <i>distinct reference to the +government of God</i>.[<a name="rnote12-62"></a><a href="#note12-62">62</a>] "Without respect of persons," they were to be +God-like in doing justice. They were to act the part of kind and +merciful "brethren." And whither would this lead them? Could they +stop short of restoring to every man his natural, inalienable rights?—of +doing what they could to redress the wrongs, sooth the sorrows, +improve the character, and raise the condition of the degraded and +oppressed? Especially, if oppressed and degraded by any agency of +theirs. Could it be kind, merciful, or just to keep the chains of +slavery on their helpless, unoffending brother? Would this be to +honor the Golden Rule, or obey the second great command of "their +Master in Heaven?" Could the apostles have subserved the cause of +freedom more directly, intelligibly, and effectually, than <i>to +enjoin the principles, and sentiments, and habits, in which +freedom consists—constituting its living root and fruitful germ</i>! +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-61"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-61">61</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-62"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-62">62</a>: The same, p. 10.] +</p> +<p> +The Princeton professor himself, in the very paper which the South +has so warmly welcomed and so loudly applauded as a scriptural +defence of "the peculiar institution," maintains, that the "GENERAL +PRINCIPLES OF THE GOSPEL <i>have</i> DESTROYED SLAVERY <i>throughout the +greater part of Christendom</i>"[<a name="rnote12-63"></a><a href="#note12-63">63</a>]—"THAT CHRISTIANITY HAS ABOLISHED +BOTH POLITICAL AND DOMESTIC BONDAGE WHEREVER IT HAS HAD FREE SCOPE—<i>that +it</i> ENJOINS <i>a fair compensation for labor; insists on the +mental and intellectual improvement of</i> ALL <i>classes of men; condemns</i> +ALL <i>infractions of marital or parental rights; requires, in short, +not only that</i> FREE SCOPE <i>should be allowed to human improvement, +but that</i> ALL SUITABLE MEANS <i>should be employed for the attainment +of that end</i>."[<a name="rnote12-64"></a><a href="#note12-64">64</a>] It is indeed "remarkable," that while neither +Christ nor his apostles ever gave "an exhortation to masters to +liberate their slaves," they enjoined such "general principles as +have destroyed domestic slavery throughout the greater part of +Christendom;" that while Christianity forbears "to urge" +emancipation "as an imperative and immediate duty," it throws a +barrier, heaven high, around every domestic circle; protects all the +rights of the husband and the father; gives every laborer a fair +compensation; and makes the moral and intellectual improvement of +all classes, with free scope and all suitable means, the object +of its tender solicitude and high authority. This is not only +"remarkable," but inexplicable. Yes and no—hot and cold, in one and +the same breath! And yet these things stand prominent in what is +reckoned an acute, ingenious, effective defence of slavery! +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-63"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-63">63</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 18, 19.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-64"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-64">64</a>: The same, p. 31.] +</p> +<p> +In his letter to the Corinthian church, the apostle Paul furnishes +another lesson of instruction, expressive of his views and feelings +on the subject of slavery. "Let every man abide in the same calling +wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for +it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 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. Ye are +bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men."[<a name="rnote12-65"></a><a href="#note12-65">65</a>] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-65"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-65">65</a>: 1 Cor. vii. 20-23.] +</p> +<p> +In explaining and applying this passage, it is proper to suggest: +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. That it <i>could</i> not have been the object of the apostle to bind the +Corinthian converts to the stations and employments in which the +gospel found them. For he exhorts some of them to escape, if possible, +from their present condition. In the servile state, "under the yoke," +they ought not to remain unless impelled by stern necessity. +"If thou canst be free, use it rather." If they ought to prefer +freedom to bondage and to exert themselves to escape from the latter +for the sake of the former, could their master consistently with the +claims and spirit of the gospel have hindered or discouraged them in +so doing? Their "brother" could <i>he</i> be, who kept "the yoke" upon +their neck, which the apostle would have them shake off if possible? +And had such masters been members of the Corinthian church, what +inferences must they have drawn from this exhortation to their +servants? That the apostle regarded slavery as a Christian +institution?—or could look complacently on any efforts to introduce +or maintain it in the church? Could they have expected less from him +than a stern rebuke, if they refused to exert themselves in the +cause of freedom? +</li> +<li> +2. But while they were to use their freedom, if they could obtain it, +they should not, even on such a subject, give themselves up to +ceaseless anxiety. "The Lord was no respecter of persons." They need +not fear, that the "low estate," to which they had been wickedly +reduced, would prevent them from enjoying the gifts of his hand or +the light of his countenance. <i>He</i> would respect their rights, sooth +their sorrows, and pour upon their hearts, and cherish there, the +spirit of liberty. "For he that is called in the Lord, being a +servant, is the Lord's freeman." In <i>him</i>, therefore, should they +cheerfully confide. +</li> +<li> +3. The apostle, however, forbids them so to acquiesce in the servile +relation, as to act inconsistently with their Christian obligations. +To their Savior they belonged. By his blood they had been purchased. +It should be their great object, therefore, to render <i>Him</i> a hearty +and effective service. They should permit no man, whoever he might be, +to thrust in himself between them and their Redeemer. "<i>Ye are +bought with a price</i>; BE NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN." +</li> +</ul> +<p> +With his eye upon the passage just quoted and explained, the +Princeton professor asserts that "Paul represents this relation"—the +relation of slavery—"as of comparatively little account."[<a name="rnote12-66"></a><a href="#note12-66">66</a>] And this he applies—otherwise it is nothing to his purpose—to +<i>American slavery</i>. Does he then regard it as a small matter, a +mere trifle, to be thrown under the slave-laws of this republic, +grimly and fiercely excluding their victim from almost every means +of improvement, and field of usefulness, and source of comfort; and +making him, body and substance, with his wife and babes, "the +servant of men?" Could such a relation be acquiesced in consistently +with the instructions of the apostle? +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-66"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-66">66</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, p.10.] +</p> +<p> +To the Princeton professor we commend a practical trial of the +bearing of the passage in hand upon American slavery. His regard for +the unity and prosperity of the ecclesiastical organizations, which +in various forms and under different names, unite the southern with +the northern churches, will make the experiment grateful to his +feelings. Let him, then, as soon as his convenience will permit, +proceed to Georgia. No religious teacher[<a name="rnote12-67"></a><a href="#note12-67">67</a>] from any free State, can +be likely to receive so general and so warm a welcome there. To +allay the heat, which the doctrines and movements of the +abolitionists have occasioned in the southern mind, let him with as +much despatch as possible, collect, as he goes from place to place, +masters and their slaves. Now let all men, whom it may concern, see +and own that slavery is a Christian institution! With his Bible in his +hand and his eye upon the passage in question, he addresses himself +to the task of instructing the slaves around him. Let not your hearts, +my brethren, be overcharged with sorrow, or eaten up with anxiety. Your +servile condition cannot deprive you of the fatherly regards of Him +"who is no respecter of persons." Freedom you ought, indeed, to +prefer. If you can escape from "the yoke," throw it off. In the mean +time rejoice that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;" +that the gospel places slaves "on a perfect religious equality" with +their master; so that every Christian is "the Lord's freeman." And, +for your encouragement, remember that "Christianity has abolished +both political and domestic servitude wherever it has had free scope. +It enjoins a fair compensation for labor; it insists on the moral and +intellectual improvement of all classes of men; it condemns all +infractions of marital or parental rights; in short it requires not +only that free scope be allowed to human improvement, but that all +suitable means should be employed for the attainment of that end."[<a name="rnote12-68"></a><a href="#note12-68">68</a>] Let your lives, then, be honorable to your relations to your +Savior. He bought you with his own blood; and is entitled to your +warmest love and most effective service. "Be not ye the servants of +men." Let no human arrangements prevent you, as citizens of the +kingdom of heaven, from making the most of your powers and +opportunities. Would such an effort, generally and heartily made, +allay excitement at the South, and quench the flames of discord, +every day rising higher and waxing hotter, in almost every part of +the republic, and cement "the Union?" +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-67"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-67">67</a>: Rev. Mr. Savage, of Utica, New York, had, not very +long ago, a free conversation with a gentleman of high standing in +the literary and religious world from a slaveholding State, where +the "peculiar institution" is cherished with great warmth and +maintained with iron rigor. By him, Mr. Savage was assured, that the +Princeton professor had, through the Pittsburg pamphlet, contributed +most powerfully and effectually to bring the "whole South" under the +persuasion, <i>that slaveholding is in itself right</i>—a system <i>to +which the Bible gives countenance and support</i>. +</p> +<p> +In an extract from an article in the Southern Christian Sentinel, a +new Presbyterian paper established in Charleston, South Carolina, +and inserted in the Christian Journal for March 21, 1839, we find +the following paragraphs from the pen of Rev. C.W. Howard, and, +according to Mr. Chester, ably and freely endorsed by the editor. +"There is scarcely any diversity of sentiment at the North upon this +subject. The great mass of the people, believing slavery to be sinful, +are clearly of the opinion that, as a system, it should be abolished +throughout this land and throughout the world. They differ as to the +time and mode of abolition. The abolitionists consistently argue, +that whatever is sinful should be instantly abandoned. The others, +<i>by a strange sort of reasoning for Christian men</i>, contend that +though slavery is sinful, <i>yet it may be allowed to exist until it +shall he expedient to abolish it</i>; or, if, in many cases, this +reasoning might be translated into plain English, the sense would be, +both in Church and State, <i>slavery, though sinful, may be allowed to +exist until our interest will suffer us to say that it must be +abolished</i>. This is not slander; it is simply a plain way of stating +a plain truth. It does seem the evident duty of every man to become +an abolitionist, who believes slavery to be sinful, for the Bible +allows no tampering with sin. +</p> +<p> +"To these remarks, there are some noble exceptions, to be found in +both parties in the church. <i>The South owes a debt of gratitude to +the Biblical Repertory, for the fearless argument in behalf of the +position, that slavery is not forbidden by the Bible</i>. The writer of +that article is said, without contradiction, to be <i>Professor Hodge, +of Princeton</i>—HIS NAME OUGHT TO BE KNOWN AND REVERED AMONG YOU, +<i>my brethren, for in a land of anti-slavery men, he is the</i> ONLY +ONE <i>who has dared to vindicate your character from the serious +charge of living in the habitual transgression of God's holy law</i>."] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-68"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-68">68</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 31.] +</p> +<p> +"It is," affirms the Princeton professor, "on all hands acknowledged, +that, at the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, slavery in its +worst forms prevailed over the whole world. <i>The Savior found it +around him</i> IN JUDEA."[<a name="rnote12-69"></a><a href="#note12-69">69</a>] To say that he found it <i>in Judea</i>, is to +speak ambiguously. Many things were to be found "<i>in</i> Judea," which +neither belonged to, nor were characteristic of <i>the Jews</i>. It is +not denied that <i>the Gentiles</i>, who resided among them, might have +had slaves; <i>but of the Jews this is denied</i>. How could the +professor take that as granted, the proof of which entered vitally +into the argument and was essential to the soundness of the +conclusions to which he would conduct us? How could he take +advantage of an ambiguous expression to conduct his confiding +readers on to a position which, if his own eyes were open, he must +have known they could not hold in the light of open day! +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-69"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-69">69</a>: The same, p. 9] +</p> +<p> +We do not charge the Savior with any want of wisdom, goodness, or +courage,[<a name="rnote12-70"></a><a href="#note12-70">70</a>] for refusing to "break down the wall of partition between +Jews and Gentiles" "before the time appointed." While this barrier +stood, he could not, consistently with the plan of redemption, +impart instruction freely to the Gentiles. To some extent, and on +extraordinary occasions, he might have done so. But his business +then was with "the lost sheep of the house of Israel."[<a name="rnote12-71"></a><a href="#note12-71">71</a>] The +propriety of this arrangement is not the matter of dispute between +the Princeton professor and ourselves. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-70"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-70">70</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 10.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-71"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-71">71</a>: Matt. xv. 24.] +</p> +<p> +In disposing of the question whether the Jews held slaves during our +Savior's incarnation among them, the following points deserve earnest +attention:— +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. Slaveholding is inconsistent with the Mosaic economy. For the +proof of this, we would refer our readers, among other arguments more +or less appropriate and powerful, to the tract already alluded to.[<a name="rnote12-72"></a><a href="#note12-72">72</a>] In all the external relations and visible arrangements of life, +the Jews, during our Savior's ministry among them, seem to have been +scrupulously observant of the institutions and usages of the +"Old Dispensation." They stood far aloof from whatever was +characteristic of Samaritans and Gentiles. From idolatry and +slaveholding—those twin-vices which had always so greatly prevailed +among the heathen—they seem at length, as the result of a most +painful discipline, to have been effectually divorced. +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-72"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-72">72</a>: "The Bible against Slavery."] +</p> +</li> +<li> +2. While, therefore, John the Baptist; with marked fidelity and great +power, acted among the Jews the part of a <i>reprover</i>, he found no +occasion to repeat and apply the language of his predecessors,[<a name="rnote12-73"></a><a href="#note12-73">73</a>] in exposing and rebuking idolatry and slaveholding. Could he, +the greatest of the prophets, have been less effectually aroused by +the presence of "the yoke," than was Isaiah?—or less intrepid and +decisive in exposing and denouncing the sin of oppression under its +most hateful and injurious forms? +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-73"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-73">73</a>: Psalm lxxxii; Isa. lviii. 1-12 Jer. xxii. 13-16.] +</p> +</li> +<li> +3. The Savior was not backward in applying his own principles plainly +and pointedly to such forms of oppression as appeared among the Jews. +These principles, whenever they have been freely acted on, the +Princeton professor admits, have abolished domestic bondage. Had +this prevailed within the sphere of our Savior's ministry, he could +not, consistently with his general character, have failed to expose +and condemn it. The oppression of the people by lordly ecclesiastics, +of parents by their selfish children, of widows by their ghostly +counsellors, drew from his lips scorching rebukes and terrible +denunciations.[<a name="rnote12-74"></a><a href="#note12-74">74</a>] How, then, must he have felt and spoke in the +presence of such tyranny, if <i>such tyranny had been within his +official sphere</i>, as should <i>have made widows</i>, by driving their +husbands to some flesh-market, and their children not orphans, +<i>but cattle</i>? +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-74"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-74">74</a>: Matt. xxiii; Mark, vii. 1-13.] +</p> +</li> +<li> +4. Domestic slavery was manifestly inconsistent with the <i>industry</i>, +which, <i>in the form of manual labor</i>, so generally prevailed among +the Jews. In one connection, in the Acts of the Apostles, we are +informed, that, coming from Athens to Corinth, Paul "found a certain +Jew, named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his +wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to +depart from Rome;) and came unto them. And because he was of the +same craft, he abode with them and wrought: (for by their occupation +they were tent-makers.")[<a name="rnote12-75"></a><a href="#note12-75">75</a>] This passage has opened the way for +different commentators to refer us to the public sentiment and +general practice of the Jews respecting useful industry and manual +labor. According to <i>Lightfoot</i>, "it was their custom to bring up +their children to some trade, yea, though they gave them learning or +estates." According to Rabbi Judah, "He that teaches not his son a +trade, is as if he taught him to be a thief."[<a name="rnote12-76"></a><a href="#note12-76">76</a>] It was, <i>Kuinoel</i> +affirms, customary even for Jewish teachers to unite labor (opificium) +with the study of the law. This he confirms by the highest +Rabbinical authority.[<a name="rnote12-77"></a><a href="#note12-77">77</a>] <i>Heinrichs</i> quotes a Rabbi as teaching, +that no man should by any means neglect to train his son to honest +industry.[<a name="rnote12-78"></a><a href="#note12-78">78</a>] Accordingly, the apostle Paul, though brought up at the +"feet of Gamaliel," the distinguished disciple of a most illustrious +teacher, practised the art of tent-making. His own hands ministered +to his necessities; and his example is so doing, he commends to his +Gentile brethren for their imitation.[<a name="rnote12-79"></a><a href="#note12-79">79</a>] That Zebedee, the father of +John the Evangelist, had wealth, various hints in the New Testament +render probable.[<a name="rnote12-80"></a><a href="#note12-80">80</a>] Yet how do we find him and his sons, while +prosecuting their appropriate business? In the midst of the hired +servants, "in the ship mending their nets."[<a name="rnote12-81"></a><a href="#note12-81">81</a>] +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-75"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-75">75</a>: Acts, xviii. 1-3.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-76"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-76">76</a>: Henry on Acts, xviii. 1-3.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-77"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-77">77</a>: Kuinoel on Acts.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-78"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-78">78</a>: Heinrichs on Acts.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-79"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-79">79</a>: Acts, xx. 34, 35; 1 Thess. iv. 11.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-80"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-80">80</a>: See Kuinoel's Prolegom. to the Gospel of John.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-81"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-81">81</a>: Mark, i. 19, 20.] +</p> +Slavery among a people who, from the highest to the lowest, were +used to manual labor! What occasion for slavery there? And how could +it be maintained? No place can be found for slavery among a people +generally inured to useful industry. With such, especially if +men of learning, wealth, and station, "labor, working with their +hands," such labor must be honorable. On this subject, let Jewish +maxims and Jewish habits be adopted at the South, and the "peculiar +institution" would vanish like a ghost at daybreak. +</li> +<li> +5. Another hint, here deserving particular attention, is furnished in +the allusions of the New Testament to the lowest casts and most +servile employments among the Jews. With profligates, <i>publicans</i> were +joined as depraved and contemptible. The outcasts of society were +described, not as fit to herd with slaves, but as deserving a place +among Samaritans and publicans. They were "<i>hired servants</i>," whom +Zebedee employed. In the parable of the prodigal son we have a +wealthy Jewish family. Here servants seem to have abounded. The +prodigal, bitterly bewailing his wretchedness and folly, described +their condition as greatly superior to his own. How happy the change +which should place him by their side? His remorse, and shame, and +penitence made him willing to embrace the lot of the lowest of them +all. But these—what was their condition? They were HIRED SERVANTS. +"Make me as one of thy hired servants." Such he refers to as the +lowest menials known in Jewish life. +</li> +</ul> +<p> +Lay such hints as have now been suggested together; let it be +remembered, that slavery was inconsistent with the Mosaic economy; +that John the Baptist in preparing the way for the Messiah makes no +reference "to the yoke" which, had it been before him, he would, like +Isaiah, have condemned; that the Savior, while he took the part of +the poor and sympathized with the oppressed, was evidently spared the +pain of witnessing within the sphere of his ministry, the presence, +of the chattel principle, that it was the habit of the Jews, whoever +they might be, high or low, rich or poor, learned or rude, "to labor, +working with their hands;" and that where reference was had to the +most menial employments, in families, they were described as carried +on by hired servants; and the question of slavery "in Judea," so far +as the seed of Abraham were concerned, is very easily disposed of. +With every phase and form of society among them slavery was +inconsistent. +</p> +<p> +The position which, in the article so often referred to in this paper, +the Princeton professor takes, is sufficiently remarkable. Northern +abolitionists he saw in an earnest struggle with southern +slaveholders. The present welfare and future happiness of myriads of +the human family were at stake in this contest. In the heat of the +battle, he throws himself between the belligerent powers. He gives +the abolitionists to understand, that they are quite mistaken in the +character of the objections they have set themselves so openly and +sternly against. Slaveholding is not, as they suppose, contrary to +the law of God. It was witnessed by the Savior "in its worst forms"[<a name="rnote12-82"></a><a href="#note12-82">82</a>] without extorting from his laps a syllable of rebuke. "The sacred +writers did not condemn it."[<a name="rnote12-83"></a><a href="#note12-83">83</a>] And why should they? By a definition +[<a name="rnote12-84"></a><a href="#note12-84">84</a>] sufficiently ambiguous and slippery, he undertakes to set forth +a form of slavery which he looks upon as consistent with the law of +Righteousness. From this definition he infers that the abolitionists +are greatly to blame for maintaining that American slavery is +inherently and essentially sinful, and for insisting that it ought +at once to be abolished. For this labor of love the slaveholding +South is warmly grateful and applauds its reverend ally, as if a +very Daniel had come as their advocate to judgment.[<a name="rnote12-85"></a><a href="#note12-85">85</a>] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-82"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-82">82</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-83"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-83">83</a>: The same, p. 13.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-84"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-84">84</a>: The same, p. 12.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-85"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-85">85</a>: Supra, p. 58.] +</p> +<p> +A few questions, briefly put, may not here be inappropriate. +</p> +<ul> +<li> +1. Was the form of slavery which our professor pronounces innocent +<i>the form</i> witnessed by our Savior "in Judea?" That, <i>he</i> will by +no means admit. The slavery there was, he affirms, of the "worst" +kind. <i>How then does he account for the alleged silence of the +Savior?—a silence covering the essence and the form—the institution and +its "worst" abuses</i>? +</li> +<li> +2. Is the slaveholding, which, according to the Princeton professor, +Christianity justifies, the same as that which the abolitionists so +earnestly wish to see abolished? Let us see. +<table summary="Christianity vs. Slavery" border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2"> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<i>Christianity in supporting Slavery, according to Professor Hodge</i>: +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<i>The American system for supporting Slavery</i>: +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +"Enjoins a fair compensation for labor" +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Makes compensation impossible by reducing the laborer to a chattel. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +"It insists on the moral and intellectual improvement of all classes of men" +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +It sternly forbids its victim to learn to read even the name of his Creator and Redeemer. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +"It condemns all infractions of marital or parental rights." +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +It outlaws the conjugal and parental relations. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +"It requires that free scope should be allowed to human improvement." +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +It forbids any effort, on the part of myriads of the human family, to improve their character, condition, and prospects. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +"It requires that all suitable means should be employed to improve mankind" +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +It inflicts heavy penalties for teaching letters to the poorest of the poor. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +"Wherever it has had free scope, it has abolished domestic bondage." +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Wherever it has free scope, it perpetuates domestic bondage. +</td> +</table> +<p> +<i>Now it is slavery according to the American system</i> that the +abolitionists are set against. <i>Of the existence of any</i> such form +of slavery as is consistent with Professor Hodge's account of the +requisitions of Christianity, they know nothing. It has never met +their notice, and of course, has never roused their feelings or +called forth their exertions. What, then, have <i>they</i> to do with the +censures and reproaches which the Princeton professor deals around? +Let those who have leisure and good nature protect the <i>man of straw</i> +he is so hot against. The abolitionists have other business. It is +not the figment of some sickly brain; but that system of oppression +which in theory is corrupting, and in practice destroying both +Church and State;—it is this that they feel pledged to do battle +upon, till by the just judgment of Almighty God it is thrown, dead +and damned, into the bottomless abyss. +</p> +</li> +<li> +3. <i>How can the South feel itself protected by any shield which may +be thrown over</i> SUCH SLAVERY, <i>as may be consistent with what the +Princeton professor describes as the requisitions of Christianity</i>? +Is <i>this</i> THE <i>slavery</i> which their laws describe, and their hands +maintain? "Fair compensation for labor"—"marital and parental rights"—"free scope" and "all suitable means" for the "improvement, moral +and intellectual, of all classes of men;"—are these, according to +the statutes of the South, among the objects of slaveholding +legislation? Every body knows that any such requisitions and +American slavery are flatly opposed to and directly subversive of +each other. What service, then, has the Princeton professor, with +all his ingenuity and all his zeal, rendered the "peculiar +institution?" Their gratitude must be of a stamp and complexion +quite peculiar, if they can thank him for throwing their "domestic +system" under the weight of such Christian requisitions as must at +once crush its snaky head "and grind it to powder." +</li> +</ul> +<p> +And what, moreover, is the bearing of the Christian requisitions, +which Professor Hodge quotes, upon the <i>definition of slavery</i> which +he has elaborated? "All the ideas which necessarily enter into the +definition of slavery are, deprivation of personal liberty, +obligation of service at the discretion of another, and the +transferable character of the authority and claim of service of the +master."[<a name="rnote12-86"></a><a href="#note12-86">86</a>] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-86"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-86">86</a>: Pittsburg pamphlet p. 12.] +</p> +<table summary="Christianity vs. Slavery" border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2"> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<i>According to Professor Hodge's account of the requisitions of Christianity</i>, +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<i>According to Professor Hodge's definition of Slavery</i>, +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +The spring of effort in the laborer is a fair compensation. +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +The laborer must serve at the discretion of another. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Free scope must be given for his moral and intellectual improvement. +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +He is deprived of personal liberty—the necessary condition, and living soul of improvement, without which he has no control of either intellect or morals. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +His rights as a husband and a father are to be protected. +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +The authority and claims of the master may throw an ocean between him and his family, and separate them from each other's presence at any moment and forever. +</td> +</tr> +</table> +<p> +Christianity, then, requires such slavery as Professor Hodge so +cunningly defines, to be abolished. It was well provided for the +peace of the respective parties, that he placed <i>his definition</i> so +far from <i>the requisitions of Christianity</i>. Had he brought them +into each other's presence, their natural and invincible antipathy +to each other would have broken out into open and exterminating +warfare. But why should we delay longer upon an argument which is +based on gross and monstrous sophistry? It can mislead only such as +<i>wish</i> to be misled. The lovers of sunlight are in little danger +of rushing into the professor's dungeon. Those who, having something +to conceal, covet darkness, can find it there, to their heart's +content. The hour cannot be far away, when upright and reflective +minds at the South will be astonished at the blindness which could +welcome such protection as the Princeton argument offers to the +slaveholder. +</p> +<p> +But <i>Professor Stuart</i> must not be forgotten. In his celebrated +letter to Dr. Fisk, he affirms that "<i>Paul did not expect slavery to +be ousted in a day</i>."[<a name="rnote12-87"></a><a href="#note12-87">87</a>] <i>Did not</i> EXPECT! What then! Are the +<i>requisitions</i> of Christianity adapted to any EXPECTATIONS which +in any quarter and on any ground might have risen to human +consciousness? And are we to interpret the <i>precepts</i> of the gospel +by the expectations of Paul? The Savior commanded all men every +where to repent, and this, though "Paul did not expect" that human +wickedness, in its ten thousand forms would in any community +"be ousted in a day." Expectations are one thing; requisitions quite +another. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-87"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-87">87</a>: Supra, p. 7.] +</p> +<p> +In the mean time, while expectation waited, Paul, the professor adds, +"gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor." <i>That</i> he +did. Of what character were these precepts? Must they not have been +in harmony with the Golden Rule? But this, according to Professor +Stuart, "decides against the righteousness of slavery" even as a +"theory." Accordingly, Christians were required, <i>without respect of +persons</i>, to do each other justice—to maintain equality as common +ground for all to stand upon—to cherish and express in all their +intercourse that tender love and disinterested charity which one +<i>brother</i> naturally feels for another. These were the "ad interim +precepts."[<a name="rnote12-88"></a><a href="#note12-88">88</a>] which cannot fail, if obeyed, to cut up slavery, +"root and branch," at once and forever. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-88"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-88">88</a>: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7.] +</p> +<p> +Professor Stuart comforts us with the assurance that "<i>Christianity +will ultimately certainly destroy slavery</i>." Of this <i>we</i> have not +the feeblest doubt. But how could <i>he</i> admit a persuasion and utter +a prediction so much at war with the doctrine he maintains, that +"<i>slavery may exist without</i> VIOLATING THE CHRISTIAN FAITH OR THE +CHURCH?"[<a name="rnote12-89"></a><a href="#note12-89">89</a>] What, Christianity bent on the destruction of an ancient +and cherished institution which hurts neither her character nor +condition?[<a name="rnote12-90"></a><a href="#note12-90">90</a>] Why not correct its abuses and purify its spirit; and +shedding upon it her own beauty, preserve it, as a living trophy of +her reformatory power? Whence the discovery that, in her onward +progress, she would trample down and destroy what was no way hurtful +to her? This is to be <i>aggressive</i> with a witness. Far be it from +the Judge of all the earth to whelm the innocent and guilty in the +same destruction! In aid of Professor Stuart, in the rude and +scarcely covert attack which he makes upon himself, we maintain that +Christianity will certainly destroy slavery on account of its +inherent wickedness—its malignant temper—its deadly effects—its +constitutional, insolent, and unmitigable opposition to the +authority of God and the welfare of man. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-89"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-89">89</a>: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-90"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-90">90</a>: Professor Stuart applies here the words, <i>salva fide et +salva ecclesia</i>.] +</p> +<p> +"Christianity will <i>ultimately</i> destroy slavery." "ULTIMATELY!" What +meaneth that portentous word? To what limit of remotest time, +concealed in the darkness of futurity, may it look? Tell us, O +watchman, on the hill of Andover. Almost nineteen centuries have +rolled over this world of wrong and outrage—and yet we tremble in +the presence of a form of slavery whose breath is poison, whose fang +is death! If any one of the incidents of slavery should fall, but +for a single day, upon the head of the prophet, who dipped his pen +in such cold blood, to write that word "ultimately," how, under the +sufferings of the first tedious hour, would he break out in the +lamentable cry, "How <i>long</i>, O Lord, HOW LONG!" In the agony of +beholding a wife or daughter upon the table of the auctioneer, while +every bid fell upon his heart like the groan of despair, small +comfort would he find in the dull assurance of some heartless prophet, +quite at "ease in Zion," that "ULTIMATELY <i>Christianity would +destroy slavery</i>." As the hammer falls, and the beloved of his soul, +all helpless and most wretched, is borne away to the haunts of +<i>legalized</i> debauchery, his hearts turns to stone, while the cry +dies upon his lips, "<i>How</i> LONG, <i>O Lord</i>, HOW LONG!" +</p> +<p> +"<i>Ultimately</i>!" In <i>what circumstances</i> does Professor Stuart +assure himself that Christianity will destroy slavery? Are we, as +American citizens, under the sceptre of a Nero? When, as integral parts +of this republic—as living members of this community, did we forfeit +the prerogatives of <i>freemen</i>? Have we not the right to speak and +act as wielding the powers which the privileges of self-government +has put in our possession? And without asking leave of priest or statesman +of the North or the South, may we not make the most of the freedom +which we enjoy under the guaranty of the ordinances of Heaven and +the Constitution of our country! Can we expect to see Christianity +on higher vantage-ground than in this country she stands upon? In +the midst of a republic based on the principle of the equality of +mankind, where every Christian, as vitally connected with the state, +freely wields the highest political rights and enjoys the richest +political privileges; where the unanimous demand of one-half of the +members of the churches would be promptly met in the abolition of +slavery, what "<i>ultimately</i>" must Christianity here wait for before +she crushes the chattel principle beneath her heel? Her triumph over +slavery is retarded by nothing but the corruption and defection so +widely spread through the "sacramental host" beneath her banners! +Let her voice be heard and her energies exerted, and the <i>ultimately</i> +of the "dark spirit of slavery" would at once give place to the +<i>immediately</i> of the Avenger of the Poor. +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +No. 12. +</h2> +<h2 class="centered"> +THE +</h2> +<h2 class="centered"> +ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. +</h2> +<hr> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +DISUNION. +</h2> +<h3 class="centered"> +ADDRESS OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY +</h3> +<h3 class="centered"> +AND +</h3> +<h3 class="centered"> +F. JACKSON'S LETTER ON THE PRO-SLAVERY CHARACTER +</h3> +<h3 class="centered"> +OF THE CONSTITUTION +</h3> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p class="centered"> +NEW YORK: +</p> + +<p class="centered"> +AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. +</p> +<p class="centered"> +142 NASSAU STREET. +</p> +<p class="centered"> +1845. +</p> +<hr> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p class="centered"> +BOSTON: +</p> +<p class="centered"> +PRINTED BY DAVID H. ELA, +</p> +<p class="centered"> +NO. 37, CORNHILL. +</p> + +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<h2 class="centered"> +ADDRESS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE +</h2> +<h2 class="centered"> +OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY +</h2> +<h2 class="centered"> +TO THE +</h2> +<h2 class="centered"> +Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the U. States. +</h2> +<hr> +<p> +At the Tenth Anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, held +in the city of New-York, May 7th, 1844,—after grave deliberation, +and a long and earnest discussion,—it was decided, by a vote of +nearly three to one of the members present, that fidelity to the +cause of human freedom, hatred of oppression, sympathy for those who +are held in chains and slavery in this republic, and allegiance to +God, require that the existing national compact should be instantly +dissolved; that secession from the government is a religious and +political duty; that the motto inscribed on the banner of Freedom +should be, <b>NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS</b>; that it is impracticable for +tyrants and the enemies of tyranny to coalesce and legislate together +for the preservation of human rights, or the promotion of the +interests of Liberty; and that revolutionary ground should be +occupied by all those who abhor the thought of doing evil that good +may come, and who do not mean to compromise the principles of +Justice and Humanity. +</p> +<p> +A decision involving such momentous consequences, so well calculated +to startle the public mind, so hostile to the established order of +things, demands of us, as the official representatives of the +American Society, a statement of the reasons which led to it. This +is due not only to the Society, but also to the country and the world. +</p> +<p> +It is declared by the American people to be a self-evident truth, +"that all men are created equal; that they are endowed <b>BY THEIR +CREATOR</b> with certain inalienable rights; that among these are +<i>life</i>, <b>LIBERTY</b>, and the pursuit of happiness." It is further +maintained by them, that "all governments derive their just powers +from the consent of the governed;" that "whenever any form of +government becomes destructive of human rights, it is the right of +the people to alter or to abolish it, and institute a new government, +laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers +in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their +safety and happiness." These doctrines the patriots of 1776 sealed +with their blood. They would not brook even the menace of oppression. +They held that there should be no delay in resisting, at whatever +cost or peril, the first encroachments of power on their liberties. +Appealing to the great Ruler of the universe for the rectitude of +their course, they pledged to each other "their lives, their +fortunes and their sacred honor," to conquer or perish in their +struggle to be free. +</p> +<p> +For the example which they set to all people subjected to a despotic +sway, and the sacrifices which they made, their descendants cherish +their memories with gratitude, reverence their virtues, honor their +deeds, and glory in their triumphs. +</p> +<p> +It is not necessary, therefore, for us to prove that a state of +slavery is incompatible with the dictates of reason and humanity; or +that it is lawful to throw off a government which is at war with the +sacred rights of mankind. +</p> +<p> +We regard this as indeed a solemn crisis, which requires of every +man sobriety of thought, prophetic forecast, independent judgment, +invincible determination, and a sound heart. A revolutionary step is +one that should not be taken hastily, nor followed under the +influence of impulsive imitation. To know what spirit they are +of—whether they have counted the cost of the warfare—what are the +principles they advocate—and how they are to achieve their object—is +the first duty of revolutionists. +</p> +<p> +But, while circumspection and prudence are excellent qualities in +every great emergency, they become the allies of tyranny whenever +they restrain prompt, bold and decisive action against it. +</p> +<p> +We charge upon the present national compact, that it was formed at +the expense of human liberty, by a profligate surrender of principle, +and to this hour is cemented with human blood. +</p> +<p> +We charge upon the American Constitution, that it contains provisions, +and enjoins duties, which make it unlawful for freemen to take the +oath of allegiance to it, because they are expressly designed to +favor a slaveholding oligarchy, and, consequently, to make one +portion of the people a prey to another. +</p> +<p> +We charge upon the existing national government, that it is an +insupportable despotism, wielded by a power which is superior to all +legal and constitutional restraints—equally indisposed and unable to +protect the lives or liberties of the people—the prop and safeguard +of American slavery. +</p> +<p> +These charges we proceed briefly to establish: +</p> +<p> +I. It is admitted by all men of intelligence,—or if it be denied in +any quarter, the records of our national history settle the question +beyond doubt,—that the American Union was effected by a guilty +compromise between the free and slaveholding States; in other words, +by immolating the colored population on the altar of slavery, by +depriving the North of equal rights and privileges, and by +incorporating the slave system into the government. In the expressive +and pertinent language of scripture, it was "a covenant with death, +and an agreement with hell"—null and void before God, from the first +hour of its inception—the framers of which were recreant to duty, +and the supporters of which are equally guilty. +</p> +<p> +It was pleaded at the time of the adoption, it is pleaded now, that, +without such a compromise there could have been no union; that, +without union, the colonies would have become an easy prey to the +mother country; and, hence, that it was an act of necessity, +deplorable indeed when viewed alone, but absolutely indispensable to +the safety of the republic. +</p> +<p> +To this we reply: The plea is as profligate as the act was tyrannical. +It is the jesuitical doctrine, that the end sanctifies the means. It +is a confession of sin, but the denial of any guilt in its +perpetration. It is at war with the government of God, and +subversive of the foundations of morality. It is to make lies our +refuge, and under falsehood to hide ourselves, so that we may escape +the overflowing scourge. "Therefore, thus saith the Lord God, +Judgment will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet; +and the bail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters +shall overflow the hiding place." Moreover, "because ye trust in +oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon; therefore this +iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in +a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant. And he +shall break it as the breaking of the potter's vessel that is broken +in pieces; he shall not spare." +</p> +<p> +This plea is sufficiently broad to cover all the oppression and +villany that the sun has witnessed in his circuit, since God said, +"Let there by light." It assumes that to be practicable, which is +impossible, namely, that there can be freedom with slavery, union +with injustice, and safety with blood guiltiness. A union of virtue +with pollution is the triumph of licentiousness. A partnership +between right and wrong, is wholly wrong. A compromise of the +principles of Justice, is the deification of crime. +</p> +<p> +Better that the American Union had never been formed, than that it +should have been obtained at such a frightful cost! If they were +guilty who fashioned it, but who could not foresee all its frightful +consequences, how much more guilty are they, who, in full view of +all that has resulted from it, clamor for its perpetuity! If it was +sinful at the commencement, to adopt it on the ground of escaping a +greater evil, is it not equally sinful to swear to support it for the +same reason, or until, in process of time, it be purged from its +corruption? +</p> +<p> +The fact is, the compromise alluded to, instead of effecting a union, +rendered it impracticable; unless by the term union we are to +understand the absolute reign of the slaveholding power over the +whole country, to the prostration of Northern rights. In the just +use of words, the American Union is and always has been a sham—an +imposture. It is an instrument of oppression unsurpassed in the +criminal history of the world. How then can it be innocently +sustained? It is not certain, it is not even probable, that if it had +not been adopted, the mother country would have reconquered the +colonies. The spirit that would have chosen danger in preference to +crime,—to perish with justice rather than live with dishonor,—to +dare and suffer whatever might betide, rather than sacrifice the +rights of one human being,—could never have been subjugated by any +mortal power. Surely it is paying a poor tribute to the valor and +devotion of our revolutionary fathers in the cause of liberty, to say +that, if they had sternly refused to sacrifice their principles, they +would have fallen an easy prey to the despotic power of England. +</p> +<p> +II. The American Constitution is the exponent of the national compact. +We affirm that it is an instrument which no man can innocently bind +himself to support, because its anti-republican and anti-Christian +requirements are explicit and peremptory; at least, so explicit that, +in regard to all the clauses pertaining to slavery, they have been +uniformly understood and enforced in the same way, by all the courts +and by all the people; and so peremptory, that no individual +interpretation or authority can set them aside with impunity. It is +not a ball of clay, to be moulded into any shape that party +contrivance or caprice may choose it to assume. It is not a form of +words, to be interpreted in any manner, or to any extent, or for the +accomplishment of any purpose, that individuals in office under it +may determine. <i>It means precisely what those who framed and adopted +it meant</i>—NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS, <i>as a matter of bargain and +compromise</i>. Even if it can be construed to mean something else, +without violence to its language, such construction is not to be +tolerated <i>against the wishes of either party</i>. No just or honest +use of it can be made, in opposition to the plain intention of its +framers, <i>except to declare the contract at an end, and to refuse to +serve under it</i>. +</p> +<p> +To the argument, that the words "slaves" and "slavery" are not to be +found in the Constitution, and therefore that it was never intended +to give any protection or countenance to the slave system, it is +sufficient to reply, that though no such words are contained in that +instrument, other words were used, intelligently and specifically, +TO MEET THE NECESSITIES OF SLAVERY; and that these were adopted <i>in +good faith, to be observed until a constitutional change could be +effected</i>. On this point, as to the design of certain provisions, no +intelligent man can honestly entertain a doubt. If it be objected, +that though these provisions were meant to cover slavery, yet, as +they can fairly be interpreted to mean something exactly the reverse, +it is allowable to give to them such an interpretation, <i>especially +as the cause of freedom will thereby be promoted</i>—we reply, that +this is to advocate fraud and violence toward one of the contracting +parties, <i>whose co-operation was secured only by an express +agreement and understanding between them both, in regard to the +clauses alluded to</i>; and that such a construction, if enforced by +pains and penalties, would unquestionably lead to a civil war, in +which the aggrieved party would justly claim to have been betrayed, +and robbed of their constitutional rights. +</p> +<p> +Again, if it be said, that those clauses, being immoral, are null and +void—we reply, it is true they are not to be observed; but it is +also true that they are portions of an instrument, the support of +which, AS A WHOLE, is required by oath or affirmation; and, therefore, +<i>because they are immoral</i>, and BECAUSE OF THIS OBLIGATION +TO ENFORCE IMMORALITY, no one can innocently swear to support the +Constitution. +</p> +<p> +Again, if it be objected, that the Constitution was formed by the +people of the United States, in order to establish justice, to +promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to +themselves and their posterity: and therefore, it is to be so +construed as to harmonize with these objects; we reply, again, that +its language is <i>not to be interpreted in a sense which neither of +the contracting parties understood</i>, and which would frustrate every +design of their alliance—to wit, <i>union at the expense of the +colored population of the country</i>. Moreover, nothing is more +certain than that the preamble alluded to never included, in the +minds of those who framed it, <i>those who were then pining in bondage</i>—for, +in that case, a general emancipation of the slaves would have instantly been +proclaimed throughout the United States. The words, +"secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," +assuredly meant only the white population. "To promote the general +welfare," referred to their own welfare exclusively. "To establish +justice," was understood to be for their sole benefit as slaveholders, +and the guilty abettors of slavery. This is demonstrated by other +parts of the same instrument, and by their own practice under it. +</p> +<p> +We would not detract aught from what is justly their due; but it is +as reprehensible to give them credit for <i>what they did not possess</i>, +as it is to rob them of what is theirs. It is absurd, it is false, +it is an insult to the common sense of mankind, to pretend that the +Constitution was intended to embrace the entire population of the +country under its sheltering wings; or that the parties to it were +actuated by a sense of justice and the spirit of impartial liberty; +or that it needs no alteration, but only a new interpretation, to +make it harmonize with the object aimed at by its adoption. As truly +might it be argued, that because it is asserted in the Declaration +of Independence, that all men are created equal, and endowed with an +inalienable right to liberty, therefore none of its signers were +slaveholders, and since its adoption, slavery has been banished from +the American soil! The truth is, our fathers were intent on securing +liberty <i>to themselves</i>, without being very scrupulous as to the +means they used to accomplish their purpose. They were not actuated +by the spirit of universal philanthropy; and though <i>in words</i> they +recognized occasionally the brotherhood of the human race, <i>in +practice</i> they continually denied it. They did not blush to enslave +a portion of their fellow-men, and to buy and sell them as cattle in +the market, while they were fighting against the oppression of the +mother country, and boasting of their regard for the rights of man. +Why, then, concede to them virtues which they did not posses. +<i>Why cling to the falsehood, that they were not respecters of +persons in the formation of the government</i>? +</p> +<p> +Alas! that they had no more fear of God, no more regard for man, in +their hearts! "The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah [the +North and South] is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, +and the city full of perverseness; for they say, the Lord hath +forsaken the earth, and the Lord seeth not." +</p> +<p> +We proceed to a critical examination of the American Constitution, +in its relations to slavery. +</p> +<p> +In ARTICLE 1, Section 9, it is declared—"the migration or +importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall +think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress, prior +to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty +may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for +each person." +</p> +<p> +In this Section, it will be perceived, the phraseology is so guarded +as not to imply, <i>ex necessitate</i>, any criminal intent or inhuman +arrangement; and yet no one has ever had the hardihood or folly to +deny, that it was clearly understood by the contracting parties, to +mean that there should be no interference with the African slave +trade, on the part of the general government, until the year 1808. +For twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution, the +citizens of the United States were to be encouraged and protected in +the prosecution of that infernal traffic—in sacking and burning the +hamlets of Africa—in slaughtering multitudes of the inoffensive +natives on the soil, kidnapping and enslaving a still greater +proportion, crowding them to suffocation in the holds of the slave +ships, populating the Atlantic with their dead bodies, and +subjecting the wretched survivors to all the horrors of unmitigated +bondage! This awful covenant was strictly fulfilled; and though, +since its termination, Congress has declared the foreign slave +traffic to be piracy, yet all Christendom knows that the American +flag, instead of being the terror of the African slavers, has given +them the most ample protection. +</p> +<p> +The manner in which the 9th Section was agreed to, by the national +convention that formed the constitution, is thus frankly avowed by +the Hon. Luther Martin,[<a name="rnote12-91"></a><a href="#note12-91">91</a>] who was a prominent member of that body: +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"The Eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion of slavery, (!) +<i>were very willing to indulge the Southern States</i> at least with +a temporary liberty to prosecute the slave trade, provided the +Southern States would, in the return, <i>gratify</i> them by laying no +restriction on navigation acts; and, after a very little time, the +committee, by a great majority, agreed on a report, <i>by which the +general government was to be prohibited from preventing the +importation of slaves</i> for a limited time; and the restrictive +clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted." +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-91"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-91">91</a>: Speech before the Legislature of Maryland in 1787.] +</p> +<p> +Behold the iniquity of this agreement! How sordid were the motives +which led to it! what a profligate disregard of justice and humanity, +on the part of those who had solemnly declared the inalienable right +of all men to be free and equal, to be a self-evident truth! +</p> +<p> +It is due to the national convention to say, that this section was +not adopted "without considerable opposition." Alluding to it, +Mr. Martin observes— +</p> +<p> +"It was said we had just assumed a place among the independent +nations in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great +Britain to <i>enslave us</i>; that this opposition was grounded upon the +preservation of those rights to which God and nature has entitled us, +not in <i>particular</i>, but in <i>common with all the rest of mankind</i>; +that we had appealed to the Supreme Being for his assistance, as the +God of freedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve +the rights which he had thus imparted to his creatures; that now, +when we had scarcely risen from our knees, from supplicating his +mercy and protection in forming our government over a free people, a +government formed pretendedly on the principles of liberty, and for +its preservation,—in that government to have a provision, not only +of putting out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade, +even encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States +the power and influence in the Union in proportion as they cruelly +and wantonly sported with the rights of their fellow-creatures, +ought to be considered as a solemn mockery of, and insult to, that +God whose protection we had thus implored, and could not fail to +hold us up in detestation, and render us contemptible to every true +friend of liberty in the world. It was said that national crimes can +only be, and frequently are, punished in this world by <i>national +punishments</i>, and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus +giving it a national character, sanction, and encouragement, ought +to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and +vengeance of him who is equally the Lord of all, and who views +with equal eye the poor <i>African slave</i> and his <i>American master</i>![<a name="rnote12-92"></a><a href="#note12-92">92</a>] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-92"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-92">92</a>: How terribly and justly has this guilty nation been +scourged, since these words were spoken, on account of slavery and +the slave trade! Secret Proceedings, p. 64.] +</p> +<p> +"It was urged that, by this system, we were giving the general +government full and absolute power to regulate commerce, under which +general power it would have a right to restrain, or totally prohibit, +the slave trade: it must, therefore, appear to the world absurd and +disgraceful to the last degree that we should except from the +exercise of that power the only branch of commerce which is +unjustifiable in its nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind. +That, on the contrary, we ought to prohibit expressly, in our +Constitution, the further importation of slaves, and to authorize +the general government, from time to time, to make such regulations +as should be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of +slavery, and the emancipation of the slaves already in the States. +That slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and +has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, +as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and +habituates to tyranny and oppression. It was further urged that, by +this system of government, every State is to be protected both from +foreign invasion and from domestic insurrections; and, from this +consideration, it was of the utmost importance it should have the +power to restrain the importation of slaves, since in proportion as +the number of slaves increased in any State, in the same proportion +is the State weakened and exposed to foreign invasion and domestic +insurrection: and by so much less will it be able to protect itself +against either, and therefore by so much, want aid from, and be a +burden to, the Union. +</p> +<p> +"It was further said, that, in this system, as we were giving the +general government power, under the idea of national character, or +national interest, to regulate even our weights and measures, and +have prohibited all possibility of emitting paper money, and passing +insolvent laws, &c., it must appear still more extraordinary that we +prohibited the government from interfering with the slave trade, +than which nothing could more effect our national honor and interest. +</p> +<p> +"These reasons influenced me, both in the committee and in the +convention, most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as +it now makes part of the system."<a name="rnote12-93"></a><a href="#note12-93">93</a> +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-93"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-93">93</a>: Secret Proceedings, p. 64.] +</p> +<p> +Happy had it been for this nation, had these solemn considerations +been heeded by the framers of the Constitution! But for the sake of +securing some local advantages, they choose to do evil that good may +come, and to make the end sanctify the means. They were willing to +enslave others, that they might secure their own freedom. They did +this deed deliberately, with their eyes open, with all the facts and +consequences arising therefrom before them, in violation of all +their heaven-attested declarations, and in atheistical distrust of +the overruling power of God. "The Eastern States were very willing +to <i>indulge</i> the Southern States" in the unrestricted prosecution of +their piratical traffic, provided in return they could be <i>gratified</i> +by no restriction being laid on navigation acts!!—Had there been no +other provision of the Constitution justly liable to objection, this +one alone rendered the support of that instrument incompatible with +the duties which men owe to their Creator, and to each other. It was +the poisonous infusion in the cup, which, though constituting but a +very slight portion of its contents, perilled the life of every one +who partook of it. +</p> +<p> +If it be asked to what purpose are these animadversions, since the +clause alluded to has long since expired by its own limitation—we +answer, that, if at any time the foreign slave trade could be +<i>constitutionally</i> prosecuted, it may yet be renewed, under the +Constitution, at the pleasure of Congress, whose prohibitory statute +is liable to be reversed at any moment, in the frenzy of Southern +opposition to emancipation. It is ignorantly supposed that the +bargain was, that the traffic <i>should cease</i> in 1808; but the only +thing secured by it was, the <i>right</i> of Congress (not any obligation) +to prohibit it at that period. If, therefore, Congress had not +chosen to exercise that right, <i>the traffic might have been +prolonged indefinitely, under the Constitution</i>. The right to +destroy any particular branch of commerce, implies the right to +re-establish it. True, there is no probability that the African slave +trade will ever again be legalized by the national government; but +no credit is due the framers of the Constitution on this ground; for, +while they threw around it all the sanction and protection of the +national character and power for twenty years, <i>they set no bounds to +its continuance by any positive constitutional prohibition</i>. +</p> +<p> +Again, the adoption of such a clause, and the faithful execution of +it, prove what was meant by the words of the preamble—"to form a +more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, +provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and +secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"—namely, +that the parties to the Constitution regarded only their +own rights and interests, and never intended that its language +should be so interpreted as to interfere with slavery, or to make it +unlawful for one portion of the people to enslave another, <i>without +an express alteration in that instrument, in the manner therein set +forth</i>. While, therefore, the Constitution remains as it was +originally adopted, they who swear to support it are bound to comply +with all its provisions, as a matter of allegiance. For it avails +nothing to say, that some of those provisions are at war with the +law of God and the rights of man, and therefore are not obligatory. +Whatever may be their character, they are <i>constitutionally</i> +obligatory; and whoever feels that he cannot execute them, or swear +to execute them, without committing sin, has no other choice left +than to withdraw from the government, or to violate his conscience +by taking on his lips an impious promise. The object of the +Constitution is not to define <i>what is the law of God</i>, but WHAT IS +THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE—which will is not to be frustrated by an +ingenious moral interpretation, by those whom they have elected to +serve them. +</p> +<p> +ARTICLE 1, Sect. 2, provides—"Representatives and direct taxes +shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included +within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which +shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, +including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding +Indians not taxed, <i>three-fifths of all other persons</i>." +</p> +<p> +Here, as in the clause we have already examined, veiled beneath a +form of words as deceitful as it is unmeaning in a truly democratic +government, is a provision for the safety, perpetuity and +augmentation of the slaveholding power—a provision scarcely less +atrocious than that which related to the African slave trade, and +almost as afflictive in its operation—a provision still in force, +with no possibility of its alteration, so long as a majority of the +slave States choose to maintain their slave system—a provision +which, at the present time, enables the South to have twenty-five +additional representatives in Congress on the score of <i>property</i>, while +the North is not allowed to have one—a provision which concedes +to the oppressed three-fifths of the political power which is granted +to all others, aid then puts this power into the hands of their +oppressors, to be wielded by them for the more perfect security of +their tyrannous authority, and the complete subjugation of the +non-slaveholding States. +</p> +<p> +Referring to this atrocious bargain, ALEXANDER HAMILTON remarked in +the New York Convention— +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"The first thing objected to, is that clause which allows a +representation for three-fifths of the negroes. Much has been said +of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own: +whether this is <i>reasoning</i> or <i>declamation</i>, (!!) I will not +presume to say. It is the <i>unfortunate</i> situation of the Southern +States to have a great part of their population, as well as <i>property</i>, +in blacks. The regulation complained of was one result of <i>the +spirit of accommodation</i> which governed the Convention; and +without this <i>indulgence</i>, NO UNION COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN FORMED. +But, sir, considering some <i>peculiar advantages</i> which we derive +from them it is entirely JUST that they should be <i>gratified</i>—The +Southern States possess certain staples,—tobacco, rice, indigo, +&c.—which must be <i>capital</i> objects in treaties of commerce with +foreign nations; and the advantage which they necessarily procure in +these treaties will be felt throughout the United States." +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +If such was the patriotism, such the love of liberty, such the +morality of ALEXANDER HAMILTON, what can be said of the character of +those who were far less conspicuous than himself in securing +American independence, and in framing the American Constitution? +</p> +<p> +Listen, now, to the opinions of JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, respecting the +constitutional clause now under consideration:— +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"'In outward show, it is a representation of persons in bondage; in +fact, it is a representation of their masters,—the oppressor +representing the oppressed.'—'Is it in the compass of human +imagination to devise a more perfect exemplification of the art of +committing the lamb to the tender custody of the wolf?'—'The +representative is thus constituted, not the friend, agent and +trustee of the person whom he represents, but the most inveterate of +his foes.'—'It was <i>one</i> of the curses from that Pandora's box, +adjusted at the time, as usual, by a <i>compromise</i>, the whole +advantage of which inured to the benefit of the South, and to +aggravate the burdens of the North.'—'If there be a parallel to it +in human history, it can only be that of the Roman Emperors, who, +from the days when Julius Caesar substituted a military despotism in +the place of a republic, among the offices which they always +concentrated upon themselves, was that of tribune of the people. A +Roman Emperor tribune of the people, is an exact parallel to that +feature in the Constitution of the United States which makes the +master the representative of his slave.'—'The Constitution of the +United States expressly prescribes that no title of nobility shall +be granted by the United States. The spirit of this interdict is not +a rooted antipathy to the grant of mere powerless empty <i>titles</i>, +but to titles of <i>nobility</i>; to the institution of privileged orders +of men. But what order of men under the most absolute of monarchies, +or the most aristocratic of republics, was ever invested with such +an odious and unjust privilege as that of the separate and exclusive +representation of less than half a million owners of slaves, in the +Hall of this House, in the Chair of the Senate, and in the +Presidential mansion?'—'This investment of power in the owners of +one species of property concentrated in the highest authorities of +the nation, and disseminated through thirteen of the twenty-six +States of the Union, constitutes a privileged order of men in the +community, more adverse to the rights of all, and more pernicious to +the interests of the whole, than any order of nobility ever known. +To call government thus constituted a democracy, is to insult the +understanding of mankind. To call it an aristocracy, is to do +injustice to that form of government. Aristocracy is the government +of <i>the best</i>. Its standard qualification for accession to power +<i>is merit</i>, ascertained by popular election recurring at short +intervals of time. If even that government is prone to degenerate +into tyranny, what must be the character of that form of polity in +which the standard qualification for access to power is wealth in +the possession of slaves? It is doubly tainted with the infection of +riches and of slavery. <i>There is no name in the language of national +jurisprudence that can define it</i>—no model in the records of +ancient history, or in the political theories of Aristotle, with +which it can be likened. It was introduced into the Constitution of +the United States by an equivocation—a representation of property +under the name of persons. Little did the members of the Convention +from the free States foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden +under the mask of this concession.'—'The House of Representatives +of the United States consists of 223 members—all, by the <i>letter</i> of +the Constitution, representatives only of <i>persons</i>, as 135 of them +really are; but the other 88, equally representing the <i>persons</i> of +their constituents, by whom they are elected, also represent, under +the name of <i>other persons</i>, upwards of two and a half millions of +<i>slaves</i>, held as the <i>property</i> of less than half a million of +the white constituents, and valued at twelve hundred millions of +dollars. Each of these 88 members represents in fact the whole of +that mass of associated wealth, and the persons and exclusive +interests of its owners; all thus knit together, like the members of +a moneyed corporation, with a capital not of thirty-five or forty or +fifty, but of twelve hundred millions of dollars, exhibiting the +most extraordinary exemplification of the anti-republican tendencies +of associated wealth that the world ever saw,'—'Here is one class +of men, consisting of not more than one fortieth part of the whole +people, not more than one-thirtieth part of the free population, +exclusively devoted to their personal interests identified with +their own as slaveholders of the same associated wealth, and +wielding by their votes, upon every question of government or of +public policy, two-fifths of the whole power of the House. In the +Senate of the Union, the proportion of the slaveholding power is yet +greater. By the influence of slavery, in the States where the +institution is tolerated, over their elections, no other than a +slaveholder can rise to the distinction of obtaining a seat in the +Senate; and thus, of the 52 members of the federal Senate, 26 are +owners of slaves, and as effectively representatives of that +interest as the 88 members elected by them to the House.'—'By this +process it is that all political power in the States is absorbed and +engrossed by the owners of <i>slaves</i>, and the overruling policy of +the States is shaped to strengthen and consolidate their domination. +The legislative, executive, and judicial authorities are all in +their hands—the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of the +black code of slavery—every law of the legislature becomes a link +in the chain of the slave; every executive act a rivet to his +hapless fate; every judicial decision a perversion of the human +intellect to the justification of <i>wrong</i>.'—'Its reciprocal +operation upon the government of the nation is, to establish an +artificial majority in the slave representation over that of the +free people, in the American Congress, and thereby to make the +PRESERVATION, PROPAGATION, AND PERPETUATION OF SLAVERY THE VITAL AND +ANIMATING SPIRIT OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.'—'The result is seen +in the fact that, at this day, the President of the United States, +the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of +Representatives, and five out of nine of the Judges of the Supreme +Judicial Courts of the United States, are not only citizens of +slaveholding States, but individual slaveholders themselves. So are, +and constantly have been, with scarcely an exception, all the +members of both Houses of Congress from the slaveholding States; and +so are, in immensely disproportionate numbers, the commanding +officers of the army and navy; the officers of the customs; the +registers and receivers of the land offices, and the post-masters +throughout the slaveholding States.—The Biennial Register indicates +the birth-place of all the officers employed in the government of +the Union. If it were required to designate the owners of this +species of property among them, it would be little more than a +catalogue of slaveholders.'" +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +It is confessed by Mr. Adams, alluding to the national convention +that framed the Constitution, that "the delegation from the free +States, in their extreme anxiety to conciliate the ascendency of the +Southern slaveholder, did listen to a <i>compromise between right and +wrong</i>—<i>between freedom and slavery</i>; of the ultimate fruits of which +they had no conception, but which already even now is urging the +Union to its inevitable ruin and dissolution, by a civil, servile, +foreign, and Indian war, all combined in one; a war, the essential +issue of which will be between freedom and slavery, and in which the +unhallowed standard of slavery will be the desecrated banner of the +North American Union—that banner, first unfurled to the breeze, +inscribed with the self-evident truths of the Declaration of +Independence." +</p> +<p> +Hence, to swear to support the Constitution of the United States, <i>as +it is</i>, is to make "a compromise between right and wrong," and to +wage war against human liberty. It is to recognize and honor as +republican legislators, <i>incorrigible men-stealers</i>, MERCILESS +TYRANTS, BLOOD THIRSTY ASSASSINS, who legislate with deadly weapons +about their persons, such as pistols, daggers, and bowie-knives, +with which they threaten to murder any Northern senator or +representative who shall dare to stain their <i>honor</i>, or interfere +with their <i>rights</i>! They constitute a banditti more fierce and cruel +than any whose atrocities are recorded on the pages of history or +romance. To mix with them on terms of social or religious fellowship, +is to indicate a low state of virtue; but to think of administering +a free government by their co-operation, is nothing short of insanity. +</p> +<p> +Article IV., Section 2, declares,—"No person held to service or +labor in one State, <i>under the laws thereof</i>, 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." +</p> +<p> +Here is a third clause, which, like the other two, makes no mention +of slavery or slaves, in express terms; and yet, like them, was +intelligently framed and mutually understood by the parties to the +ratification, and intended both to protect the slave system and to +restore runaway slaves. It alone makes slavery a national institution, +a national crime, and all the people who are not enslaved, the +body-guard over those whose liberties have been cloven down. This +agreement, too, has been fulfilled to the letter by the North. +</p> +<p> +Under the Mosaic dispensation it was imperatively commanded,—"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 warning which the +prophet Isaiah gave to oppressing Moab was of a similar kind: +"Take counsel, execute judgment; make thy shadow as the night in the +midst of the noon-day; hide the outcasts; bewray not him that +wandereth. Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab; be thou a covert +to them from the face of the spoiler." The prophet Obadiah brings +the following charge against treacherous Edom, which is precisely +applicable to this guilty nation:—"For thy violence against thy +brother Jacob, shame shall come over thee, and thou shalt be cut off +for ever. In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the +day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and +foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, +<i>even thou wast as one of them</i>. But thou shouldst not have looked +on the day of thy brother, in the day that he became a stranger; +neither shouldst thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah, in +the day of their destruction; neither shouldst thou have spoken +proudly in the day of distress; neither shouldst thou have <i>stood in +the cross-way, to cut off those of his that did escape</i>; neither +shouldst thou have <i>delivered up those of his that did remain</i>, in +the day of distress." +</p> +<p> +How exactly descriptive of this boasted republic is the impeachment +of Edom by the same prophet! "The pride of thy heart hath deceived +thee, thou whose habitation is high; that sayeth in thy heart, Who +shall bring me down to the ground? Though thou exalt thyself as the +eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I +bring thee down, saith the Lord." The emblem of American pride and +power is the <i>eagle</i>, and on her banner she has mingled <i>stars</i> with +its <i>stripes</i>. Her vanity, her treachery, her oppression, her +self-exaltation, and her defiance of the Almighty, far surpass the +madness and wickedness of Edom. What shall be her punishment? Truly, +it may be affirmed of the American people, (who live not under the +Levitical but Christian code, and whose guilt, therefore, is the +more awful, and their condemnation the greater,) in the language of +another prophet—"They all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every +man his brother with a net. That they may do evil with both hands +earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and +the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: <i>so they wrap it +up</i>." Likewise of the colored inhabitants of this land it may be said, +—"This is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared +in holes, and they are hid in prison-houses; they are for a prey, +and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore." +</p> +<p> +By this stipulation, the Northern States are made the hunting ground +of slave-catchers, who may pursue their victims with blood-hounds, +and capture them with impunity wherever they can lay their robber +hands upon them. At least twelve or fifteen thousand runaway slaves +are now in Canada, exiled from their native land, because they could +not find, throughout its vast extent, a single road on which they +could dwell in safety, <i>in consequence of this provision of the +Constitution</i>? How is it possible, then, for the advocates of +liberty to support a government which gives over to destruction +one-sixth part of the whole population? +</p> +<p> +It is denied by some at the present day, that the clause which has +been cited, was intended to apply to runaway slaves. This indicates +either ignorance, or folly, or something worse. JAMES MADISON as one +of the framers of the Constitution, is of some authority on this +point. Alluding to that instrument, in the Virginia convention, he +said:— +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"Another clause <i>secures us that property which we now possess</i>. At +present, if any slave elopes to those States where slaves are free, +<i>he becomes emancipated by their laws</i>; for the laws of the States +are <i>uncharitable</i>(!) to one another in this respect; but in this +constitution, 'No person held to service or labor in one State, +under the laws thereof, shall, in consequence of any law or +regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but +shall be delivered upon claim of the party to whom such service or +labor away be due. THIS CLAUSE WAS EXPRESSLY INSERTED TO ENABLE THE +OWNERS OF SLAVES TO RECLAIM THEM. <i>This is a better security than +any that now exists</i>. No power is given to the general government to +interfere with respect to the property in slaves now held by the +States." +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +In the same convention, alluding to the same clause, GOV. RANDOLPH +said:— +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"Every one knows that slaves are held to service or labor. And, when +authority is given to owners of slaves <i>to vindicate their property</i>, +can it be supposed they can be deprived of it? If a citizen of this +State, in consequence of this clause, can take his runaway slave in +Maryland, can it be seriously thought that, after taking him and +bringing him home, he could be made free?" +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +It is objected, that slaves are held as property, and therefore, as +the clause refers to persons, it cannot mean slaves. But this is +criticism against fact. Slaves are recognized not merely as property, +but also as persons—as having a mixed character—as combining the +human with the brutal. This is paradoxical, we admit; but slavery is +a paradox—the American Constitution is a paradox—the American +Union is a paradox—the American Government is a paradox; and if any +one of these is to be repudiated on that ground, they all are. That +it is the duty of the friends of freedom to deny the binding +authority of them all, and to secede from them all, we distinctly +affirm. After the independence of this country had been achieved, +the voice of God exhorted the people, saying, "Execute true judgment, +and show mercy and compassion every man to his brother: and oppress +not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and +let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. But +they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped +their ears, that they should not hear; yea, they made their hearts +as an adamant stone." "Shall I not visit for these things? saith the +Lord. Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?" +</p> +<p> +Whatever doubt may have rested on any honest mind, respecting the +meaning of the clause in relation to persons held to service or labor, +must have been removed by the unanimous decision of the Supreme +Court of the United States, in the case of Prigg versus The State of +Pennsylvania. By that decision, any Southern slave-catcher is +empowered to seize and convey to the South, without hindrance or +molestation on the part of the State, and without any legal process +duly obtained and served, any person or persons, irrespective of +caste or complexion, whom he may choose to claim as runaway slaves; +and if, when thus surprised and attacked, or on their arrival South, +they cannot prove by legal witnesses, that they are freemen, their +doom is sealed! Hence the free colored population of the North are +specially liable to become the victims of this terrible power, and +all the other inhabitants are at the mercy of prowling kidnappers, +because there are multitudes of white as well as black slaves on +Southern plantations, and slavery is no longer fastidious with +regard to the color of its prey. +</p> +<p> +As soon as that appalling decision of the Supreme Court was +enunciated, in the name of the Constitution, the people of the North +should have risen <i>en masse</i>, if for no other cause, and declared the +Union at an end; and they would have done so, if they had not lost +their manhood, and their reverence for justice and liberty. +</p> +<p> +In the 4th Sect. of Art. IV., the United States guarantee to protect +every State in the Union "<i>against domestic violence</i>." By the 8th +Section of Article 1., congress is empowered "to provide for calling +forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, <i>suppress +insurrections</i>, and repel invasions." These provisions, however +strictly they may apply to cases of disturbance among the white +population, were adopted with special reference to the slave +population, for the purpose of keeping them in their chains by the +combined military force of the country; and were these repealed, and +the South left to manage her slaves as best she could, a servile +insurrection would ere long be the consequence, as general as it +would unquestionably be successful. Says Mr. Madison, respecting +these clauses:-- +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"On application of the legislature or executive, as the case may be, +the militia of the other States are to be called to suppress +domestic insurrections. Does this bar the States from calling forth +their own militia? No; but it gives them a <i>supplementary</i> security +to suppress insurrections and domestic violence." +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +The answer to Patrick Henry's objection, as urged against the +constitution in the Virginia convention, that there was no power left +to the States to quell an insurrection of slaves, as it was wholly +vested in congress, George Nicholas asked:— +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"Have they it now? If they have, does the constitution take it away? +If it does, it must be in one of those clauses which have been +mentioned by the worthy member. The first part gives the general +government power to call them out when necessary. Does this take it +away from the States? No! but <i>it gives an additional security</i>; for, +beside the power in the State government to use their own militia, +it will be <i>the duty of the general government</i> to aid them <b>WITH THE +STRENGTH OF THE UNION</b>, when called for." +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +This solemn guaranty of security to the slave system, caps the +climax of national barbarity, and stains with human blood the +garments of all the people. In consequence of it, that system has +multiplied its victims from five hundred thousand to nearly three +millions—a vast amount of territory has been purchased, in order to +give it extension and perpetuity—several new slave States have been +admitted into the Union—the slave trade has been made one of the +great branches of American commerce—the slave population, though +over-worked, starved, lacerated, branded, maimed, and subjected to +every form of deprivation and every species of torture, have been +over awed and crushed,—or, whenever they have attempted to gain +their liberty by revolt, they have been shot down and quelled by the +strong arm of the national government; as, for example, in the case +of Nat Turner's insurrection in Virginia, when the naval and military +forces of the government were called into active service. Cuban +bloodhounds have been purchased with the money of the people, and +imported and used to hunt slave fugitives among the everglades of +Florida. A merciless warfare has been waged for the extermination or expulsion +of the Florida Indians, because they gave succor to those poor hunted +fugitives—a warfare which has cost the nation several thousand lives, +and forty millions of dollars. But the catalogue of enormities is +too long to be recapitulated in the present address. +</p> +<p> +We have thus demonstrated that the compact between the North and the +South embraces every variety of wrong and outrage,—is at war with +God and man, cannot be innocently supported, and deserves to be +immediately annulled. In behalf of the Society which we represent, +we call upon all our fellow-citizens, who believe it is right to +obey God rather than man, to declare themselves peaceful +revolutionists, and to unite with us under the stainless banner of +Liberty, having for its motto—"EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL—<b>NO UNION WITH +SLAVEHOLDERS</b>!" +</p> +<p> +It is pleaded that the Constitution provides for its own amendment; +and we ought to use the elective franchise to effect this object. +True, there is such a proviso; but, until the amendment be made, +that instrument is binding as it stands. Is it not to violate every +moral instinct, and to sacrifice principle to expediency, to argue +that we may swear to steal, oppress and murder by wholesale, because +it may be necessary to do so only for the time being, and because +there is some remote probability that the instrument which requires +that we should be robbers, oppressors and murderers, may at some +future day be amended in these particulars? Let us not palter with +our consciences in this manner—let us not deny that the compact was +conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity—let us not be so +dishonest, even to promote a good object, as to interpret the +Constitution in a manner utterly at variance with the intentions and +arrangements of the contracting parties; but, confessing the guilt +of the nation, acknowledging the dreadful specifications in the bond, +washing our hands in the waters of repentance from all further +participation in this criminal alliance, and resolving that we will +sustain none other than a free and righteous government, let us +glory in the name of revolutionists, unfurl the banner of disunion, +and consecrate our talents and means to the overthrow of all that is +tyrannical in the land,—to the establishment of all that is free, +just, true and holy,—to the triumph of universal love and peace. +</p> +<p> +If, in utter disregard of the historical facts which have been cited, +it is still asserted, that the Constitution needs no amendment to +make it a free instrument, adapted to all the exigencies of a free +people, and was never intended to give any strength or countenance to the +slave system—the indignant spirit of insulted Liberty replies:—"What +though the assertion be true? Of what avail is a mere piece +of parchment? In itself, though it be written all over with words of +truth and freedom—though its provisions be as impartial and just as +words can express, or the imagination paint—though it be as pure as +the gospel, and breathe only the spirit of Heaven—it is powerless; +it has no executive vitality; it is a lifeless corpse, even though +beautiful in death. I am famishing for lack of bread! How is my +appetite relieved by holding up to my gaze a painted loaf? I am +manacled, wounded, bleeding dying! What consolation is it to know, +that they who are seeking to destroy my life, profess in words to be +my friends?" If the liberties of the people have been betrayed—if +judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off, and +truth has fallen in the streets, and equality cannot enter—if the +princes of the land are roaring lions, the judges evening wolves, +the people light and treacherous persons, the priests covered with +pollution—if we are living under a frightful despotism, which scoffs +at all constitutional restraints, and wields the resources of the +nation to promote its own bloody purposes—tell us not that the +forms of freedom are still left to us! Would such tameness and +submission have freighted the May-Flower for Plymouth Rock? Would it +have resisted the Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, or any of those entering +wedges of tyranny with which the British government sought to rive +the liberties of America? The wheel of the Revolution would have +rusted on its axle, if a spirit so weak had been the only power to +give it motion. Did our fathers say, when their rights and liberties +were infringed—"<i>Why, what is done cannot be undone</i>. That is the +first thought." No, it was the last thing they thought of: or, rather, +it never entered their minds at all. They sprang to the conclusion at +once—"<i>What is done</i> SHALL <i>be undone</i>. That is our FIRST and ONLY +thought." +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"Is water running in our veins? Do we remember still +<br> +Old Plymouth Rock, and Lexington, and famous Bunker Hill? +<br> +The debt we owe our fathers' graves? and to the yet unborn, +<br> +Whose heritage ourselves must make a thing of pride or scorn?" +</p> +<p> +"Gray Plymouth Rock hath yet a tongue, and Concord is not dumb; +<br> +And voices from our fathers' graves and from the future come: +<br> +They call on us to stand our ground—they charge us still to be +<br> +Not only free from chains ourselves, but foremost to make free!" +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +It is of little consequence who is on the throne, if there be behind +it a power mightier than the throne. It matters not what is the +theory of the government, if the practice of the government be unjust +and tyrannical. We rise in rebellion against a despotism +incomparably more dreadful than that which induced the colonists to +take up arms against the mother country; not on account of a +three-penny tax on tea, but because fetters of living iron are +fastened on the limbs of millions of our countrymen, and our most +sacred rights are trampled in the dust. As citizens of the State, +we appeal to the State in vain for protection and redress. As +citizens of the United States, we are treated as outlaws in one +half of the country, and the national government consents to our +destruction. We are denied the right of locomotion, freedom of speech, +the right of petition, the liberty of the press, the right peaceably +to assemble together to protest against oppression and plead for +liberty—at least in thirteen States of the Union. If we venture, as +avowed and unflinching abolitionists, to travel South of Mason and +Dixon's line, we do so at the peril of our lives. If we would escape +torture and death, on visiting any of the slave States, we must +stifle our conscientious convictions, bear no testimony against +cruelty and tyranny, suppress the struggling emotions of humanity, +divest ourselves of all letters and papers of an anti-slavery +character, and do homage to the slaveholding power—or run the risk +of a cruel martyrdom! These are appalling and undeniable facts. +</p> +<p> +Three millions of the American people are crushed under the American +Union! They are held as slaves—trafficked as merchandise—registered +as goods and chattels! The government gives them no +protection—the government is their enemy—the government keeps +them in chains! There they lie bleeding—we are prostrate by +their side—in their sorrows and sufferings we participate—their +stripes are inflicted on our bodies, their shackles are fastened on +our limbs, their cause is ours! The Union which grinds them to the +dust rests upon us, and with them we will struggle to overthrow it! +The Constitution, which subjects them to hopeless bondage, is one +that we cannot swear to support! Our motto is, "<b>NO UNION WITH +SLAVEHOLDERS</b>," either religious or political. They are the fiercest +enemies of mankind, and the bitterest foes of God! We separate from +them not in anger, not in malice, not for a selfish purpose, not to +do them an injury, not to cease warning, exhorting, reproving them +for their crimes, not to leave the perishing bondman to his fate—O +no! But to clear our skirts of innocent blood—to give the oppressor +no countenance—to signify our abhorrence of injustice and +cruelty—to testify against an ungodly compact—to cease striking +hands with thieves and consenting with adulterers—to make no +compromise with tyranny—to walk worthily of our high profession—to +increase our moral power over the nation—to obey God and vindicate +the gospel of his Son—hasten the downfall of slavery in America, +and throughout the world! +</p> +<p> +We are not acting under a blind impulse. We have carefully counted +the cost of this warfare, and are prepared to meet its consequences. +It will subject us to reproach, persecution, infamy—it will prove a +fiery ordeal to all who shall pass through it—it may cost us our +lives. We shall be ridiculed as fools, accused as visionaries, +branded as disorganizers, reviled as madmen, threatened and perhaps +punished as traitors. But we shall bide our time. Whether safety +or peril, whether victory or defeat, whether life or death be ours, +believing that our feet are planted on an eternal foundation, that +our position is sublime and glorious, that our faith in God is +rational and steadfast, that we have exceeding great and precious +promises on which to rely, THAT WE ARE IN THE RIGHT, we shall not +falter nor be dismayed, "though the earth be removed, and though the +mountains be carried into the midst of the sea,"—though our ranks +be thinned to the number of "three hundred men." Freemen! are you +ready for the conflict? Come what may, will you sever the chain that +binds you to a slaveholding government, and declare your independence? +Up, then, with the banner of revolution! Not to shed blood—not to +injure the person or estate of any oppressor—not by force and arms +to resist any law—not to countenance a servile insurrection—not to +wield any carnal weapons! No—ours must be a bloodless strife, +excepting <i>our</i> blood be shed—for we aim, as did Christ our leader, +not to destroy men's lives, but to save them—to overcome evil with +good—to conquer through suffering for righteousness' sake—to set +the captive free by the potency of truth! +</p> +<p> +Secede, then, from the government. Submit to its exactions, but pay +it no allegiance, and give it no voluntary aid. Fill no offices +under it. Send no senators or representatives to the national or +State legislature; for what you cannot conscientiously perform +yourself, you cannot ask another to perform as your agent. Circulate +a declaration of <b>DISUNION FROM SLAVEHOLDERS</b>, throughout the country. +Hold mass meetings—assemble in conventions—nail your banners to +the mast! +</p> +<p> +Do you ask what can be done, if you abandon the ballot-box? What did +the crucified Nazarene do without the elective franchise? What did +the apostles do? What did the glorious army of martyrs and +confessors do? What did Luther and his intrepid associates do? What +can women and children do? What has Father Mathew done for teetotalism? +What has Daniel O'Connell done for Irish repeal? "Stand, having your +loins girt about with truth, and having on the breast-plate of +righteousness," and arrayed in the whole armor of God! +</p> +<p> +The form of government that shall succeed the present government of +the United States, let time determine. It would be a waste of time +to argue that question, until the people are regenerated and turned +from their iniquity. Ours is no anarchical movement, but one of +order and obedience. In ceasing from oppression, we establish liberty. +What is now fragmentary, shall in due time be crystallized, and +shine like a gem set in the heavens, for a light to all coming ages. +</p> +<p> +Finally—we believe that the effect of this movement will be,—First, +to create discussion and agitation throughout the North; and these +will lead to a general perception of its grandeur and importance. +</p> +<p> +Secondly, to convulse the slumbering South like an earthquake, and +convince her that her only alternative is, to abolish slavery, or be +abandoned by that power on which she now relies for safety. +</p> +<p> +Thirdly, to attack the slave power in its most vulnerable point, and +to carry the battle to the gate. +</p> +<p> +Fourthly, to exalt the moral sense, increase the moral power, and +invigorate the moral constitution of all who heartily espouse it. +</p> +<p> +We reverently believe that, in withdrawing from the American Union, +we have the God of justice with us. We know that we have our +enslaved countrymen with us. We are confident that all free hearts +will be with us. We are certain that tyrants and their abettors will +be against us. +</p> +<p> +In behalf of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery +Society, +</p> +<p> +<b>WM. LLOYD GARRISON</b>, <i>President</i>. +</p> +<p class="centered"> +WENDELL PHILLIPS, MARIA WESTON CHAPMAN, +</p> +<p class="centered"> +<i>Secretaries</i>. +</p> +<p class="centered"> +<i>Boston, May</i> 20, 1844. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +LETTER FROM FRANCIS JACKSON. +</h3> +<p> +BOSTON, 4TH July, 1844 +</p> +<p> +<i>To His Excellency George N. Briggs</i>: +</p> +<p> +SIR—Many years since, I received from the Executive of the +Commonwealth a commission as Justice of the Peace. I have held the +office that it conferred upon me till the present time, and have +found it a convenience to myself, and others. It might continue to +be so, could I consent longer to hold it. But paramount +considerations forbid, and I herewith transmit to you my commission, +respectfully asking you to accept my resignation. +</p> +<p> +While I deem it a duty to myself to take this step, I feel called on +to state the reasons that influence me. +</p> +<p> +In entering upon the duties of the office in question, I complied +with the requirements of the law, by taking an oath "<i>to support the +Constitution of the United States</i>." I regret that I ever took that +oath. Had I then as maturely considered its full import, and the +obligations under which it is understood, and meant to lay those who +take it, as I have done since, I certainly never would have taken it, +seeing, as I now do, that the Constitution of the United States +contains provisions calculated and intended to foster, cherish, +uphold and perpetuate <i>slavery</i>. It pledges the country to guard and +protect the slave system so long as the slaveholding States choose +to retain it. It regards the slave code as lawful in the States +which enact it. Still more, "it has done that, which, until its +adoption, was never before done for African slavery. It took it out +of its former category of municipal law and local life, adopted it +as a national institution, spread around it the broad and sufficient +shield of national law, and thus gave to slavery a national existence." +Consequently, the oath to support the Constitution of the United +States is a solemn promise to do that which is morally wrong; that +which is a violation of the natural rights of man, and a sin in the +sight of God. +</p> +<p> +I am not, in this matter, constituting myself a judge of others. I +do not say that no honest man can take such an oath, and abide by it. +I only say, that <i>I</i> would not now deliberately take it; and that, +having inconsiderately taken it, I can no longer suffer it to lie +upon my soul. I take back the oath, and ask you, sir, to take back +the commission, which was the occasion of my taking it. +</p> +<p> +I am aware that my course in this matter is liable to be regarded as +singular, if not censurable; and I must, therefore, be allowed to +make a more specific statement of those <i>provisions of the +Constitution</i> which support the enormous wrong, the heinous sin of +slavery. +</p> +<p> +The very first Article of the Constitution takes slavery at once +under its legislative protection, as a basis of representation in +the popular branch of the National Legislature. It regards slaves +under the description "of all other <i>persons</i>"—as of only +three-fifths of the value of free persons; thus to appearance +undervaluing them in comparison with freemen. But its dark and +involved phraseology seems intended to blind us to the consideration, +that those underrated slaves are merely a <i>basis</i>, not the <i>source</i> +of representation; that by the laws of all the States where they live, +they are regarded not as <i>persons</i>; but as <i>things</i>; that they are +not the <i>constituency</i> of the representative, but his property; and +that the necessary effect of this provision of the Constitution is, +to take legislative power out of the hands of <i>men</i>, as such, and +give it to the mere possessors of goods and chattels. Fixing upon +thirty thousand persons, as the smallest number that shall send one +member into the House of Representatives, it protects slavery by +distributing legislative power in a free and in a slave State thus: +To a congressional district in South Carolina, containing fifty +thousand slaves, claimed as the property of five hundred whites, who +hold, on an average, one hundred apiece, it gives one Representative +in Congress; to a district in Massachusetts containing a population +of thirty thousand five hundred, one Representative is assigned. But +inasmuch as a slave is never permitted to vote, the fifty thousand +persons in a district in Carolina form no part of "the constituency;" +that is found only in the five hundred free persons. Five hundred +freemen of Carolina could send one Representative to Congress, while +it would take thirty thousand five hundred freemen of Massachusetts, +to do the same thing: that is, one slaveholder in Carolina is +clothed by the Constitution with the same political power and +influence in the Representatives Hall at Washington, as sixty +Massachusetts men like you and me, who "eat their bread in the sweat +of their own brows." +</p> +<p> +According to the census of 1830, and the ratio of representation +based upon that, slave property added twenty-five members to the +House of Representatives. And as it has been estimated, (as an +approximation to the truth,) that the two and a half million slaves +in the United States are held as property by about two hundred and +fifty thousand persons—giving an average of ten slaves to each +slaveholder, those twenty-five Representatives, each chosen, at most, +by only ten thousand voters, and probably by less than three-fourths +of that number, were the representatives, not only of the two +hundred and fifty thousand persons who chose them; but of <i>property</i> +which, five years ago, when slaves were lower in market, than at +present, were estimated, by the man who is now the most prominent +candidate for the Presidency, at twelve hundred millions of dollars—a +sum, which, by the natural increase of five years, and the +enhanced value resulting from a more prosperous state of the planting +interest, cannot now be less than fifteen hundred millions of dollars. +All this vast amount of property, as it is "peculiar," is also +identical in its character. In Congress, as we have seen, it is +animated by one spirit, moves in one mass, and is wielded with one +aim; and when we consider that tyranny is always timid, and despotism +distrustful, we see that this vast money power would be false to +itself, did it not direct all its eyes and hands, and put forth all +its ingenuity and energy, to one end—self-protection and +self-perpetuation. And this it has ever done. In all the vibrations +of the political scale, whether in relation to a Bank or Sub-Treasury, +Free Trade or a Tariff, this immense power has moved, and will +continue to move, in one mass, for its own protection. +</p> +<p> +While the weight of the slave influence is thus felt in the House of +Representatives, "in the Senate of the Union," says John Quincy Adams, +"the proportion of slaveholding power is still greater. By the +influence of slavery in the States where the institution is tolerated, +over their elections, no other than a slaveholder can rise to the +distinction of obtaining a seat in the Senate; and thus, of the +fifty-two members of the federal Senate, twenty-six are owners of +slaves, and are as effectually representatives of that interest, as +the eighty-eight members elected by them to the House." +</p> +<p> +The dominant power which the Constitution gives to the slave interest, +as thus seen and exercised in the <i>Legislative Halls</i> of our nation, +is equally obvious and obtrusive in every other department of the +National government. +</p> +<p> +In the <i>Electoral colleges</i>, the same cause produces the same effect—the +same power is wielded for the same purpose, as in the Halls of +Congress. Even the preliminary nominating conventions, before they +dare name a candidate for the highest office in the gift of the +people, must ask of the Genius of slavery, to what votary she will +show herself propitious. This very year, we see both the great +political parties doing homage to the slave power, by nominating +each a slaveholder for the chair of the State. The candidate of one +party declares. "I should have opposed, and would continue to oppose, +any scheme whatever of emancipation, either gradual or immediate;" +and adds, "It is not true, and I rejoice that it is not true, that +either of the two great parties of this country has any design or +aim at abolition. I should deeply lament it, if it were true."[<a name="rnote12-94"></a><a href="#note12-94">94</a>] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-94"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-94">94</a>: Henry Clay's speech in the United States Senate in 1839, +and confirmed at Raleigh, N.C. 1844.] +</p> +<p> +The other party nominates a man who says, "I have no hesitation in +declaring that I am in favor of the immediate re-annexation of Texas +to the territory and government of the United States." +</p> +<p> +Thus both the political parties, and the candidates of both, vie +with each other, in offering allegiance to the slave power, as a +condition precedent to any hope of success in the struggle for the +executive chair; a seat that, for more than three-fourths of the +existence of our constitutional government, has been occupied by a +slaveholder. +</p> +<p> +The same stern despotism overshadows even the sanctuaries of <i>justice</i>. +Of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, five +are slaveholders, and of course, must be faithless to their own +interest, as well as recreant to the power that gives them place, or +must, so far as <i>they</i> are concerned, give both to law and +constitution such a construction as shall justify the language of +John Quincy Adams, when he says—"The legislative, executive, and +judicial authorities, are all in their hands—for the preservation, +propagation, and perpetuation of the black code of slavery. Every +law of the legislature becomes a link in the chain of the slave; +every executive act a rivet to his hapless fate; every judicial +decision a perversion of the human intellect to the justification of +wrong." +</p> +<p> +Thus by merely adverting but briefly to the theory and the practical +effect of this clause of the Constitution, that I have sworn to +support, it is seen that it throws the political power of the nation +into the hands of the slaveholders; a body of men, which, however it +may be regarded by the Constitution as "persons," is in fact and +practical effect, a vast moneyed corporation, bound together by an +indissoluble unity of interest, by a common sense of a common danger; +counselling at all times for its common protection; wielding the +whole power, and controlling the destiny of the nation. +</p> +<p> +If we look into the legislative halls, slavery is seen in the chair +of the presiding officer of each, and controlling the action of both. +Slavery occupies, by prescriptive right, the Presidential chair. The +paramount voice that comes from the temple of national justice, +issues from the lips of slavery. The army is in the hands of slavery, +and at her bidding, must encamp in the everglades of Florida, or +march from the Missouri to the borders of Mexico, to look after her +interests in Texas. +</p> +<p> +The navy, even that part that is cruising off the coast of Africa, to +suppress the foreign slave trade, is in the hands of slavery. +</p> +<p> +Freemen of the North, who have even dared to lift up their voice +against slavery, cannot travel through the slave States, but at the +peril of their lives. +</p> +<p> +The representatives of freemen are forbidden, on the floor of +Congress, to remonstrate against the encroachments of slavery, or to +pray that she would let her poor victims go. +</p> +<p> +I renounce my allegiance to a Constitution that enthrones such a +power, wielded for the purpose of depriving me of my rights, of +robbing my countrymen of their liberties, and of securing its own +protection, support and perpetuation. +</p> +<p> +Passing by that clause of the Constitution, which restricted Congress +for twenty years, from passing any law against the African slave +trade, and which gave authority to raise a revenue on the stolen +sons of Africa, I come to that part of the fourth article, which +guarantees protection against "<i>domestic violence</i>," and which +pledges to the South the military force of the country, to protect +the masters against their insurgent slaves: binds us, and our +children, to shoot down our fellow-countrymen, who may rise, in +emulation of our revolutionary fathers, to vindicate their inalienable +"right to life, <i>liberty</i> and the pursuit of happiness,"—this +clause of the Constitution, I say distinctly, I never will +support. +</p> +<p> +That part of the Constitution which provides for the surrender of +fugitive slaves, I never have supported and never will. I will join +in no slave-hunt. My door shall stand open, as it has long stood, for +the panting and trembling victim of the slave-hunter. When I shut it +against him, may God shut the door of his mercy against me! Under +this clause of the Constitution, and designed to carry it into effect, +slavery has demanded that laws should be passed, and of such a +character, as have left the free citizen of the North without +protection for his own liberty. The question, whether a man seized +in a free State as a slave, <i>is</i> a slave or not, the law of Congress +does not allow a jury to determine: but refers it to the decision of +a Judge of a United States' Court, or even of the humblest State +magistrate, it may be, upon the testimony or affidavit of the party +most deeply interested to support the claim. By virtue of this law, +freemen have been seized and dragged into perpetual slavery—and +should I be seized by a slave-hunter in any part of the country +where I am not personally known, neither the Constitution nor laws +of the United States would shield me from the same destiny. +</p> +<p> +These, sir, are the specific parts of the Constitution of the United +States, which in my opinion are essentially vicious, hostile at once +to the liberty and to the morals of the nation. And these are the +principal reasons of my refusal any longer to acknowledge my +allegiance to it, and of my determination to revoke my oath to +support it. I cannot, in order to keep the law of man, break the law +of God, or solemnly call him to witness my promise that I will break +it. +</p> +<p> +It is true that the Constitution provides for its own amendment, and +that by this process, all the guarantees of Slavery may be expunged. +But it will be time enough to swear to support it when this is done. +It cannot be right to do so, until these amendments are made. +</p> +<p> +It is also true that the framers of the Constitution did studiously +keep the words "Slave" and "Slavery" from its face. But to do our +constitutional fathers justice, while they forebore—from very +shame—to give the word "Slavery" a place in the Constitution, they +did not forbear—again to do them justice—to give place in it to +the <i>thing</i>. They were careful to wrap up the idea, and the substance +of Slavery, in the clause for the surrender of the fugitive, though +they sacrificed justice in doing so. +</p> +<p> +There is abundant evidence that this clause touching "persons held +to service or labor," not only operates practically, under the +judicial construction, for the protection of the slave interest; but +that it was intended so to operate by the framers of the +Constitution. The highest judicial authorities—Chief Justice Shaw, +of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in the Latimer case, and +Mr. Justice Story, in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the +case of <i>Prigg</i> vs. <i>The State of Pennsylvania</i>,—tell us, I know +not on what evidence, that without this "compromise," this security +for Southern slaveholders, "the Union could not have been formed." +And there is still higher evidence, not only that the framers of the +Constitution meant by this clause to protect slavery, but that they +did this, knowing that slavery was wrong. Mr. Madison[<a name="rnote12-95"></a><a href="#note12-95">95</a>] informs us +that the clause in question, as it came out of the hands of Dr. Johnson, +the chairman of the "committee on style," read thus: "No person legally +held to service, or labor, in one State, escaping into another, shall," +&c., and that the word "legally" was struck out, and the words "under +the laws thereof" inserted after the word "State," in compliance with +the wish of some, who thought the term <i>legal</i> equivocal, and +favoring the idea that slavery was legal "<i>in a moral view</i>." +A conclusive proof that, although future generations might apply that +clause to other kinds of "service or labor," when slavery should have +died out, or been killed off by the young spirit of liberty, which +was <i>then</i> awake and at work in the land; still, slavery was what +they were wrapping up in "equivocal" words; and wrapping it up for its +protection and safe keeping: a conclusive proof that the framers of +the Constitution were more careful to protect themselves in the judgment +of coming generations, from the charge of ignorance, than of sin; a +conclusive proof that they knew that slavery was <i>not</i> "legal in +a moral view," that it was a violation of the moral law of God; and yet +knowing and confessing its immorality, they dared to make this +stipulation for its support and defence. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-95"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-95">95</a>: Madison Papers, p. 1589] +</p> +<p> +This language may sound harsh to the ears of those who think it a +part of their duty, as citizens, to maintain that whatever the +patriots of the Revolution did, was right; and who hold that we are +bound to <i>do</i> all the iniquity that they covenanted for us that we +<i>should</i> do. But the claims of truth and right are paramount to +all other claims. +</p> +<p> +With all our veneration for our constitutional fathers, we must +admit,—for they have left on record their own confession of it,—that +in this part of their work they intended to hold the shield +of their protection over a wrong, knowing that it was a wrong. They +made a "compromise" which they had no right to make—a compromise of +moral principle for the sake of what they probably regarded as +"political expediency." I am sure they did not know—no man could +know, or can now measure, the extent, or the consequences of the +wrong, that they were doing. In the strong language of John Quincy +Adams,[<a name="rnote12-96"></a><a href="#note12-96">96</a>] in relation to +the article fixing the basis of +representation, "Little did the members of the Convention, from the +free States, imagine or foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden +under the mask of this concession." +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-96"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-96">96</a>: See his Report on the Massachusetts Resolutions.] +</p> +<p> +I verily believe that, giving all due consideration to the benefits +conferred upon this nation by the Constitution, its national unity, +its swelling masses of wealth, its power, and the external +prosperity of its multiplying millions; yet the <i>moral</i> injury that +has been done, by the countenance shown to slavery by holding over +that tremendous sin the shield of the Constitution, and thus +breaking down in the eyes of the nation the barrier between right +and wrong; by so tenderly cherishing slavery as, in less than the +life of man, to multiply her children from half a million to nearly +three millions; by exacting oaths from those who occupy prominent +stations in society, that they will violate at once the rights of +man and the law of God; by substituting itself as a rule of right, +in place of the moral laws of the universe;—thus in effect, +dethroning the Almighty in the hearts of this people and setting up +another sovereign in his stead—more than outweighs it all. A +melancholy and monitory lesson this, to all timeserving and +temporising statesmen! A striking illustration of the <i>impolicy</i> of +sacrificing <i>right</i> to any considerations of expediency! Yet, what +better than the evil effects that we have seen, could the authors of +the Constitution have reasonably expected, from the sacrifice of +right, in the concessions they made to slavery? Was it reasonable in +them to expect that after they had introduced a vicious element into +the very Constitution of the body politic which they were calling +into life, it would not exert its vicious energies? Was it reasonable +in them to expect that, after slavery had been corrupting the public +morals for a whole generation, their children would have too much +virtue to <i>use</i> for the defence of slavery, a power which they +themselves had not too much virtue to <i>give</i>? It is dangerous for +the sovereign power of a State to license immorality; to hold the +shield of its protection over any thing that is not "legal in a moral +view." Bring into your house a benumbed viper, and lay it down upon +your warm hearth, and soon it will not ask you into which room it +may crawl. Let Slavery once lean upon the supporting arm, and bask +in the fostering smile of the State, and you will soon see, as we +now see, both her minions and her victims multiply apace till the +politics, the morals, the liberties, even the religion of the nation, +are brought completely under her control. +</p> +<p> +To me, it appears that the virus of slavery, introduced into the +Constitution of our body politic, by a few slight punctures, has now +so pervaded and poisoned the whole system of our National Government, +that literally there is no health in it. The only remedy that I can +see for the disease, is to be found in the <i>dissolution of the +patient</i>. +</p> +<p> +The Constitution of the United States, both in theory and practice, +is so utterly broken down by the influence and effects of slavery, +so imbecile for the highest good of the nation, and so powerful for +evil, that I can give no voluntary assistance in holding it up any +longer. +</p> +<p> +Henceforth it is dead to me, and I to it. I withdraw all profession +of allegiance to it, and all my voluntary efforts to sustain it. The +burdens that it lays upon me, while it is held up by others, I shall +endeavor to bear patiently, yet acting with reference to a higher law, +and distinctly declaring, that while I retain my own liberty, I will +be a party to no compact, which helps to rob any other man of his. +</p> +<p class="centered"> +Very respectfully, your friend, +</p> +<p class="centered"> +<b>FRANCIS JACKSON</b>. +</p> +<hr> +<h3 class="centered"> +FROM MR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH AT NIBLO'S GARDENS. +</h3> +<p> +"We have slavery, already, amongst us. The Constitution found it +among us; it recognized it and gave it <b>SOLEMN GUARANTIES</b>. To the +full extent of these guaranties we are all bound, in honor, in +justice, and by the Constitution. All the stipulations, contained in +the Constitution, <i>in favor of the slaveholding States</i> which are +already in the Union, ought to be fulfilled, and so far as depends +on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fullness of their spirit, and to +the exactness of their letter."!!! +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<hr> +<h3 class="centered"> +EXTRACTS FROM JOHN Q. ADAMS'S ADDRESS +</h3> +<p class="centered"> +<b>AT NORTH BRIDGEWATER, NOV. 6, 1844</b>. +</p> +<p> +The benefits of the Constitution of the United States, were the +restoration of credit and reputation, to the country—the revival of +commerce, navigation, and ship-building—the acquisition of the +means of discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection +and encouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the +country. All this, however, as is now well ascertained, was +insufficient to propitiate the rulers of the Southern States to +the adoption of the Constitution. What they specially wanted was +<i>protection</i>.—Protection from the powerful and savage tribes of +Indians within their borders, and who were harassing them with the most +terrible of wars—and protection from their own negroes—protection +from their insurrections—protection from their escape—protection +even to the trade by which they were brought into the country—protection, +shall I not blush to say, protection to the very +bondage by which they were held. Yes! it cannot be denied—the +slaveholding lords of the South prescribed, as a condition of their +assent to the Constitution, three special provisions to secure the +perpetuity of their dominion over their slaves. The first was the +immunity for twenty years of preserving the African slave-trade; the +second was the stipulation to surrender fugitive slaves—an +engagement positively prohibited by the laws of God, delivered from +Sinai; and thirdly, the exaction fatal to the principles of popular +representation, of a representation for slaves—for articles of +merchandise, under the name of persons. +</p> +<p> +The reluctance with which the freemen of the North submitted to the +dictation of these conditions, is attested by the awkward and +ambiguous language in which they are expressed. The word slave is +most cautiously and fastidiously excluded from the whole instrument. +A stranger, who should come from a foreign land, and read the +Constitution of the United States, would not believe that slavery or +a slave existed within the borders of our country. There is not a +word in the Constitution <i>apparently</i> bearing upon the condition of +slavery, nor is there a provision but would be susceptible of +practical execution, if there were not a slave in the land. +</p> +<p> +The delegates from South Carolina and Georgia distinctly avowed that, +without this guarantee of protection to their property in slaves, +they would not yield their assent to the Constitution; and the +freemen of the North, reduced to the alternative of departing from +the vital principle of their liberty, or of forfeiting the Union +itself, averted their faces, and with trembling hand subscribed the +bond. +</p> +<p> +Twenty years passed away—the slave markets of the South were +saturated with the blood of African bondage, and from midnight of the +31st of December, 1807, not a slave from Africa was suffered ever +more to be introduced upon our soil. But the internal traffic was +still lawful, and the <i>breeding</i> States soon reconciled themselves to +a prohibition which gave them the monopoly of the interdicted trade, +and they joined the full chorus of reprobation, to punish with death +the slave-trader from Africa, while they cherished and shielded and +enjoyed the precious profits of the American slave-trade exclusively +to themselves. +</p> +<p> +Perhaps this unhappy result of their concession had not altogether +escaped the foresight of the freemen of the North; but their intense +anxiety for the preservation of the whole Union, and the habit +already formed of yielding to the somewhat peremptory and overbearing +tone which the relation of master and slave welds into the nature of +the lord, prevailed with them to overlook this consideration, the +internal slave-trade having scarcely existed while that with Africa +had been allowed. But of one consequence which has followed from the +slave representation, pervading the whole organic structure of the +Constitution, they certainly were not prescient; for if they had been, +never—no, never would they have consented to it. +</p> +<p> +The representation, ostensibly of slaves, under the name of persons, +was in its operation an exclusive grant of power to one class of +proprietors, owners of one species of property, to the detriment of +all the rest of the community. This species of property was odious +in its nature, held in direct violation of the natural and +inalienable rights of man, and of the vital principles of +Christianity; it was all accumulated in one geographical section of +the country, and was all held by wealthy men, comparatively small in +numbers, not amounting to a tenth part of the free white population +of the States in which it was concentrated. +</p> +<p> +In some of the ancient, and in some modern republics, extraordinary +political power and privileges have been invested in the owners of +horses; but then these privileges and these powers have been granted +for the equivalent of extraordinary duties and services to the +community, required of the favoured class. The Roman knights +constituted the cavalry of their armies, and the bushels of rings +gathered by Hannibal from their dead bodies, after the battle of +Cannae, amply prove that the special powers conferred upon them were +no gratuitous grants. But in the Constitution of the United States, +the political power invested in the owners of slaves is entirely +gratuitous. No extraordinary service is required of them; they are, +on the contrary, themselves grievous burdens upon the community, +always threatened with the danger of insurrections, to be smothered +in the blood of both parties, master and slave, and always +depressing the condition of the poor free laborer, by competition +with the labor of the slave. The property in horses was the gift of +God to man, at the creation of the world; the property in slaves is +property acquired and held by crimes, differing in no moral aspect +from the pillage of a freebooter, and to which no lapse of time can +give a prescriptive right. You are told that this is no concern of +yours, and that the question of freedom and slavery is exclusively +reserved to the consideration of the separate States. But if it be so, +as to the mere question of right between master and slave, it is of +tremendous concern to you that this little cluster of slave-owners +should possess, besides their own share in the representative hall +of the nation, the exclusive privilege of appointing two-fifths of +the whole number of the representatives of the people. This is now +your condition, under that delusive ambiguity of language and of +principle, which begins by declaring the representation in the +popular branch of the legislature a representation of persons, and +then provides that one class of persons shall have neither part not +lot in the choice of their representatives; but their elective +franchise shall be transferred to their masters, and the oppressors +shall represent the oppressed. The same perversion of the +representative principle pollutes the composition of the colleges of +electors of President and Vice President of the United States, and +every department of the government of the Union is thus tainted at +its source by the gangrene of slavery. +</p> +<p> +Fellow-citizens,—with a body of men thus composed, for legislators +and executors of the laws, what will, what must be, what has been +your legislation? The numbers of freemen constituting your nation +are much greater than those of the slaveholding States, bond and free. +You have at least three-fifths of the whole population of the Union. +Your influence on the legislation and the administration of the +government ought to be in the proportion of three to two.—But how +stands the fact? Besides the legitimate portion of influence +exercised by the slaveholding States by the measure of their numbers, +here is an intrusive influence in every department, by a +representation nominally of persons, but really of property, +ostensibly of slaves, but effectively of their masters, +overbalancing your superiority of numbers, adding two-fifths of +supplementary power to the two-fifths fairly secured to them by the +compact, <b>CONTROLLING AND OVERRULING THE WHOLE ACTION OF YOUR +GOVERNMENT AT HOME AND ABROAD</b>, and warping it to the sordid private +interest and oppressive policy of 300,000 owners of slaves. +</p> +<p> +From the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United +States, the institution of domestic slavery has been becoming more +and more the abhorrence of the civilized world. But in proportion as +it has been growing odious to all the rest of mankind, it has been +sinking deeper and deeper into the affections of the holders of +slaves themselves. The cultivation of cotton and of sugar, unknown +in the Union at the establishment of the Constitution, has added +largely to the pecuniary value of the slave. And the suppression of +the African slave-trade as piracy upon pain of death, by securing +the benefit of a monopoly to the virtuous slaveholders of the +ancient dominion, has turned her heroic tyrannicides into a +community of slave-breeders for sale, and converted the land of +George Washington, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas +Jefferson, into a great barracoon—a cattle-show of human beings, an +emporium, of which the staple articles of merchandise are the flesh +and blood, the bones and sinews of immortal man. +</p> +<p> +Of the increasing abomination of slavery in the unbought hearts of +men at the time when the Constitution of the United States was formed, +what clearer proof could be desired, than that the very same year in +which that charter of the land was issued, the Congress of the +Confederation, with not a tithe of the powers given by the people to +the Congress of the new compact, actually abolished slavery for ever +throughout the whole Northwestern territory, without a remonstrance +or a murmur. But in the articles of confederation, there was no +guaranty for the property of the slaveholder—no double +representation of him in the Federal councils—no power of +taxation—no stipulation for the recovery of fugitive slaves. But when +the powers of <i>government</i> came to be delegated to the Union, the +South—that is, South Carolina and Georgia—refused their subscription +to the parchment, till it should be saturated with the infection of +slavery, which no fumigation could purify, no quarantine could +extinguish. The freemen of the North gave way, and the deadly venom +of slavery was infused into the Constitution of freedom. Its first +consequence has been to invert the first principle of Democracy, +that the will of the majority of numbers shall rule the land. By +means of the double representation, the minority command the whole, +and a <b>KNOT OF SLAVEHOLDERS GIVE THE LAW AND PRESCRIBE THE POLICY OF +THE COUNTRY</b>. To acquire this superiority of a large majority of +freemen, a persevering system of engrossing nearly all the seats +of power and place, is constantly for a long series of years +pursued, and you have seen, in a period of fifty-six years, the +Chief-magistracy of the Union held, during forty-four of them, by +the owners of slaves. The Executive departments, the Army and Navy, +the Supreme Judicial Court and diplomatic missions abroad, all +present the same spectacle:—an immense majority of power in the +hands of a very small minority of the people—millions made for a +fraction of a few thousands. +</p> +<hr> +<p> +From that day (1830), <b>SLAVERY, SLAVEHOLDING, SLAVE-BREEDING AND +SLAVE-TRADING, HAVE FORMED THE WHOLE FOUNDATION OF THE POLICY OF THE +FEDERAL GOVERNMENT</b>, and of the slaveholding States, at home and +abroad; and at the very time when a new census has exhibited a large +increase upon the superior numbers of the free States, it has +presented the portentous evidence of increased influence and +ascendancy of the slaveholding power. +</p> +<p> +Of the prevalence of that power, you have had continual and +conclusive evidence in the suppression for the space of ten years of +the right of petition, guarantied, if there could be a guarantee +against slavery, by the first article amendatory of the Constitution. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +<a name="AE13cond"></a> +No. 13. +</h2> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. +</h2> +<p> </p> +<hr> +<h2 class="centered"> +ON THE CONDITION OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR +</h2> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +IN THE UNITED STATES. +</h2> +<p> </p> +<hr> +<p class="centered"> +NEW YORK: +</p> +<p class="centered"> +PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, +<br> +NO. 143 NASSAU STREET. +</p> +<p class="centered"> +1839. +</p> +<hr> +<p> +This No. contains 1-1/2 sheet.—Postage, under 100 miles, +2-1/2 cts. over 100, 3 cts. +</p> +<p> +Please Read and circulate. +</p> +<h2> +ON THE CONDITION OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR. +</h2> +<p> </p> +<p> +It appears from the census of 1830, that there were then 319,467 +free colored persons in the United States. At the present time the +number cannot be less than 360,000. Fifteen States of the Federal +Union have each a smaller population than this aggregate. Hence if +the whole mass of human beings inhabiting Connecticut, or New Jersey, +or any other of these fifteen States, were subjected to the ignorance, +and degradation, and persecution and terror we are about to describe, +as the lot of this much injured people, the amount of suffering would +still be numerically less than that inflicted by a professedly +Christian and republican community upon the free negroes. Candor, +however, compels us to admit that, deplorable as is their condition, +it is still not so wretched as Colonizationists and slaveholders, +for obvious reasons, are fond of representing it. It is not true +that free negroes are "more vicious and miserable than slaves +<i>can</i> be,"[<a name="rnote12-97"></a><a href="#note12-97">97</a>] nor that "it would be as humane to throw slaves from +the decks of the middle passage, as to set them free in this country," +[<a name="rnote12-98"></a><a href="#note12-98">98</a>] nor that "a sudden and universal emancipation without +colonization, would be a greater CURSE to the slaves themselves, +than the bondage in which they are held." +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-97"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-97">97</a>: Rev. Mr. Bacon, of New Haven, 7 Rep. Am. Col. Soc. p. 99.] +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-98"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-98">98</a>: African Repository, Vol. IV. p. 226.] +</p> +<p> +It is a little singular, that in utter despite of these rash +assertions slaveholders and colonizationists unite in assuring us, +that the slaves are rendered <i>discontented</i> by <i>witnessing</i> the +freedom of their colored brethren; and hence we are urged to assist +in banishing to Africa these sable and dangerous mementoes of liberty. +</p> +<p> +We all know that the wife and children of the free negro are not +ordinarily sold in the market—that he himself does not toil under +the lash, and that in certain parts of our country he is permitted +to acquire some intelligence, and to enjoy some comforts, utterly +and universally denied to the slave. Still it is most unquestionable, +that these people grievously suffer from a cruel and wicked +prejudice—cruel in its consequences; wicked in its voluntary +adoption, and its malignant character. +</p> +<p> +Colonizationists have taken great pains to inculcate the opinion that +prejudice against color is implanted in our nature by the Author of +our being; and whence they infer the futility of every effort to +elevate the colored man in this country, and consequently the duty +and benevolence of sending him to Africa, beyond the reach of our +cruelty.[<a name="rnote12-99"></a><a href="#note12-99">99</a>] The theory is as false in fact as it is derogatory to +the character of that God whom we are told is LOVE. With what +astonishment and disgust should we behold an earthly parent exciting +feuds and animosities among his own children; yet we are assured, +and that too by professing Christians, that our heavenly Father has +implanted a principle of hatred, repulsion and alienation between +certain portions of his family on earth, and then commanded them, as +if in mockery, to "love one another." +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-99"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-99">99</a>: "Prejudices, which neither refinement, nor argument, +nor education, NOR RELIGION ITSELF can subdue, mark the people of +color, whether bond or free, as the subjects of a degradation +<i>inevitable and incurable</i>."—<i>Address of the Connecticut Col. +Society</i>. "The managers consider it clear that causes exist, and are +now operating, to prevent their improvement and elevation to any +considerable extent as a class in this country, which are fixed, not +only beyond the control of the friends of humanity, but of <i>any +human power</i>: CHRISTIANITY cannot do for them here, what it will do +for them in Africa. This is not the <i>fault</i> of the colored man, +<i>nor of the white man</i>, but an ORDINATION OF PROVIDENCE, <i>and no +more to be changed than the laws of nature</i>."—15 Rep. Am. Col. Soc. +p. 47. +</p> +<p> +"The people of color must, in this country, remain for ages, +probably for ever, a separate and distinct caste, weighed down by +causes powerful, universal, invincible, which neither legislation +nor CHRISTIANITY can remove."—African Repository Vol. VIII. p. 196. +</p> +<p> +"Do they (the abolitionists) not perceive that in thus confounding +all the distinctions which GOD himself has made, they arraign the +wisdom and goodness of Providence itself? It has been His divine +pleasure, to make the black man black, and the white man white, and +to distinguish them by other <i>repulsive</i> constitutional differences."—Speech +in Senate of the United States, February 7, 1839, by HENRY +CLAY, PRESIDENT OF THE AM. COL. SOC.] +</p> +<p> +In vain do we seek in nature, for the origin of this prejudice. Young +children never betray it, and on the continent of Europe it is +unknown. We are not speaking of matters of taste, or of opinions of +personal beauty, but of a prejudice against complexion, leading to +insult, degradation and oppression. In no country in Europe is any +man excluded from refined society, or deprived of literary, religious, +or political privileges on account of the tincture of his skin. If +this prejudice is the fiat of the Almighty, most wonderful is it, +that of all the kindreds of the earth, none have been found +submissive to the heavenly impulse, excepting the white inhabitants +of North America; and of these, it is no less strange than true, +that this divine principle of repulsion is most energetic in such +persons as, in other respects, are the least observant of their +Maker's will. This prejudice is sometimes erroneously regarded as +the <i>cause</i> of slavery; and some zealous advocates of emancipation +have flattered themselves that, could the prejudice be destroyed, +negro slavery would fall with it. Such persons have very inadequate +ideas of the malignity of slavery. They forget that the slaves in +Greece and Rome were of the same hue as their masters; and that at +the South, the value of a slave, especially of a female, rises, as +the complexion recedes from the African standard. +</p> +<p> +Were we to inquire into the geography of this prejudice, we should +find that the localities in which it attains its rankest luxuriance, +are not the rice swamps of Georgia, nor the sugar fields of Louisiana, +but the hills and valleys of New England, and the prairies of Ohio! +It is a fact of acknowledged notoriety, that however severe may be +the laws against colored people at the South, the prejudice against +their <i>persons</i> is far weaker than among ourselves. +</p> +<p> +It is not necessary for our present purpose, to enter into a +particular investigation of the condition of the free negroes in the +slave States. We all know that they suffer every form of oppression +which the laws can inflict upon persons not actually slaves. That +unjust and cruel enactments should proceed from a people who keep +two millions of their fellow men in abject bondage, and who believe +such enactments essential to the maintenance of their despotism, +certainly affords no cause for surprise. +</p> +<p> +We turn to the free States, where slavery has not directly steeled +our hearts against human suffering, and where no supposed danger of +insurrection affords a pretext for keeping the free blacks in +ignorance and degradation; and we ask, what is the character of the +prejudice against color <i>here</i>? Let the Rev. Mr. Bacon, of +Connecticut, answer the question. This gentleman, in a vindication +of the Colonization Society, assures us, "The <i>Soodra</i> is not +farther separated from the <i>Brahim</i> in regard to all his privileges, +civil, intellectual, and moral, than the negro from the white man by +the prejudices which result from the difference made between them by +THE GOD OF NATURE."—(<i>Rep. Am. Col. Soc.</i> p. 87.) +</p> +<p> +We may here notice the very opposite effect produced on Abolitionists +and Colonizationists, by the consideration that this difference +<i>is</i> made by the GOD OF NATURE; leading the one to discard the +prejudice, and the other to banish its victims. +</p> +<p> +With these preliminary remarks we will now proceed to take a view of +the condition of the free people of color in the non-slaveholding +States; and will consider in order, the various disabilities and +oppressions to which they are subjected, either by law or the +customs of society. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +1. GENERAL EXCLUSION FROM THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. +</h3> +<p> +Were this exclusion founded on the want of property, or any other +qualification deemed essential to the judicious exercise of the +franchise, it would afford no just cause of complaint; but it is +founded solely on the color of the skin, and is therefore irrational +and unjust. That taxation and representation should be inseparable, +was one of the axioms of the fathers of our revolution; and one of +the reasons they assigned for their revolt from the crown of Britain. +But <i>now</i>, it is deemed a mark of fanaticism to complain of the +disfranchisement of a whole race, while they remain subject to the +burden of taxation. It is worthy of remark, that of the thirteen +original States, only <i>two</i> were so recreant to the principles of +the Revolution, as to make a <i>white skin</i> a qualification for +suffrage. But the prejudice has grown with our growth, and +strengthened with our strength; and it is believed that in <i>every</i> +State constitution subsequently formed or revised, [excepting +Vermont and Maine, and the Revised constitution of Massachusetts,] +the crime of a dark complexion has been punished, by debarring its +possessor from all approach to the ballot-box.[<a name="rnote12-100"></a><a href="#note12-100">100</a>] The necessary +effect of this proscription in aggravating the oppression and +degradation of the colored inhabitants must be obvious to all who +call to mind the solicitude manifested by demagogues, and +office-seekers, and law makers, to propitiate the good will of all +who have votes to bestow. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-100"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-100">100</a>: From this remark the revised constitution of New York +is <i>nominally</i> an exception; colored citizens, possessing a <i>freehold</i> +worth two hundred and fifty dollars, being allowed to vote; while +suffrage is extended to <i>white</i> citizens without any property +qualification.] +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +2. DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF LOCOMOTION. +</h3> +<p> +It is in vain that the Constitution of the United States expressly +guarantees to "the citizens of each State, all the privileges and +immunities of citizens in the several States:"—It is in vain that +the Supreme Court of the United States has solemnly decided that this +clause confers on every citizen of one State the right to "pass +through, or reside in any other State for the purposes of trade, +agriculture, professional pursuits, or <i>otherwise</i>." It is in vain +that "the members of the several State legislatures" are required to +"be bound by oath or affirmation to support" the constitution +conferring this very guarantee. Constitutions, and judicial decisions, +and religious obligations are alike outraged by our State enactments +against people of color. There is scarcely a slave State in which a +citizen of New York, with a dark skin, may visit a dying child +without subjecting himself to legal penalties. But in the slave +States we look for cruelty; we expect the rights of humanity and the +laws of the land to be sacrificed on the altar of slavery. In the +free States we had reason to hope for a greater deference to decency +and morality. Yet even in these States we behold the effects of a +miasma wafted from the South. The Connecticut Black Act, prohibiting, +under heavy penalties, the instruction of any colored person from +another State, is well known. It is one of the encouraging signs of +the times, that public opinion has recently compelled the repeal of +this detestable law. But among all the free States, OHIO stands +pre-eminent for the wickedness of her statutes against this class of +our population. These statutes are not merely infamous outrages on +every principle of justice and humanity, but are gross and palpable +violations of the State constitution, and manifest an absence of +moral sentiment in the Ohio legislature as deplorable as it is +alarming. We speak the language, not of passion, but of sober +conviction; and for the truth of this language we appeal, first, to +the Statutes themselves, and then to the consciences of our readers. +We shall have occasion to notice these laws under the several +divisions of our subject to which they belong; at present we ask +attention to the one intended to prevent the colored citizens of +other States from removing into Ohio. By the constitution of New York, +the colored inhabitants are expressly recognized as "citizens." Let +us suppose then a New York freeholder and voter of this class, +confiding in the guarantee given by the Federal constitution removes +into Ohio. No matter how much property he takes with him; no matter +what attestations he produces to the purity of his character, he is +required by the Act of 1807, to find, within twenty days, two +freehold sureties in the sum of five hundred dollars for his <i>good +behavior</i>; and likewise for his <i>maintenance</i>, should he at any +future period from any cause whatever be unable to maintain himself, +and in default of procuring such sureties he is to be removed by the +overseers of the poor. The legislature well knew that it would +generally be utterly impossible for a stranger, and especially a +<i>black</i> stranger, to find such sureties. It was the <i>design</i> of +the Act, by imposing impracticable conditions, to prevent colored +emigrants from remaining within the State; and in order more +certainly to effect this object, it imposes a pecuniary penalty on +every inhabitant who shall venture to "harbor," that is, receive +under his roof, or who shall even "employ" an emigrant who has not +given the required sureties; and it moreover renders such inhabitant +so harboring or employing him, legally liable for his future +maintenance!! +</p> +<p> +We are frequently told that the efforts of the abolitionists have in +fact aggravated the condition of the colored people, bond and free. +The <i>date</i> of this law, as well as the date of most of the laws +composing the several slave codes, show what credit is to be given +to the assertion. If a barbarous enactment is <i>recent</i>, its odium is +thrown upon the friends of the blacks—if <i>ancient</i>, we are assured +it is <i>obsolete</i>. The Ohio law was enacted only four years after the +State was admitted into the Union. In 1800 there were only three +hundred and thirty-seven free blacks in the territory, and in 1830 +the number in the State was nine thousand five hundred. Of course a +very large proportion of the present colored population of the State +must have entered it in ignorance of this iniquitous law, or in +defiance of it. That the law has not been universally enforced, +proves only that the people of Ohio are less profligate than their +legislators—that it has remained in the statute book for thirty-two +years, proves the depraved state of public opinion and the horrible +persecution to which the colored people are legally exposed. But let +it not be supposed that this vile law is in fact obsolete, and its +very existence forgotten. +</p> +<p> +In 1829, a very general effort was made to enforce this law, and +about <i>one thousand free blacks</i> were in consequence of it driven +out of the State; and sought a refuge in the more free and Christian +country of Canada. Previous to their departure, they sent a +deputation to the Governor of the Upper Province, to know if they +would be admitted, and received from Sir James Colebrook this reply,—"Tell +the <i>republicans</i> on your side of the line, that we +royalists do not know men by their color. Should you come to us, you +will be entitled to all the privileges of the rest of his majesty's +subjects." This was the origin of the Wilberforce colony in Upper +Canada. +</p> +<p> +We have now before us an Ohio paper, containing a proclamation by +John S. Wiles, overseer of the poor in the town of Fairfield, dated +12th March, 1838. In this instrument notice is given to all +"black or mulatto persons" residing in Fairfield, to comply with the +requisitions of the Act of 1807 within twenty days, or the law would +be enforced against them. The proclamation also addresses the white +inhabitants of Fairfield in the following terms,—"Whites, look out! +If any person or persons <i>employing</i> any black or mulatto person, +contrary to the 3d section of the above law, you may look out for +the breakers." The extreme vulgarity and malignity of this notice +indicates the spirit which gave birth to this detestable law, and +continues it in being. +</p> +<p> +Now what says the constitution of Ohio? "ALL are born free and +independent, and have certain natural, inherent, inalienable rights; +among which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, +<i>acquiring, possessing, and protecting property</i>, and pursuing and +attaining happiness and safety." Yet men who had called their Maker +to witness, that they would obey this very constitution, require +impracticable conditions, and then impose a pecuniary penalty and +grievous liabilities on every man who shall give to an innocent +fellow countryman a night's lodging, or even a meal of victuals in +exchange for his honest labor! +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +3. DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION. +</h3> +<p> +We explicitly disclaim all intention to imply that the several +disabilities and cruelties we are specifying are of universal +application. The laws of some States in relation to people of color +are more wicked than others; and the spirit of persecution is not in +every place equally active and malignant. In none of the free States +have these people so many grievances to complain of as in Ohio, and +for the honor of our country we rejoice to add, that in no other +State in the Union, has their right to petition for a redress of +their grievances been denied. +</p> +<p> +On the 14th January, 1839, a petition for relief from certain legal +disabilities, from colored inhabitants of Ohio, was presented to the +<i>popular</i> branch of the legislature, and its rejection was moved +by George H. Flood.[<a name="rnote12-101"></a><a href="#note12-101">101</a>] This rejection was not a denial of the prayer, +but an <i>expulsion of the petition itself</i>, as an intruder into the +house. "The question presented for our decision," said one of the +members, "is simply this—Shall human beings, who are bound by every +enactment upon our statute book, be <i>permitted</i> to <i>request</i> the +legislature to modify or soften the laws under which they live?" To +the Grand Sultan, crowded with petitions as he traverses the streets +of Constantinople, such a question would seem most strange; but +American democrats can exert a tyranny over <i>men who have no votes</i>, +utterly unknown to Turkish despotism. Mr. Flood's motion was lost by +a majority of only <i>four</i> votes; but this triumph of humanity and +republicanism was as transient as it was meagre. The <i>next</i> day, the +House, by a large majority, resolved: +"That the blacks and mulattoes who may be residents within this State, +have no constitutional right to present their petitions to the +General Assembly for any purpose whatsoever, and that any reception +of such petitions on the part of the General Assembly is a mere act +of privilege or policy, and not imposed by any expressed or implied +power of the Constitution." +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-101"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-101">101</a>: It is sometimes interesting to preserve the names of +individuals who have perpetrated bold and unusual enormities.] +</p> +<p> +The phraseology of this resolution is as clumsy as its assertions are +base and sophistical. The meaning intended to be expressed is simply, +that the Constitution of Ohio, neither in terms nor by implication, +confers on such residents as are negroes or mulattoes, any right +to offer a petition to the legislature for any object whatever; nor +imposes on that body any obligation to notice such a petition; and +whatever attention it may please to bestow upon it, ought to be +regarded as an act not of duty, but merely of favor or expediency. +Hence it is obvious, that the <i>principle</i> on which the resolution is +founded is, that the reciprocal right and duty of offering and +hearing petitions <i>rest solely on constitutional enactment</i>, and not +on moral obligation. The reception of negro petitions is declared +to be a mere act of <i>privilege or policy</i>. Now it is difficult to +imagine a principle more utterly subversive of all the duties of +rulers, the rights of citizens, and the charities of private life. +The victim of oppression or fraud has no <i>right</i> to appeal to the +constituted authorities for redress; nor are those authorities under +any obligation to consider the appeal—the needy and unfortunate +have no right to implore the assistance of their more fortunate +neighbors: and all are at liberty to turn a deaf ear to the cry of +distress. The eternal and immutable principles of justice and +humanity, proclaimed by Jehovah, and impressed by him on the +conscience of man, have no binding force on the legislature of Ohio, +unless expressly adopted and enforced by the State Constitution! +</p> +<p> +But as the legislature has thought proper thus to set at defiance the +moral sense of mankind, and to take refuge behind the enactments of +the Constitution, let us try the strength of their entrenchments. The +words of the Constitution, which it is pretended sanction the +resolution we are considering are the following, viz.—"The <i>people</i> +have a right to assemble together in a peaceable manner to consult +for their common good, to <i>instruct their representatives</i>, and to +apply to the legislature for a redress of grievances." It is obvious +that this clause confers no rights, but is merely declaratory of +existing rights. Still, as the right of the people to apply for a +redress of grievances is coupled with the right of <i>instructing +their representatives</i>, and as negroes are not electors and +consequently are without representatives, it is inferred that they +are not part of <i>the people</i>. That Ohio legislators are not +Christians would be a more rational conclusion. One of the members +avowed his opinion that "none but voters had a right to petition." If +then, according to the principle of the resolution, the Constitution +of Ohio denies the right of petition to all but electors, let us +consider the practical results of such a denial. In the first place, +every female in the State is placed under the same disability with +"blacks and mulattoes." No wife has a right to ask for a divorce—no +daughter may plead for a father's life. Next, no man under +twenty-one years—no citizen of any age, who from want of sufficient +residence, or other qualification, is not entitled to vote—no +individual among the tens of thousands of aliens in the +State—however oppressed and wronged by official tyranny or +corruption, has a right to seek redress from the representatives of +the people, and should he presume to do so, may be told, that, like +"blacks and mulattoes," he "has no constitutional right to present +his petition to the General Assembly for any purpose whatever." +Again—the State of Ohio is deeply indebted to the citizens of other +States, and also to the subjects of Great Britain for money borrowed +to construct her canals. Should any of these creditors lose their +certificates of debt, and ask for their renewal; or should their +interest be withheld, or paid in depreciated currency, and were they +to ask for justice at the hands of the legislature, they might be +told, that any attention paid to their request must be regarded as a +"mere act of privilege or policy, and not imposed by any expressed +or implied power of the Constitution," for, not being voters, they +stood on the same ground as "blacks and mulattoes." Such is the +folly and wickedness in which prejudice against color has involved +the legislators of a republican and professedly Christian State in +the nineteenth century. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +4. EXCLUSION FROM THE ARMY AND MILITIA. +</h3> +<p> +The Federal Government is probably the only one in the world that +forbids a portion of its subjects to participate in the national +defence, not from any doubts of their courage, loyalty, or physical +strength, but merely on account of the tincture of their skin! To +such an absurd extent is this prejudice against color carried, that +some of our militia companies have occasionally refused to march to +the sound of a drum when beaten by a black man. To declare a certain +class of the community unworthy to bear arms in defence of their +native country, is necessarily to consign that class to general +contempt. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +5. EXCLUSION FROM ALL PARTICIPATION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. +</h3> +<p> +No colored man can be a judge, juror, or constable. Were the talents +and acquirements of a Mansfield or a Marshall veiled in a sable skin, +they would be excluded from the bench of the humblest court in the +American republic. In the slave States generally, no black man can +enter a court of justice as a witness against a white one. Of course +a white man may, with perfect impunity, defraud or abuse a negro to +any extent, provided he is careful to avoid the presence of any of +his own caste, at the execution of his contract, or the indulgence of +his malice. We are not aware that an outrage so flagrant is +sanctioned by the laws of any <i>free</i> State, with one exception. That +exception the reader will readily believe can be none other than OHIO. +A statute of this State enacts, "that no black or mulatto <i>person</i> or +<i>persons</i> shall hereafter be permitted to be sworn, or give evidence +in any court of Record or elsewhere, in this State, in any cause +depending, or matter of controversy, when either party to the same +is a WHITE person; or in any prosecution of the State against any +WHITE person." +</p> +<p> +We have seen that on the subject of petition the legislature regards +itself as independent of all obligation except such as is imposed by +the Constitution. How mindful they are of the requirements even of +that instrument, when obedience to them would check the indulgence of +their malignity to the blacks, appears from the 7th Section of the +8th Article, viz.—"All courts shall be open, and <i>every</i> person, for +any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall +have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered +without denial or delay." +</p> +<p> +Ohio legislators may deny that negroes and mulattoes are citizens, or +people; but they are estopped by the very words of the statute just +quoted, from denying that they are "<i>persons</i>." Now, by the +Constitution every <i>person</i>, black as well as white, is to have +justice administered to him without denial or delay. But by the law, +while any unknown <i>white</i> vagrant may be a witness in any case +whatever, no black suitor is permitted to offer a witness of his own +color, however well established may be his character for +intelligence and veracity, to prove his rights or his wrongs; and +hence in a multitude of cases, justice is denied in despite of the +Constitution; and why denied? Solely from a foolish and wicked +prejudice against color. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +6. IMPEDIMENTS TO EDUCATION. +</h3> +<p> +No people have ever professed so deep a conviction of the importance +of popular education as ourselves, and no people have ever resorted +to such cruel expedients to perpetuate abject ignorance. More than +one third of the whole population of the slave States are prohibited +from learning even to read, and in some of them free men, if with +dark complexions, are subject to stripes for teaching their own +children. If we turn to the free States, we find that in all of them, +without exception, the prejudices and customs of society oppose +almost insuperable obstacles to the acquisition of a liberal +education by colored youth. Our academies and colleges are barred +against them. We know there are instances of young men with dark +skins having been received, under peculiar circumstances, into +northern colleges; but we neither know nor believe, that there have +been a dozen such instances within the last thirty years. +</p> +<p> +Colored children are very generally excluded from our common schools, +in consequence of the prejudices of teachers and parents. In some of +our cities there are schools <i>exclusively</i> for their use, but in the +country the colored population is usually too sparse to justify such +schools; and white and black children are rarely seen studying under +the same roof; although such cases do sometimes occur, and then they +are confined to elementary schools. Some colored young men, who +could bear the expense, have obtained in European seminaries the +education denied them in their native land. +</p> +<p> +It may not be useless to cite an instance of the malignity with +which the education of the blacks is opposed. The efforts made in +Connecticut to prevent the establishment of schools of a higher order +than usual for colored pupils, are too well known to need a recital +here; and her BLACK ACT, prohibiting the instruction of colored +children from other States, although now expunged from her statute +book through the influence of abolitionists, will long be remembered +to the opprobrium of her citizens. We ask attention to the following +illustration of public opinion in another New England State. +</p> +<p> +In 1834 an academy was built by subscription in CANAAN, New Hampshire, +and a charter granted by the legislature; and at a meeting of the +proprietors it was determined to receive all applicants having +"suitable moral and intellectual recommendations, without other +distinctions;" in other words, without reference to <i>complexion</i>. +When this determination was made known, a TOWN MEETING was forthwith +convened, and the following resolutions adopted, viz. +</p> +<p> +"RESOLVED, That we view with <i>abhorrence</i> the attempt of the +Abolitionists to establish in this town a school for the instruction +of the sable sons and daughters of Africa, in common with our sons +and daughters. +</p> +<p> +"RESOLVED, That we will not associate with, nor in any way +countenance, any man or woman who shall hereafter persist in +attempting to establish a school in this town for the <i>exclusive</i> +education of blacks, <i>or</i> for their education in conjunction with +the whites." +</p> +<p> +The frankness of this last resolve is commendable. The inhabitants +of Canaan, assembled in legal town meeting, determined, it seems, +that the blacks among them should in future have no education +whatever—they should not be instructed in company with the whites, +neither should they have schools exclusively for themselves. +</p> +<p> +The proprietors of the academy supposing, in the simplicity of their +hearts, that in a free country they might use their property in any +manner not forbidden by law, proceeded to open their school, and in +the ensuing spring had twenty-eight white, and fourteen colored +scholars. The crisis had now arrived when the cause of prejudice +demanded the sacrifice of constitutional liberty and of private +property. Another town meeting was convoked, at which, without a +shadow of authority, and in utter contempt of law and decency, it +was ordered, that the academy should be forcibly removed, and a +committee was appointed to execute the abominable mandate. Due +preparations were made for the occasion, and on the 10th of August, +three hundred men, with about 200 oxen, assembled at the place, and +taking the edifice from off its foundation, dragged it to a distance, +and left it a ruin. No one of the actors in this high-handed outrage +was ever brought before a court of justice to answer for this +criminal and riotous destruction of the property of others. +</p> +<p> +The transaction we have narrated, expresses in emphatic terms the +deep and settled hostility felt in the free States to the education +of the blacks. The prejudices of the community render that hostility +generally effective without the aid of legal enactments. Indeed, +some remaining regard to decency and the opinion of the world, has +restrained the Legislatures of the free States, with <i>one exception</i>, +from consigning these unhappy people to ignorance by "decreeing +unrighteous decrees," and "framing mischief by a law." Our readers, +no doubt, feel that the exception must of course be OHIO. +</p> +<p> +We have seen with what deference Ohio legislators profess to regard +their <i>constitutional</i> obligations; and we are now to contemplate +another instance of their shameless violation of them. The +Constitution which these men have sworn to obey declares, "NO LAW +SHALL BE PASSED to prevent the poor of the several townships and +counties in this State from an <i>equal</i> participation in the schools, +academies, colleges, and universities in this State, which are +endowed in whole, or <i>in part</i>, from the revenue arising from +<i>donations</i> made by the United States, for the support of <i>colleges +and schools</i>—and the door of said schools, academies, and +universities shall be open for the reception of scholars, students, +and teachers of every <i>grade</i>, without ANY DISTINCTION OR PREFERENCE +WHATEVER." +</p> +<p> +Can language be more explicit or unequivocal? But have any donations +been made by the United States for the support of colleges and +schools in Ohio? Yes—by an act of Congress, the sixteenth section of +land in <i>each</i> originally surveyed township in the State, was set +apart as a donation for the express purpose of endowing and +supporting common schools. And now, how have the scrupulous +legislators of Ohio, who refuse to acknowledge any other than +constitutional obligations to give ear to the cry of distress—how +have they obeyed this injunction of the Constitution respecting the +freedom of their schools? They enacted a law in 1831, declaring that, +"when any appropriation shall be made by the directors of any school +district, from the treasury thereof, for the payment of a teacher, +the school in such district shall be open"—to whom? "<i>to scholars, +students, and teachers of every grade, without distinction or +preference whatever</i>," as commanded by the Constitution? Oh no! +"Shall be open to all the WHITE children residing therein!!" Such is +the impotency of written constitutions, where a sense of moral +obligation is wanting to enforce them. +</p> +<p> +We have now taken a review of the Ohio laws against free people of +color. Some of them are of old, and others of recent date. The +opinion entertained of all these laws, new and old, by the <i>present</i> +legislators of Ohio, may be learned by a resolution adopted in +January last, (1839) by both houses of the legislature. "RESOLVED, +That in the opinion of this general assembly it is unwise, impolitic, +and inexpedient to repeal <i>any</i> law now in force imposing +disabilities upon black or mulatto persons, thus placing them upon +an equality with the whites, so far as this legislature can do, and +indirectly inviting the black population of other States to emigrate +to this, to the manifest injury of the public interest." The best +comment on the <i>spirit</i> which dictated this resolve is an enactment +by the <i>same</i> legislature, abrogating the supreme law which requires +us to "Do unto others as we would they should do unto us," and +prohibiting every citizen of Ohio from <i>harboring or concealing</i> a +fugitive slave, under the penalty of fine or imprisonment. General +obedience to this vile statute is alone wanting to fill to the brim +the cup of Ohio's iniquity and degradation. She hath done what she +could to oppress and crush the free negroes within her borders. She +is now seeking to rechain the slave who has escaped from his fetters. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +7. IMPEDIMENTS TO RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION. +</h3> +<p> +It is unnecessary to dwell here on the laws of the slave States +prohibiting the free people of color from learning to read the Bible, +and in many instances, from assembling at discretion to worship their +Creator. These laws, we are assured, are indispensable to the +perpetuity of that "peculiar institution," which many masters in +Israel are now teaching, enjoys the sanction of HIM who "will have +all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth," and +who has left to his disciples the injunction, "search the Scriptures." +We turn to the free States, in which no institution requires, that +the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should be prevented from +shining on any portion of the population, and inquire how far +prejudice here supplies the place of southern statutes. +</p> +<p> +The impediments to education already mentioned, necessarily render +the acquisition of religious knowledge difficult, and in many +instances impracticable. In the northern cities, the blacks have +frequently churches of their own, but in the country they are too few, +and too poor to build churches and maintain ministers. Of course they +must remain destitute of public worship and religious instruction, +unless they can enjoy these blessings in company with the whites. +Now there is hardly a church in the United States, not exclusively +appropriated to the blacks, in which one of their number owns a pew, +or has a voice in the choice of a minister. There are usually, indeed, +a few seats in a remote part of the church, set apart for their use, +and in which no white person is ever seen. It is surely not +surprising, under all the circumstances of the case, that these +seats are rarely crowded. +</p> +<p> +Colored ministers are occasionally ordained in the different +denominations, but they are kept at a distance by their white +brethren in the ministry, and are very rarely permitted to enter +their pulpits; and still more rarely, to sit at their tables, +although acknowledged to be ambassadors of Christ. The distinction +of <i>caste</i> is not forgotten, even in the celebration of the Lord's +Supper, and seldom are colored disciples permitted to eat and drink +of the memorials of the Redeemer's passion till after every white +communicant has been served. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +8. IMPEDIMENTS TO HONEST INDUSTRY. +</h3> +<p> +In this country ignorance and poverty are almost inseparable +companions; and it is surely not strange that those should be poor +whom we compel to be ignorant. The liberal professions are virtually +sealed against the blacks, if we except the church, and even in that +admission is rendered difficult by the obstacles placed in their way +in acquiring the requisite literary qualifications;[<a name="rnote12-102"></a><a href="#note12-102">102</a>] and when once +admitted, their administrations are confined to their own color. +Many of our most wealthy and influential citizens have commenced +life as ignorant and as pennyless as any negro who loiters in our +streets. Had their complexion been dark, notwithstanding their +talents, industry, enterprize and probity, they would have continued +ignorant and pennyless, because the paths to learning and to wealth, +would then have been closed against them. There is a conspiracy, +embracing all the departments of society, to keep the black man +ignorant and poor. As a general rule, admitting few if any exceptions, +the schools of literature and of science reject him—the counting +house refuses to receive him as a bookkeeper, much more as a +partner—no store admits him as a clerk—no shop as an apprentice. +Here and there a black man may be found keeping a few trifles on a +shelf for sale; and a few acquire, as if by stealth, the knowledge +of some handicraft; but almost universally these people, both in +town and country, are prevented by the customs of society from +maintaining themselves and their families by any other than menial +occupations. +</p> +<p> +<a name="note12-102"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-102">102</a>: Of the truth of this remark, the trustees of the +Episcopal Theological Seminary at New-York, lately (June, 1839) +afforded a striking illustration. A young man, regularly +acknowledged by the Bishop as a candidate for orders, and in +consequence of such acknowledgment entitled, by an <i>express statute</i> +of the seminary, to admission to its privileges, presented himself +as a pupil. But God had given him a dark complexion, and <i>therefore</i> +the trustees, regardless of the statute, barred the doors against him, +by a formal and deliberate vote. As a compromise between conscience +and prejudice, the professors offered to give him <i>private</i> +instruction—to do in secret what they were ashamed to do openly—to +confer as a favor, what he was entitled to demand as a right. The +offer was rejected. +</p> +<p> +It is worthy of remark, that of the trustees who took an <i>active</i> +part against the <i>colored</i> candidate, one is the PRESIDENT <i>of the +New York Colonization Society</i>; another a MANAGER, and a third, one +of its public champions; and that the Bishop of the diocese, who +wished to exclude his candidate from the theological school of which +he is both a trustee and a professor, lately headed a recommendation +in the newspapers for the purchase of a packet ship for Liberia, as +likely to "render far more efficient than heretofore, the enterprize +of colonization."] +</p> +<p> +In 1836, a black man of irreproachable character, and who by his +industry and frugality had accumulated several thousand dollars, made +application in the City of New York for a carman's license, and was +refused solely and avowedly on account of his complexion! We have +already seen the effort of the Ohio legislature, to consign the +negroes to starvation, by deterring others from employing them. +Ignorance, idleness, and vice, are at once the punishments we +inflict upon these unfortunate people for their complexion; and the +crimes with which we are constantly reproaching them. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +9. LIABILITY TO BE SEIZED, AND TREATED AS SLAVES. +</h3> +<p> +An able-bodied colored man sells in the southern market for from +eight hundred to a thousand dollars; of course he is worth stealing. +Colonizationists and slaveholders, and many northern divines, +solemnly affirm, that the situation of a slave is far preferable to +that of a free negro; hence it would seem an act of humanity to +convert the latter into the former. Kidnapping being both a +lucrative and a benevolent business, it is not strange it should be +extensively practised. In many of the States this business is +regulated by law, and there are various ways in which the +transmutation is legally effected. Thus, in South Carolina, if a +free negro "entertains" a runaway slave, it may be his own wife or +child, he himself is turned into a slave. In 1827, a <i>free woman +and her three children</i> underwent this benevolent process, for +<i>entertaining</i> two fugitive children of six and nine years old. In +Virginia all emancipated slaves remaining twelve months in the State, +are kindly restored to their former condition. In Maryland a free +negro who marries a white woman, thereby acquires all the privileges +of a slave—and generally, throughout the slave region, including +the District of Columbia, every negro not known to be free, is +mercifully considered as a slave, and if his master cannot be +ascertained, he is thrown into a dungeon, and there kept, till by a +public sale a master can be provided for him. But often the law +grants to colored men, <i>known to be free</i>, all the advantages of +slavery. Thus, in Georgia, every <i>free</i> colored man coming into the +State, and unable to pay a fine of one hundred dollars, becomes a +slave for life; in Florida, insolvent debtors, if <i>black</i>, are SOLD +for the benefit of their creditors; and in the District of Columbia +a free colored man, thrown into jail on suspicion of being a slave +and proving his freedom, is required by law to be sold as a slave, +if too poor to pay his jail fees. Let it not be supposed that these +laws are all obsolete and inoperative. They catch many a northern +negro, who, in pursuit of his own business, or on being decoyed +by others ventures to enter the slave region; and who, of course, +helps to augment the wealth of our southern brethren. On the 6th +of March, 1839, a report by a Committee was made to the House of +Representatives of the Massachusetts Legislature, in which are given +the <i>names</i> of seventeen free colored men who had been enslaved at +the south. It also states an instance in which twenty-five colored +citizens, belonging to Massachusetts, were confined at one time in a +southern jail, and another instance in which 75 free colored persons +from different free States were confined, all preparatory to their +sale as slaves according to law. +</p> +<p> +The facts disclosed in this report induced the Massachusetts +Legislature to pass a resolution protesting against the kidnapping +laws of the slave States, "as invading the sacred rights of citizens +of this commonwealth, as contrary to the Constitution of the United +States, and in utter derogation of that great principle of the +common law which presumes every person to be innocent until proved +to be guilty;" and ordered the protest to be forwarded to the +Governors of the several States. +</p> +<p> +But it is not at the south alone that freemen may be converted into +slaves "according to law." The Act of Congress respecting the +recovery of fugitive slaves, affords most extraordinary facilities +for this process, through official corruption and individual perjury. +By this Act, the claimant is permitted to <i>select</i> a justice of the +peace, before whom he may bring or send his alleged slave, and even +to prove his property by <i>affidavit</i>. Indeed, in almost every State +in the Union, a slaveholder may recover at law a human being as his +beast of burden with far less ceremony than he could his pig from +the possession of his neighbor. In only three States is a man, +claimed as a slave, entitled to a trial by jury. At the last session +of the New York Legislature a bill allowing a jury trial in such +cases was passed by the lower House, but rejected by a <i>democratic</i> +vote in the Senate, democracy in that State, being avowedly only +<i>skin</i> deep, all its principles of liberty, equality, and human rights +depending on complexion. +</p> +<p> +Considering the wonderful ease and expedition with which fugitives +may be recovered by law, it would be very strange if mistakes did not +sometimes occur. <i>How</i> often they occur cannot, of course, be known, +and it is only when a claim is <i>defeated</i>, that we are made sensible +of the exceedingly precarious tenure by which a poor friendless +negro at the north holds his personal liberty. A few years since, a +girl of the name of Mary Gilmore was arrested in Philadelphia, as a +fugitive slave from Maryland. Testimony was not wanting in support +of the claim; yet it was most conclusively proved that she was the +daughter of poor <i>Irish</i> parents—having not a drop of negro blood +in her veins—that the father had absconded, and that the mother had +died a drunkard in the Philadelphia hospital, and that the infant +had been kindly received and <i>brought up in a colored family</i>. Hence +the attempt to make a slave of her. In the spring of 1839, a colored +man was arrested in Philadelphia, on a charge of having absconded +from his owner <i>twenty-three</i> years before. This man had a wife and +family depending upon him, and a home where he enjoyed their society; +and yet, unless he could find witnesses who could prove his freedom +for more than this number of years, he was to be torn from his wife, +his children, his home, and doomed for the remainder of his days to +toil under the lash. <i>Four</i> witnesses for the claimant swore to his +identity, although they had not seen him before for twenty-three years! +By a most extraordinary coincidence, a New England Captain, with +whom this negro had sailed <i>twenty-nine</i> years before, in a sloop +from Nantucket, happened at this very time to be confined for debt +in the same prison with the alleged slave, and the Captain's +testimony, together with that of some other witnesses, who had +known the man previous to his pretended elopement, so fully +established his freedom, that the Court discharged him. +</p> +<p> +Another mode of legal kidnapping still remains to be described. By +the Federal Constitution, fugitives from <i>justice</i> are to be +delivered up, and under this constitutional provision, a free negro +may be converted into a slave without troubling even a Justice of +the Peace to hear the evidence of the captor's claim. A fugitive +slave is, of course, a felon—he not only steals himself, but also +the rags on his back which belong to his master. It is understood he +has taken refuge in New York, and his master naturally wishes to +recover him with as little noise, trouble, and delay as possible. +The way is simple and easy. Let the Grand Jury indict A.B. for +stealing wearing apparel, and let the indictment, with an affidavit +of the criminal's flight, be forwarded by the Governor of the State, +to his Excellency of New York, with a requisition for the delivery +of A.B., to the agent appointed to receive him. A warrant is, of +course, issued to "any Constable of the State of New York," to +arrest A.B. For what purpose?—to bring him before a magistrate +where his identity may be established?—no, but to deliver him up to +the foreign agent. Hence, the Constable may pick up the first likely +negro he finds in the street, and ship him to the south; and should +it be found, on his arrival on the plantation, that the wrong man +has come, it will also probably be found that the mistake is of no +consequence to the planter. A few years since, the Governor of New +York signed a warrant for the apprehension of 17 Virginia negroes, +as fugitives from justice.[<a name="rnote12-103"></a><a href="#note12-103">103</a>] Under this warrant, a man who had +lived in the neighborhood for three years, and had a wife and +children, and who claimed to be free, was seized, on a Sunday evening, +in the public highway, in West Chester County, N.Y., and without +being permitted to take leave of his family, was instantly +hand-cuffed, thrown into a carriage, and hurried to New York, and +the next morning was on his voyage to Virginia. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-103"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-103">103</a>: There is no evidence that he knew they were negroes; +or that he acted otherwise than in perfect good faith. The alleged +crime was stealing a boat. The <i>real</i> crime, it is said, was +stealing themselves and escaping in a boat. The most horrible abuses +of these warrants can only be prevented by requiring proof of +identity before delivery.] +</p> +<p> +Free colored men are converted into slaves not only by law, but also +contrary to law. It is, of course, difficult to estimate the extent +to which illegal kidnapping is carried, since a large number of +cases must escape detection. In a work published by Judge Stroud, of +Philadelphia, in 1827, he states, that it had been <i>ascertained</i> +that more than <i>thirty</i> free colored persons, mostly children, had +been kidnapped in that city within the last two years.[<a name="rnote12-104"></a><a href="#note12-104">104</a>] +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-104"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-104">104</a>: Stroud's Sketch of the Slave Laws, p. 94.] +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +10. SUBJECTION TO INSULT AND OUTRAGE. +</h3> +<p> +The feeling of the community towards these people, and the contempt +with which they are treated, are indicated by the following notice, +lately published by the proprietors of a menagerie, in New York. +"The proprietors wish it to be understood, that people of color are +not permitted to enter, <i>except when in attendance upon children and +families</i>." For two shillings, any white scavenger would be freely +admitted, and so would negroes, provided they came in a capacity +that marked their dependence—their presence is offensive, <i>only</i> +when they come as independent spectators, gratifying a laudable +curiosity. +</p> +<p> +Even death, the great leveller, is not permitted to obliterate, among +Christians, the distinction of caste, or to rescue the lifeless form +of the colored man from the insults of his white brethren. In the +porch of a Presbyterian Church, in Philadelphia, in 1837, was +suspended a card, containing the form of a deed, to be given to +purchasers of lots in a certain burial ground, and to enhance the +value of the property, and to entice buyers, the following clause was +inserted, "No person of <i>color</i>, nor any one who has been the +subject of <i>execution</i>, shall be interred in said lot." +</p> +<p> +Our colored fellow-citizens, like others, are occasionally called to +pass from one place to another; and in doing so are compelled to +submit to innumerable hardships and indignities. They are frequently +denied seats in our stage coaches; and although admitted upon the +<i>decks</i> of our steam boats, are almost universally excluded from +the cabins. Even women have been forced, in cold weather, to pass +the night upon deck, and in one instance the wife of a colored +clergyman lost her life in consequence of such an exposure. +</p> +<p> +The contempt poured upon these people by our laws, our churches, our +seminaries, our professions, naturally invokes upon their heads the +fierce wrath of vulgar malignity. In order to exhibit the actual +condition of this portion of our population, we will here insert +some <i>samples</i> of the outrages to which they are subjected, taken +from the ordinary public journals. +</p> +<p> +In an account of the New York riots of 1834, the <i>Commercial +Advertiser</i> says—"About twenty poor African (native American) +families, have had their all destroyed, and have neither bed, +clothing, nor food remaining. Their houses are completely eviscerated, +their furniture a wreck, and the ruined and disconsolate tenants of +the devoted houses are reduced to the necessity of applying to the +corporation for bread." +</p> +<p> +The example set in New York was zealously followed in Philadelphia. +"Some arrangement, it appears, existed between the mob and the white +inhabitants, as the dwelling houses of the latter, contiguous to the +residences of the blacks, were illuminated and left undisturbed, +while the huts of the negroes were singled out with unerring +certainty. The furniture found in these houses was generally broken +up and destroyed—beds ripped open and their contents scattered in +the streets.... The number of houses assailed was not less than +twenty. In one house there was a <i>corpse, which was thrown from the +coffin, and in another a dead infant was taken out of the bed, and +cast on the floor, the mother being at the same time barbarously +treated</i>."—<i>Philadelphia Gazette</i>. +</p> +<p> +"No case is reported of an attack having been <i>invited</i> or <i>provoked</i> +by the residents of the dwellings assailed or destroyed. The extent +of the depredations committed on the <i>three</i> evenings of riot and +outrage can only be judged of by the number of houses damaged or +destroyed. So far as ascertained, this amounts to FORTY-FIVE. One of +the houses assaulted was occupied by an unfortunate cripple—who, +unable to fly from the fury of the mob, was so beaten by some of the +ruffians, that he has since died in consequence of the bruises and +wounds inflicted.... For the last two days the Jersey steam boats +have been loaded with numbers of the colored population, who, +fearful their lives were not safe in this, determined to seek refuge +in another State. On the Jersey side, tents were erected, and the +negroes have taken up a temporary residence, until a prospect shall +be offered for their perpetual location in some place of security +and liberty."—<i>National Gazette</i>. +</p> +<p> +The facts we have now exhibited, abundantly prove the extreme +cruelty and sinfulness of that prejudice against color which we are +impiously told is an ORDINATION OF PROVIDENCE. Colonizationists, +assuming the prejudice to be natural and invincible, propose to +remove its victims beyond its influence. Abolitionists, on the +contrary, remembering with the Psalmist, that "It is HE that hath +made us, and not we ourselves," believe that the benevolent Father +of us all requires us to treat with justice and kindness every +portion of the human family, notwithstanding any particular +organization he has been pleased to impress upon them. Instead, +therefore, of gratifying and fostering this prejudice, by +continually banishing from our country those against whom it is +directed, Abolitionists are anxious to destroy the prejudice itself; +feeling, to use the language of another, that—"It is time to +recognize in the humblest portions of society, partakers of our +nature with all its high prerogatives and awful destinies—time to +remember that our distinctions are <i>exterior</i> and evanescent, our +resemblance real and permanent—that all is transient but what is +moral and spiritual—that the only graces we can carry with us into +another world, are graces of divine implantation, and that amid the +rude incrustations of poverty and ignorance there lurks an +imperishable jewel—a SOUL, susceptible of the highest spiritual +beauty, destined, perhaps, to adorn the celestial abodes, and to +shine for ever in the mediatorial diadem of the Son of God—<i>Take +heed that ye despise not one of these little ones</i>." +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +<a name="AE13vote"></a> +No. 13. +</h2> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. +</h2> +<p> </p> +<hr> +<h2 class="centered"> +CAN ABOLITIONISTS VOTE OR TAKE OFFICE UNDER +</h2> +<h2 class="centered"> +THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? +</h2> +<blockquote> +<p> +"The preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of slavery +is the vital and animating spirit of the National Government." +</p> +</blockquote> +<p class="centered"> +NEW YORK: +<br> +AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, +<br> +142 NASSAU STREET +</p> +<p class="centered"> +1815. +</p> + +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h2> +INTRODUCTION. +</h2> + +<p> +The American Anti-Slavery Society, at its Annual Meeting in May, 1844, +adopted the following Resolution: +</p> +<p> +<i>Resolved</i>, That secession from the present United States +government is the duty of every abolitionist; since no one can take +office, or throw a vote for another to hold office, under the United +States Constitution, without violating his anti-slavery principles, +and rendering himself an abettor of the slaveholder in his sin. +</p> +<p> +The passage of this Resolution has caused two charges to be brought +against the Society: <i>First</i>, that it is a <i>no-government</i> body, +and that the whole doctrine of non-resistance is endorsed by this +vote:—and <i>secondly</i>, that the Society transcended its proper +sphere and constitutional powers by taking such a step. +</p> +<p> +The logic which infers that because a man thinks the Federal +Government bad, he must necessarily think <i>all</i> government so, has +at least, the merit and the charm of novelty. There is a spice of +arrogance just perceptible, in the conclusion that the Constitution +of these United States is so perfect, that one who dislikes it could +never be satisfied with any form of government whatever! +</p> +<p> +Were O'Connell and his fellow Catholics non-resistants, because for +two hundred years they submitted to exclusion from the House of +Lords and the House of Commons, rather than qualify themselves for a +seat by an oath abjuring the Pope? Were the <i>non-juring</i> Bishops of +England non-resistants, when they went down to the grave without +taking their seats in the House of Lords, rather than take an oath +denying the Stuarts and to support the House of Hanover? Both might +have purchased power at the price of one annual falsehood. There are +some in this country who do not seem to think that price at all +unreasonable. It were a rare compliment indeed to the non-resistants, +if every exhibition of rigid principle on the part of an individual +is to make the world suspect him of leaning towards their faith. +</p> +<p> +The Society is not opposed to government, but only to <i>this</i> +Government based upon and acting for slavery. +</p> +<p> +With regard to the second charge, of exceeding its proper limits and +trespassing on the rights of the minority, it is enough to say, that +the object of the American Anti-Slavery Society is the "entire +abolition of slavery in the United States." Of course it is its duty +to find out all the sources of pro-slavery influence in the land. It +is its right, it is its duty to try every institution in the land, +no matter how venerable, or sacred, by the touchstone of +anti-slavery principle; and if it finds any one false, to proclaim +that fact to the world, with more or less of energy, according to +its importance in society. It has tried the Constitution, and +pronounced it unsound. +</p> +<p> +No member's conscience need be injured—The qualification for +membership remains the same, "the belief that slave-holding is a +heinous crime"—No new test has been set up—But the majority of the +Society, for the time being, faithful to its duty of trying every +institution by the light of the present day—of uttering its opinion +on every passing event that touches the slave's welfare, has seen it +to be duty to sound forth its warning, +</p> +<p class="centered"> +<b>NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS</b>. +</p> +<p> +No one who did not vote for the Resolution is responsible for it. No +one is asked to quit our platform. We, the majority, only ask him to +extend to our opinions the same toleration that we extend to him, +and agreeing to differ on this point, work together where we can. We +proscribe no man for difference of opinion. +</p> +<p> +It is said, that having refused in 1840, to say that a man <i>ought to +vote</i>, on the ground that such a resolution would be tyrannical and +intolerant, the Society is manifestly inconsistent now in taking +upon itself to say that no abolitionist <i>can</i> consistently vote. But +the inconsistency is only apparent and not real. +</p> +<!--HERE 131.png--> +<p> +There may he a thousand reasons why a particular individual ought +not to do an act, though the act be innocent in itself. It would be +tyranny therefore in a society which can properly take notice of but +one subject, slavery, to promulgate the doctrine that all its +members ought to do any particular act, as for instance, to vote, to +give money, to lecture, to petition, or the like. The particular +circumstances and opinions of each one must regulate his actions. +All we have a right to ask is, that he do for the slave's cause as +much as he does for any other of equal importance. But when an act +is wrong, it is no intolerance to say to the whole world that it +ought <i>not to be done</i>. After the abolitionist has granted that +slavery is wrong, we have the right to judge him by his own +principles, and arraign him for inconsistency that, so believing, he +helps the slaveholder by his oath. +</p> +<p> +The following pages have been hastily thrown together in explanation +of the vote above recited. They make no pretension to a full +argument of the topic. I hope that in a short time I shall get +leisure sufficient to present to our opponents, unless some one does +it for me, a full statement of the reasons which have led us to this +step. +</p> +<p> +I am aware that we non-voters are rather singular. But history, from +the earliest Christians downwards, is full of instances of men who +refused all connection with government, and all the influence which +office could bestow, rather than deny their principles, or aid in +doing wrong. Yet I never heard them called either idiots or +over-scrupulous. Sir Thomas More need never have mounted the scaffold, +had he only consented to take the oath of supremacy. He had only to +tell a lie with solemnity, as we are asked to do, and he might not +only have saved his life, but, as the trimmers of his day would have +told him, doubled his influence. Pitt resigned his place as Prime +Minister of England, rather than break faith with the Catholics of +Ireland. Should I not resign a petty ballot rather than break faith +with the slave? But I was specially glad to find a distinct +recognition of the principle upon which we have acted, applied to a +different point, in the life of that Patriarch of the Anti-Slavery +enterprise, Granville Sharpe. It is in a late number of the +Edinburgh Review. While an underclerk in the War Office, he +sympathized with our fathers in their struggle for independence. +"Orders reached his office to ship munitions of war to the revolted +colonies. If his hand had entered the account of such a cargo, it +would have contracted in his eyes the stain of innocent blood. To +avoid this pollution, he resigned his place and his means of +subsistence at a period of life when be could no longer hope to find +any other lucrative employment." As the thoughtful clerk of the War +Office takes his hat down from the peg where it has used to hang for +twenty years, methinks I hear one of our opponents cry out, +"Friend Sharpe, you are absurdly scrupulous." "You may innocently +aid Government in doing wrong," adds another. While Liberty Party +yelps at his heels, "My dear Sir, you are quite losing your influence!" +And indeed it is melancholy to reflect how, from that moment the +mighty underclerk of the War Office(!) dwindled into the mere +Granville Sharpe of history! the man of whom Mansfield and Hargrave +were content to learn law, and Wilberforce, philanthropy. +</p> +<p> +One friend proposes to vote for men who shall be pledged not to take +office unless the oath to the Constitution is dispensed with, and +who shall then go on to perform in their offices only such duties as +we, their constituents, approve. He cites, in support of his view, +the election of O'Connell to the House of Commons, in 1828, I believe, +just one year before the "Oath of Supremacy," which was the +objectionable one to the Catholics, was dispensed with. Now, if we +stood in the same circumstances as the Catholics did in 1828, the +example would be in point. When the public mind is thoroughly +revolutionized, and ready for the change, when the billow has +reached its height and begins to crest into foam, then such a +measure may bring matters to a crisis. But let us first go through, +in patience, as O'Connell did, our twenty years of agitation. +Waiving all other objections, this plan seems to me mere playing at +politics, and an entire waste of effort. +</p> +<p> +It loses our high position as moral reformers; it subjects us to all +that malignant opposition and suspicion of motives which attend the +array of parties; and while thus closing up our access to the +national conscience, it wastes in fruitless caucussing and party +tactics, the time and the effort which should have been directed to +efficient agitation. +</p> +<p> +The history of our Union is lesson enough, for every candid mind, of +the fatal effects of every, the least, compromise with evil. The +experience of the fifty years passed under it, shows us the slaves +trebling in numbers;—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and +dictating the policy of the Government;—prostituting the strength +and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and +elsewhere;—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making +the courts of the country their tools. To continue this disastrous +alliance longer is madness. The trial of fifty years only proves +that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, +without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the +sin of slavery. Why prolong the experiment? Let every honest man +join in the outcry of the American Anti-Slavery Society, +</p> +<p class="centered"> +<b>NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS</b>. +</p> +<p class="centered"> +<b>WENDELL PHILLIPS</b>. +</p> +<p> +<i>Boston, Jan</i>. 15, 1845. +</p> + +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<h2 class="centered"> +THE NO-VOTING THEORY. +</h2> + +<p> +"God never made a CITIZEN, and no one will escape as a man, from the +sins which he commits as a citizen." +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +Can an abolitionist consistently take office, or vote, under the +Constitution of the United States? +</p> +<p> +1st. What is an abolitionist? +</p> +<p> +One who thinks slaveholding a sin in all circumstances, and desires +its abolition. Of course such an one cannot consistently aid another +in holding his slave;—in other words, I cannot innocently aid a man +in doing that which I think wrong. No amount of fancied good will +justify me in joining another in doing wrong, unless I adopt the +principle "of doing evil that good may come." +</p> +<p> +2d. What do taking office and voting under the Constitution imply? +</p> +<p> +The President swears "to execute the office of president," and +"to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United +States." The judges "to discharge the duties incumbent upon them +agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States." +</p> +<p> +All executive, legislative, and judicial officers, both of the +several States and of the General Government, before entering on the +performance of their official duties, are bound to take an oath or +affirmation, "<i>to support the Constitution of the United States.</i>" +This is what every office-holder expressly <i>promises in so many words</i>. +It is a contract between him and <i>the whole nation</i>. The voter, who, +by voting, sends his fellow citizen into office as his representative, +knowing beforehand that the taking of this oath is the first duty +his agent will have to perform, does by his vote, request and +authorize him to take it. He therefore, by voting, impliedly engages +to support the Constitution. What one does by his agent he does +himself. Of course no honest man will authorize and request another +to do an act which he thinks it wrong to do himself! Every voter, +therefore, is bound to see, <i>before voting</i>, whether he could +himself honestly swear to <i>support</i> the constitution. Now what does +this oath of office-holders relate to and imply? "It applies," says +Chief Justice Marshall, "in an especial manner, to their conduct in +their official character." Judge Story, in his Commentaries on the +Constitution, speaks of it as "a solemn obligation to the due +execution of the trusts reposed in them, and to support the +Constitution." It is universally considered throughout the country, +by common men and by the courts, as a promise to do what the +Constitution bids, and to avoid what it forbids. It was in the +spirit of this oath, under which he spake, that Daniel Webster said +in New York, "The Constitution gave it (slavery) SOLEMN GUARANTIES. +To the full extent of these guaranties we are all bound by the +Constitution. All the stipulations contained in the Constitution in +favor of the slaveholding States ought to be fulfilled; and so far +as depends on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fulness of their spirit +and to the exactness of their letter." +</p> +<p> +It is more than an oath of allegiance; more than a mere promise that +we will not resist the laws. For it is an engagement to "support them"; +as an <i>officer</i> of government, to carry them into effect. Without +such a promise on the part of its functionaries, how could +government exist? It is more than the expression of that obligation +which rests on all peaceable citizens to <i>submit</i> to laws, even +though they will not actively <i>support</i> them. For it is the promise +which the judge makes, that he will actually <i>do</i> the business of +the courts; which the sheriff assumes, that he will actually <i>execute</i> +the laws. +</p> +<p> +Let it be remarked, that it is an oath to support <i>the</i> +Constitution—that is, <i>the whole of it</i>; there are no exceptions. +And let it be remembered, that by it each <i>one</i> makes a contract +with the <i>whole</i> nation, that he will do certain acts. +</p> +<p> +3d. What is the Constitution which each voter thus engages to support? +</p> +<p> +It contains the following clauses: +</p> +<p> +Art. 1, Sect. 2. Representatives and direct taxes shall be +apportioned among the several States, which may be included within +this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be +determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including +those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians +not taxed, <i>three fifths of all other persons</i>. +</p> +<p> +Art. 1, Sect. 8. Congress shall have power ... to suppress +insurrections. +</p> +<p> +Art. 4, Sec. 2. 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. +</p> +<p> +Art. 4, Sect. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in +this Union a republican form of government; and shall protect each +of them against invasion; and, on application of the legislature, or +of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened) <i>against +domestic violence</i>. +</p> +<p> +The first of these clauses, relating to representation, gives to +10,000 inhabitants of Carolina equal weight in the government with +40,000 inhabitants of Massachusetts, provided they are rich enough +to hold 50,000 slaves:—and accordingly confers on a slaveholding +community additional political power for every slave held among them, +thus tempting them to continue to uphold the system. +</p> +<p> +Its result has been, in the language of John Quincy Adams, "to make +the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of slavery the vital +and animating spirit of the National Government;" and again, to +enable "a knot of slaveholders to give the law and prescribe the +policy of the country." So that "since 1830 slavery, slaveholding, +slavebreeding, and slavetrading have formed the whole foundation of +the policy of the Federal Government." The second and the last +articles relating to insurrection and domestic violence, perfectly +innocent in themselves—yet being made with the fact directly in +view that slavery exists among us, do deliberately pledge the whole +national force against the unhappy slave if he imitate our fathers +and resist oppression—thus making us partners in the guilt of +sustaining slavery: the third is a promise, on the part of the whole +North, to return fugitive slaves to their masters; a deed which +God's law expressly condemns, and which every noble feeling of our +nature repudiates with loathing and contempt. +</p> +<p> +These are the clauses which the abolitionist, by voting or taking +office, engages to uphold. While he considers slaveholding to be sin, +he still rewards the master with additional political power for +every additional slave that he can purchase. Thinking slaveholding +to be sin, he pledges to the master the aid of the whole army and +navy of the nation to reduce his slave again to chains, should he at +any time succeed a moment in throwing them off. Thinking +slaveholding to be sin, he goes on, year after year, appointing by +his vote judges and marshals to aid in hunting up the fugitives, and +seeing that they are delivered back to those who claim them! How +beautifully consistent are his <i>principles</i> and his <i>promises</i>! +</p> +<h2 class="centered"> +OBJECTIONS. +</h2> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION I. +</h3> +<p> +Allowing that the clause relating to representation and that relating +to insurrections are immoral, it is contended that the article which +orders the return of fugitive slaves was not meant to apply to slaves, +but has been misconstrued and misapplied! +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. The meaning of the other two clauses, settled as it has been +by the unbroken practice and cheerful acquiescence of the Government +and people, no one has attempted to deny. This also has the same +length of practice, and the same acquiescence, to show that it +relates to slaves. No one denies that the Government and Courts have +so construed it, and that the great body of the people have freely +concurred in and supported this construction. And further, "The +Madison Papers" (containing the debates of those who framed the +Constitution, at the time it was made) settle beyond all doubt what +meaning the framers intended to convey. +</p> +<p> +Look at the following extracts from those Papers: +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +<i>Tuesday, August 28th</i>, 1787. +</p> +<p> +Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney moved to require "fugitive slaves and +servants to be delivered up like criminals." +</p> +<p> +Mr. Wilson. This would oblige the Executive of the State to do it, at +the public expense. +</p> +<p> +Mr. Sherman saw no more propriety in the public seizing and +surrendering a slave or servant, than a horse. +</p> +<p> +Mr. Butler withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular +provision might be made, apart from this article. +</p> +<p> +Article 15, as amended, was then agreed to, <i>nem. con.</i>—Madison +papers, pp. 1447-8. +</p> +<p> +<i>Wednesday, August</i> 29, 1787. +</p> +<p> +Mr. Butler moved to insert after Article 15, "If any person bound to +service or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into +another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service +or labor, in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State +to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly +claiming their service or labor,"—which was agreed to, <i>nem. con</i>.—p. 1456. +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +And again, after the wording of the above article had been slightly +changed, and the clause newly numbered, as in the present +Constitution, we find another statement most clearly showing to what +subject the whole was intended to refer: +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +<i>Saturday, September</i> 15, 1787. +</p> +<p> +Article 4, Section 2, (the third paragraph,) the term "legally" was +struck out; and the words, "under the laws thereof," inserted after +the word "State," in compliance with the wish of some who thought +the term <i>legal</i> equivocal, and favoring the idea that SLAVERY was +legal in a moral view.—p. 1589. +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +Is it not hence evident that SLAVERY was the subject referred to by +the whole article? +</p> +<p> +The debates of the Convention held in the several States to ratify +the Constitution, at the same time show clearly what meaning it was +thought the framers had conveyed:—In Virginia Mr. Madison said, +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +Another clause secures to us that property which we now possess. At +present, if any slave elopes to any of those States where slaves are +free, he becomes emancipated by their laws. For the laws of the +States are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this +Constitution, "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." This clause was expressly inserted to +enable owners of slaves to reclaim them. This is a better security +than any that now exists. +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +Patrick Henry, in reply observed, +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +The clause which had been adduced by the gentleman was no more than +this—that a runaway negro could be taken up in Maryland or New York. +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +Governor Randolph said, +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +But another clause of the Constitution proves the absurdity of the +supposition. The words of the clause are, "No person held to service +or labor in one State," &c. Every one knows that slaves are held to +service and labor. If a citizen of this State, in consequence of +this clause, can take his runaway slave in Maryland, &c. +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +General Pinckney in South Carolina Convention observed, +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"We have obtained a right to recover our slaves, in whatever part of +America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before." +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +In North Carolina, Mr. Iredell +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +Begged leave to explain the reason of this clause. In some of the +Northern States, they have emancipated all their slaves. If any of +our slaves, said he, go there and remain there a certain time, they +would, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, so that +their masters could not get them again. This would be extremely +prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States, and to +prevent it, this clause is inserted in the Constitution. Though the +word <i>slave</i> be not mentioned, this is the meaning of it. The +Northern delegates, owing to their particular scruples on the +subject of slavery, did not choose the word <i>slave</i> to be mentioned. +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +But even if TWO clauses are immoral that is enough for our purpose, +and shews that no honest man should engage to uphold them. Who has +the right to construe and expound the laws? Of course the Courts of +the Nation. The Constitution provides (Article 3, Section 2,) that +the Supreme Court shall be the final and only interpreter of its +meaning. What says the Supreme Court? That this clause does relate +to slaves, and order their return. All the other courts concur in +this opinion. But, say some, the courts are corrupt on this question. +Let us appeal to the people. Nine hundred and ninety-nine out of +every thousand answer, that the courts have construed it rightly, +and almost as many cheerfully support it. If the unanimous, +concurrent, unbroken practice of every department of the Government, +judicial, legislative, and executive, and the acquiescence of the +people for fifty years, do not prove which is the true construction, +then how and where can such a question ever be settled? If the +people and the courts of the land do not know what they themselves +mean, who has authority to settle their meaning for them? +</p> +<p> +If the Constitution is not what history, unbroken practice, and the +courts prove that our fathers intended to make it, and what too, +their descendants, this nation say they did make it, and agree to +uphold,—who shall decide what the Constitution is? +</p> +<p> +This is the sense then in which the Nation understand that the +promise is made to them. The Nation <i>understand</i> that the judge +pledges himself to return fugitive slaves. The judge knows this when +he takes the oath. And Paley expresses the opinion of all writers on +morals, as well as the conviction of all honest men, when he says, +"that a promise is binding in that sense in which the promiser +thought at the time that the other party understood it." +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION II. +</h3> +<p> +A promise to do an immoral act is not binding: therefore an oath to +support the Constitution of the United States, does not bind one to +support any provisions of that instrument which are repugnant to his +ideas of right. And an abolitionist, thinking it wrong to return +slaves, may as an office-holder, innocently and properly take an +oath to support a Constitution which commands such return. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. Observe that this objection allows the Constitution to be +pro-slavery, and admits that there are clauses in it which no +abolitionist ought to carry out or support. +</p> +<p> +And observe, further, that we all agree, that a bad promise is +better broken than kept—that every abolitionist, who has before now +taken the oath to the Constitution, is bound to break it, and +disobey the pro-slavery clauses of that instrument. So far there is +no difference between us. But the point in dispute now is, whether a +man, having found out that certain requirements of the Constitution +are wrong, can, after that, innocently swear to support and obey them, +<i>all the while meaning not to do so</i>. +</p> +<p> +Now I contend that such loose construction of our promises is +contrary alike to honor, to fair dealing, and to truthfulness—that +it tends to destroy utterly that confidence between man and man +which binds society together, and leads, in matters of government, +to absolute tyranny. +</p> +<p> +The Constitution is a series of contracts made by each individual +with every other of the fourteen millions. A man's oath is evidence +of his assent to this contract. If I offer a man the copy of an +agreement, and he, after reading, swears to perform it, have I not a +right to infer from his oath that he assents to the <i>rightfulness</i> +of the articles of that paper? What more solemn form of expressing +his assent could he select? A man's oath expresses his conviction of +the rightfulness of the actions he promises to do, as well as his +determination to do them. If this be not so, I can have no trust in +any man's word. He may take my money, promise to do what I wish in +return, and yet, keeping my money, tell me, on the morrow, that he +shall not keep his promise, and never meant to, because the act, his +conscience tells him, is wrong. Who would trust property to such men, +or such maxims in the common affairs of life? Shall we not be as +honest in the Senate House as on 'Change? The North makes a contract +with the South by which she receives certain benefits, and agrees to +render certain services. The benefits she carefully keeps—but the +services she refuses to render, because immoral contracts are not +binding! Is this fair dealing? It is the rule alike of law and +common sense, that if we are not able, from <i>any cause</i>, to furnish +the article we have agreed to, we ought to return the pay we have +received. If power is put into our hands on certain conditions, and +we find ourselves unable to comply with those conditions, we ought +to surrender the power back to those who gave it. +</p> +<p> +Immoral laws are doubtless void, and should not be obeyed. But the +question is here, whether one knowing a law to be immoral, may +innocently promise to obey it in order to get into office? The +people have settled the conditions on which one may take office. The +first is, that he assent to their Constitution. Is it honest to +accept power with the intention at the time of not keeping the +conditions?—The rightfulness of those conditions is not here the +question. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION III. +</h3> +<p> +I swear to support the Constitution, as <i>I understand it</i>. Certain +parts of it, in my opinion, contradict others and are therefore void. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. Will any one take the title deed of his house and carry it +to the man he bought of, and let him keep the covenants of that +paper as he says "he understands them?" Do we not all recognize the +justice of having some third, disinterested party to judge between +two disputants about the meaning of contracts? Who ever heard of a +contract of which each party was at liberty to keep as much as he +thought proper? +</p> +<p> +As in all other contracts, so in that of the Constitution, there is +a power provided to affix the proper construction to the instrument, +and that construction both parties are bound to abide by, or +repudiate the <i>whole</i> contract. That power is the Supreme Court of +the United States. +</p> +<p> +Do we seek the common sense, practical view of this question? Go to +the Exchange and ask any broker how many dollars he will trust any +man with, who avows his right to make promises with the design, at +the time, of breaking some parts, and not feeling called upon to +state which those parts will be? +</p> +<p> +Do you seek the moral view of the point, which philosophers have +taken? Paley says, "A promise is binding in that sense in which the +promiser thought at the time of making that the other party +understood it." Is there any doubt what meaning the great body of +the American people attach to the Constitution and the official oath? +They are that party to whom the promise is made. +</p> +<p> +But, say some, our lives are notice to the whole people what meaning +we attach to the oath, and we will protest when we swear, that we do +not include in our oath the pro-slavery clauses. You may as well +utter the protest now, as when you are swearing—or at home, equally +as well as within the State House. For no such protest can be of any +avail. The Chief Justice stands up to administer to me the oath of +some office, no matter which. "Sir," say I, "I must take that oath +with a qualification, excluding certain clauses." His reply will be, +"Sir, I have no discretion in this matter. I am here merely to +administer a prescribed form of oath. If you assent to it, you are +qualified for your station. If you do not, you cannot enter. I have +no authority given me to listen to exceptions. I am a servant—the +people are my masters—here is what they require that you support, +not this or that part of the Constitution, but '<i>the Constitution</i>,' +that is, the <i>whole</i>." +</p> +<p> +Baffled here, I turn to the people. I publish my opinions in +newspapers. I proclaim them at conventions, I spread them through +the country on the wings of a thousand presses. Does this avail me? +Yes, says Liberty party, if after this, men choose to vote for you, +it is evident they mean you shall take the oath as you have given +notice that you understand it. +</p> +<p> +Well, the voters in Boston, with this understanding, elect me to +Congress, and I proceed to Washington. But here arises a difficulty,—my +constituents at home have assented—but when I get to Congress, +I find I am not the representative of Boston only, but of the whole +country. The interests of Carolina are committed to my hands as well +as those of Massachusetts; I find that the contract I made by my +oath was not with Boston, but with the whole nation. It is the +<i>nation</i> that gives me the power to declare war and make peace—to +lay taxes on cotton, and control the commerce of New Orleans. The +nation prescribed the conditions in 1789, when the Constitution was +settled, and though Boston may be willing to accept me on other terms, +Carolina is not willing. Boston has accepted my protest, and says, +"Take office." Carolina says, "The oath you swear is sworn to me, as +well as to the rest—I demand the whole bond." In other words, when +I have made my protest, what evidence is there that <i>the nation</i>, +the other party to the contract, assents to it? There can be none +until that nation amends its Constitution. Massachusetts when she +accepted that Constitution, bound herself to send only such men as +could swear to return slaves. If by an underhand compromise with +some of her citizens, she sends persons of other sentiments, she is +perjured, and any one who goes on such an errand is a partner in the +perjury. Massachusetts has no right to assent to my protest—she has +no right to send representatives, except on certain conditions. She +cannot vary those conditions, without leave from those whose +interests are to be affected by the change, that is, the whole nation. +Those conditions are written down in the Constitution. Do she and +South Carolina differ, as to the meaning? The Court will decide for +them. +</p> +<p> +But, says the objector, do you mean to say that I swear to support +the Constitution, not as I understand it, but as some judge +understands it? Yes, I do—otherwise there is no such thing as law. +This right of private judgment, for which he contends, exists in +religion—but not in Government. Law is a rule <i>prescribed</i>. The +party prescribing must have the right to construe his own rule, +otherwise there would be as many laws as there are individual +consciences. Statutes would be but recommendations if every man was +at liberty to understand and obey them as he thought proper. But I +need not argue this. The absurdity of a Government that has no right +to govern—and of laws which have no fixed meaning—but which each +man construes to mean what he pleases and obeys accordingly—must be +evident to every one. +</p> +<p> +What more power did the most despotic of the English Stuarts ask, +than the right, after having sworn to laws, to break such as their +consciences disapproved? It is the essence of tyranny. +</p> +<p> +What is the Constitution of the United States? In good old fashioned +times we thought we knew, when we had read it and listened to the +court's exposition. But we have improved upon that. The Liberty +party man says, it is for him "what he understands it." John C. +Calhoun, of course, has the same right, and instead of "Liberty +regulated by law," we have liberty regulated by fourteen millions of +understandings! +</p> +<p> +The Liberty party man takes office on conditions, which, he says, +are not binding upon him. He gives us notice that he shall use the +power as he thinks right, without any regard to these conditions of +his oath. Well, if this is law, it is good for all. John C. Calhoun +can of course take office with the same broad liberty, and swear to +support the Constitution "as <i>he</i> understands it." He has told us +often what that "understanding" is—"to sustain Slavery." Of course +having made this public, if, after that, Carolina sends him, +according to Liberty party logic, it is evidence that Massachusetts +assents to his "understanding," and accepts his oath with that +meaning! Why I thought I had fathomed the pro-slavery depths of the +Constitution when I read over all its wicked clauses—but that is +skimming only the surface, if the Constitution allows every man, to +whom it commits power to use it, as he chooses to "understand" the +conditions, and not as the nation understands them. If with this +right, Abolitionists may take office and help Liberty, we must +remember that by the same rule, slaveholders may take office and +lawfully use all their power to help Slavery. If this be so, how +absurd to keep crying out of this and the other thing it is +"unconstitutional." +</p> +<p> +Away with such logic! If we have a Constitution, let us remember +Jefferson's advice, and not make it "waste paper by construction." +The man who tampers thus with the sacred obligation of an oath,—swears, +and Jesuit like, keeps "reserved meanings" in his own +breast,—does more harm to society by loosening the foundations of +morals, than he would do good, did his one falsehood free every +slave from the Potomac to the Del Norte. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION IV. +</h3> +<p> +"The oath does not mean that I will positively do what I swear to do, +but only that I will do it, <i>or submit</i> to the penalty the law awards. +If my actions in office don't suit the nation, let them impeach me." +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. That is, John Tyler may, without consulting Congress, plunge +us into war with Mexico—incur fifty millions of public debt—lose a +hundred thousand lives—and the <i>sufficient recompense</i> to this +nation will be to impeach John Tyler, Esq., and send him home to his +slaves! These are the wise safeguards of Constitutional liberty! He +has faithfully kept it "as he understands it." What is a Russian +slave? One who holds life, property, and all, at the mercy of the +Czar's idea of right. Does not this description of the power every +officer has here, under our Constitution, reduce Americans to the +same condition? +</p> +<p> +But, is it true that the bearing of the penalty is an excuse for +breach of our official oaths? +</p> +<p> +The Judge who, in questions of divorce, has trifled with the +sanctity of the marriage tie—who, in matters of property has +decided unjustly, and taken bribes—in capital cases has so dealt +judgment as to send innocent men to the gallows—may cry out, +"If you don't like me, impeach me." But will impeachment restore the +dead to life, or the husband to his defamed wife? Would the community +consider his submission to impeachment as equivalent to the keeping +of his oath of office, and thenceforward view him as an honest, +truth-speaking, unperjured man? It is idle to suppose so. Yet the +interests committed to some of our officeholders' keeping, are more +important often than even those which a Judge controls. And we must +remember that men's ideas of right always differ. To admit such a +principle into the construction of oaths, if it enable one man to do +much good, will enable scoundrels who creep into office to do much +harm, "according to <i>their</i> consciences." But yet the rule, if it be +admitted, must be universal. Liberty becomes, then, matter of +accident. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION V. +</h3> +<p> +I shall resign whenever a case occurs that requires me to aid in +returning a fugitive slave. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. "The office-holder has promised active obedience to the +Constitution in every exigency which it has contemplated and sought +to provide for. If he promised, not meaning to perform in certain +cases, is he not doubly dishonest? Dishonest to his own conscience +in promising to do wrong, and to his fellow-citizens in purposing +from the first to break his oath, as he knew they understood it? If +he had sworn, not regarding anything as immoral which he bound +himself to do, and afterwards found in the oath something against +his conscience of which he was not at first aware, or if by change +of views he had come to deem sinful what before he thought right, +then doubtless, by promptly resigning, he might escape guilt. But is +not the case different, when among the acts promised are some known +at the time to be morally wrong? 'It is a sin to swear unto sin,' +says the poet, although it be, as he truly adds, 'a greater sin to +keep the sinful oath.'" +</p> +<p> +The captain has no right to put to sea, and resign when the storm +comes. Besides what supports a wicked government more than good men +taking office under it, even though they secretly determine not to +carry out all its provisions? The slave balancing in his lonely +hovel the chance of escape, knows nothing of your secret reservations, +your future intentions. He sees only the swarming millions at the +North ostensibly sworn to restore him to his master, if he escape a +little way. Perchance it is your false oath, which you don't mean to +keep, that makes him turn from the attempt in despair. He knows you +only—the world knows only by your <i>actions</i>, not your <i>intentions</i>, +and those side with his master. The prayer which he lifts to Heaven, +in his despair, numbers you rightly among his oppressors. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION VI. +</h3> +<p> +I shall only take such an office as brings me into no connection +with slavery. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. Government is a whole; unless each in his circle aids his +next neighbor, the machine will stand still. The Senator does not +himself return the fugitive slave, but he appoints the Marshal, +whose duty it is to do so. The State representative does not himself +appoint the Judge who signs the warrant for the slave's recapture, +but he chooses the United States Senator who does appoint that Judge. +The elector does not himself order out the militia to resist +"domestic violence," but he elects the President, whose duty requires, +that a case occurring, he should do so. +</p> +<p> +To suppose that each of these may do that part of his duty that +suits him, and leave the rest undone, is <i>practical anarchy</i>. It is +bringing ourselves precisely to that state which the Hebrew describes. +"In those days there was no king in Israel, but each man did what +was right in his own eyes." This is all consistent in us, who hold +that man is to do right, even if anarchy follows. How absurd to set +up such a scheme, and miscall it a <i>government</i>,—where nobody +governs, but everybody does as he pleases. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION VII. +</h3> +<p> +As men and all their works are imperfect, we may innocently +"support a Government which, along with many blessings, assists in +the perpetration of some wrong." +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. As nobody disputes that we may rightly assist the worst +Government in doing good, provided we can do so without at the same +time aiding it in the wrong it perpetrates, this must mean, of course, +that it is right to aid and obey a Government <i>in doing wrong</i>, if +we think that, on the whole, the Government effects more good than +harm. Otherwise the whole argument is irrelevant, for this is the +point in dispute; since every office of any consequence under the +United States Constitution has some immediate connection with Slavery. +Let us see to what lengths this principle will carry one. Herod's +servants, then, were right in slaying every child in Bethlehem, from +two years old and under, provided they thought Herod's Government, +on the whole, more a blessing than a curse to Judea! The soldiers of +Charles II. were justified in shooting the Covenanters on the muirs +of Scotland, if they thought his rule was better, on the whole, for +England, than anarchy! According to this theory, the moment the +magic wand of Government touches our vices, they start up into +virtues! But has Government any peculiar character or privilege in +this respect? Oh, no—Government is only an association of +individuals, and the same rules of morality which govern my conduct +in relation to a thousand men, ought to regulate my conduct to any +one. Therefore, I may innocently aid a man in doing wrong, if I +think that, on the whole, he has more virtues than vices. If he +gives bread to the hungry six days in the week, I may rightly help +him, on the seventh, in forging bank notes, or murdering his father! +The principle goes this length, and every length, or it cannot be +proved to exist at all. It ends at last, practically, in the old +maxim, that the subject and the soldier have no right to keep any +conscience, but have only to obey the rulers they serve: for there +are few, if any, Governments this side of Satan's, which could not, +in some sense, be said to do more good than harm. Now I candidly +confess, that I had rather be covered all over with inconsistencies, +in the struggle to keep my hands clean, than settle quietly down on +such a principle as this. It is supposing that we may— +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"To do a great right, do a little wrong;" +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +a rule, which the master poet of human nature has rebuked. It is +doing evil that good may come—a doctrine, of which an Apostle has +pronounced the condemnation. +</p> +<p> +And let it be remembered that in dealing with the question of slavery, +we are not dealing with extreme cases. Slavery is no minute evil +which lynx-eyed suspicion has ferreted out. Every sixth man is a +slave. The ermine of justice is stained. The national banner clings +to the flag-staff heavy with blood. "The preservation of slavery," +says our oldest and ablest statesman, "is the vital and animating +<i>spirit</i> of the National Government." +</p> +<p> +Surely IF it be true that a man may justifiably stand connected with +a government in which he sees some slight evils—still it is also +true, even then, that governments <i>may</i> sin so atrociously, so +enormously, may make evil so much the <i>purpose</i> of their being, as +to render it the duty of honest men to wash their hands of them. +</p> +<p> +I may give money to a friend whose life has some things in it which +I do not fully approve—but when his nights are passed in the brothel, +and his days in drunkenness, when he uses his talents to seduce +others, and his gold to pave their road to ruin, surely the case is +changed. +</p> +<p> +I may perhaps sacrifice health by staying awhile in a room rather +overheated, but I shall certainly see it to be my duty to rush out, +when the whole house is in full blaze. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION VIII. +</h3> +<p> +God intended that society and governments should exist. We therefore +are bound to support them. He has conferred upon us the rights of +citizenship in this country, and we cannot escape from the +responsibility of exercising them. God made us <i>citizens</i>. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. This reminds me of an old story I have heard. When the +Legislature were asked to set off a portion of the town of +Dorchester and call it South Boston, the old minister of the town is +said to have objected, saying, "God made it Dorchester, and +Dorchester it ought to be." +</p> +<p> +God made us social beings, it is true, but <i>society</i> is not +necessarily the Constitution of the United States! Because God meant +some form of government should exist, does not at all prove that we +are justified in supporting a wicked one. Man confers the rights and +regulates the duties of citizenship. God never made a <i>citizen</i>, and +no one will escape, as a man, from the sins he commits as a citizen. +This is the first time that it has ever been held an excuse for sin +that we "went with the multitude to do evil!" +</p> +<p> +Certainly we can be under no <i>such</i> responsibility to become and +remain <i>citizens</i>, as will excuse us from the sinful acts which as +such citizens we are called to commit. Does God make obligatory on +his creature the support of institutions which require him to do +acts in themselves wrong? To suppose so, were to confound all the +rules of God's moral kingdom. +</p> +<p> +President Wayland has lately been illustrating, and giving his +testimony to the principle, that a combination of men cannot change +the moral character of an act, which is in itself sinful—that the +law of morals is binding the same on communities, corporations, &c. +as on individuals. +</p> +<p> +After describing slavery, and saying that to hold a man in such a +state is wrong—he goes on: +</p> +<blockquote> +<p> +"I will offer but one more supposition. Suppose that any number, for +instance one half of the families in our neighborhood, should by law +enact that the weaker half should be slaves, that we would exercise +over them the authority of masters, prohibit by law their instruction, +and concert among ourselves means for holding them permanently in +their present situation. In what manner would this alter the moral +aspect of the case?" +</p> +<p> +A law in this case is merely a determination of one party, in which +all unite, to hold the other party in bondage; and a compact by +which the whole party bind themselves to assist every individual of +themselves to subdue all resistance from the other party, and +guaranteeing to each other that exercise of this power over the +weaker party which they now possess. +</p> +<p> +Now I cannot see that this in any respect changes the nature of the +parties. They remain, as before, human beings, possessing the same +intellectual and moral nature, holding the same relations to each +other and to God, and still under the same unchangeable law, Thou +shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. By the act of holding a man in +bondage, this law is violated. Wrong is done, moral evil is committed. +In the former case it was done by the individual; now it is done by +the individual and the society. Before, the individual was +responsible only for his own wrong; now he is responsible both for +his own, and also, as a member of the society, for all the wrong +which the society binds itself to uphold and render perpetual. +</p> +<p> +The scriptures frequently allude to the fact, that wrong done by law, +that is by society, is amenable to the same retribution as wrong +done by the individual. Thus, Psalm 94:20-23. 'Shall the throne of +iniquity have fellowship with them which frame mischief by a law, +and gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, +and condemn the innocent blood? But the Lord is my defence; and my +God is the rock of my refuge. And he shall bring upon them their own +iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the +Lord our God shall cut them off' So also Isaiah 10:1-4. 'Wo unto +them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness +which they have prescribed.' &c. Besides, persecution for the sake +of religious opinion is always perpetrated by law; but this in no +manner affects its moral character. +</p> +<p> +There is, however, one point of difference, which arises from the +fact that this wrong has been established by law. It becomes a +social wrong. The individual, or those who preceded him, may have +surrendered their individual right over it to the society. In this +case it may happen that the individual cannot act as he might act, +if the law had not been made. In this case the evil can only be +eradicated by changing the opinions of the society, and inducing +them to abolish the law. It will however be apparent that this, as I +said before, does not change the relation of the parties either to +each other or to God. The wrong exists as before. The individual act +is wrong. The law which protects it is wrong. The whole society, in +putting the law into execution, is wrong. Before only the individual, +now, the whole society, becomes the wrong doer, and for that wrong, +both the individuals and the society are held responsible in the +sight of God." +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +If such "individual act is wrong," the man who knowingly does it is +surely a sinner. Does God, through society, require men to sin? +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION IX. +</h3> +<p> +If not being non-resistants, we concede to mankind the right to +frame Governments, which must, from the very nature of man, be more +or less evil, the right or duty to support them, when framed, +necessarily follows. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. I do not think it follows at all. Mankind, that is, any +number of them, have a right to set up such forms of worship as they +see fit, but when they have done so, does it necessarily follow that +I am in duty bound to support any one of them, whether I approve it +or not? Government is precisely like any other voluntary association +of individuals—a temperance or anti-slavery society, a bank or +railroad corporation. I join it, or not, as duty dictates. If a +temperance society exists in the village where I am, that love for +my race which bids me seek its highest good, commands me to join it. +So if a Government is formed in the land where I live, the same +feeling bids me to support it, if I innocently can. This is the +whole length of my duty to Government. From the necessity of the case, +and that constitution of things which God has ordained, it follows +that in any specified district, the majority must rule—hence +results the duty of the minority to submit. But we must carefully +preserve the distinction between <i>submission</i> and <i>obedience</i> +—between <i>submission</i> and <i>support</i>. If the majority set up an +immoral Government, I obey those laws which seem to me good, because +they are good—and I submit to all the penalties which my +disobedience of the rest brings on me. This is alike the dictate of +common sense, and the command of Christianity. And it must be the +true doctrine, since any other obliges me to obey the majority if +they command me to commit murder, a rule which even the Tory +Blackstone has denied. Of course for me to do anything I deem wrong, +is the same, in quality, as to commit murder. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION X. +</h3> +<p> +But it is said, your theory results in good men leaving government +to the dishonest and wicked. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. Well, if to sustain government we must sacrifice honesty, +government could not be in a more appropriate place, than in the +hands of dishonest men. +</p> +<p> +But it by no means follows, that if I go out of government, I leave +nothing but dishonest men behind. An act may be sin to me, which +another may sincerely think right—and if so, let him do it, till he +changes his mind. I leave government in the hands of those whom I do +not think as clear-sighted as myself, but not necessarily in the +hands of the dishonest. Whether it be so in this country now, is not, +at present, the question, but whether it would be so necessarily, in +all cases. The real question is, what is the duty of those who +presume to think that God has given them clearer views of duty than +the bulk of those among whom they live? +</p> +<p> +Don't think us conceited in supposing ourselves a little more enlightened than +our neighbors. It is no great thing after all to be a little better than a +lynching—mobocratic—slaveholding—debt repudiating community. +</p> +<p> +What then is the duty of such men? Doubtless to do all they can to +extend to others the light they enjoy. +</p> +<p> +Will they best do so by compromising their principles? by letting +their political life give the lie to their life of reform? Who will +have the most influence, he whose life is consistent, or he who says +one thing to-day, and swears another thing to-morrow—who looks one +way and rows another? My object is to let men <i>understand me</i>, and I +submit that the body of the Roman people understood better, and felt +more earnestly, the struggle between the people and the princes, +when the little band of democrats <i>left the city</i> and encamped on +<i>Mons Sacer, outside</i>, than while they remained mixed up and +voting with their masters, shoulder to shoulder. <i>Dissolution</i> is +our <i>Mons Sacer</i>—God grant that it may become equally famous in the +world's history as the spot where the right triumphed. +</p> +<p> +It is foolish to suppose that the position of such men, divested of +the glare of official distinction, has no weight with the people. If +it were so, I am still bound to remember that I was not sent into +the world <i>to have influence</i>, but to do my duty according to my own +conscience. But it is not so. People do know an honest man when they +see him. (I allow that this is so rare an event now-a-days, as +almost to justify one in supposing they might have forgotten how he +looked.) They will give a man credit, when his life is one manly +testimony to the truthfulness of his lips. Even Liberty party, blind +as she is, has light enough to see that "Consistency is the jewel, +the everything of such a cause as ours." The position of a non-voter, +in a land where the ballot is so much idolized, kindles in every +beholder's bosom something of the warm sympathy which waits on the +persecuted, carries with it all the weight of a disinterested +testimony to truth, and pricks each voter's conscience with an +uneasy doubt, whether after all voting <i>is</i> right. There is +constantly a Mordecai in the gate. +</p> +<p> +I admit that we should strive to have a <i>political</i> influence—for +with politics is bound up much of the welfare of the people. But +this objection supposes that the ballot box is the <i>only</i> means of +political influence. Now it is a good thing that every man should +have the right to vote. But it is by no means necessary that every +man should actually vote, in order to influence his times. We by no +means necessarily desert our social duty when we refuse to take +office, or to confer it. Lafayette did better service to the cause +of French liberty when he retired to Lagrange and refused to +acknowledge Napoleon, than he could have done had he stood, for years, +at the tyrant's right hand. From the silence of that chamber there +went forth a voice—from the darkness of that retreat there burst +forth a light; feeble indeed at first, like the struggling beams of +the morning, but destined like them to brighten into perfect day. +</p> +<p> +This objection, that we non-voters shall lose all our influence, +confounds the broad distinction between <i>influence</i> and <i>power</i>. +<i>Influence</i> every honest man must and will have, in exact +proportion to his honesty and ability. God always annexes influence +to worth. The world, however unwilling, can never get free from the +influence of such a man. This influence the possession of office +cannot give, nor the want of it take away. For the exercise of such +influence as this, man is responsible. <i>Power</i> we buy of our fellow +men at a certain price. Before making the bargain it is our duty to +see that we do not pay "too dear for our whistle." He who buys it at +the price of truth and honor, buys only weakness—and sins beside. +</p> +<p> +Of those who go to the utmost verge of honesty in order to reach the +seats of worldly power, and barter a pure conscience for a weighty +name, it may be well said with old Fuller, "They need to have steady +heads who can dive into these gulfs of policy, and come out with a +safe conscience." +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION XI. +</h3> +<p> +This withdrawing from government is pharisaical—"Shall we, 'weak, +sinful men,'" one says, "perhaps even more sinful than the +slaveholder, cry out, No Union with Slaveholders?" Such a course is +wanting in brotherly kindness. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. Because we refuse to aid a wrong-doer in his sin, we by no +means proclaim, or assume, that we think our <i>whole character</i> +better than his. It is neither pharisaical to have opinions, nor +presumptuous to guide our lives by them. If I have joined with +others in doing wrong, is it either presumptuous or unkind, when my +eyes are opened, to refuse to go any further with them in their +career of guilt? Does love to the thief require me to help him in +stealing? Yet this is all we refuse to do. We will extend to the +slaveholder all the courtesy he will allow. If he is hungry, we will +feed him; if he is in want, both hands shall be stretched out for +his aid. We will give him full credit for all the good that he does, +and our deep sympathy in all the temptations under whose strength he +falls. But to help him in his sin, to remain partners with him in +the slave-trade, is more than he has a right to ask. He would be a +strange preacher who should set out to reform his circle by joining +in all their sins! It is a principle similar to that which the tipsy +Duke of Norfolk acted on, when seeing a drunken friend in the gutter, +he cried out, "My dear fellow, I can't help you out, but I'll do +better, I'll lie down by your side." +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION XII. +</h3> +<p> +But consider, the abstaining from all share in Government will leave +bad men to have everything their own way—admit Texas—extend +slavery, &c. &c. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. That is no matter of mine. God, the great conservative power +of the Universe, when he established the right, saw to it that it +should always be the safest and best. He never laid upon a poor +finite worm the staggering load of following out into infinity the +complex results of his actions. We may rest on the bosom of +Infinite Wisdom, confident that it is enough for us to do justice, +he will see to it that happiness results. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION XIII. +</h3> +<p> +But the same conscientious objection against promising your support +to government, ought to lead you to avoid actually giving your +support to it by paying taxes or sueing in the courts. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. This is what logicians call a <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>: an +attempt to prove our principle unsound by showing that, fairly +carried out, it leads to an absurdity. But granting all it asks, it +does not saddle us with any absurdity at all. It is perfectly +possible to live without petitioning, sueing, or holding stocks. +Thousands in this country have lived, died, and been buried, without +doing either. And does it load us with any absurdity to prove that +we shall be obliged to do from principle, what the majority of our +fellow-citizens do from choice? We lawyers may think it is an +absurdity to say a man can't sue, for, like the Apostle at Ephesus, +it touches our "craft," but that don't go far to prove it. Then, as +to taxes, doubtless many cases might be imagined, when every one +would allow it to be our duty to resist the slightest taxation, did +Christianity allow it, with "war to the hilt." If such cases may +ever arise, why may not this be one? +</p> +<p> +Until I become an Irishman, no one will ever convince me that I +ought to vote, by proving that I ought not to pay taxes! Suppose +all these difficulties do really encompass us, it will not be +the first time that the doing of one moral duty has revealed a +dozen others which we never thought of. The child has climbed the +hill over his native village, which he thought the end of the world, +and lo! there are mountains beyond! He won't remedy the matter by +creeping back to his cradle and disbelieving in mountains! +</p> +<p> +But then, is there any such inconsistency in non-voters sueing and +paying taxes? +</p> +<p> +Look at it. A. and B. have agreed on certain laws, and appointed C. +to execute them. A. owes me, who am no party to the contract, a just +debt, which his laws oblige him to pay. Do I acknowledge the +rightfulness of his relation to B. and C. by asking C. to use the +power given him, in my behalf? It appears to me that I do not. I may +surely ask A. to pay me my debt—why not then ask the keeper, whom +he has appointed over himself, to make him do so? +</p> +<p> +I am a prisoner among pirates. The mate is abusing me in some way +contrary to their laws. Do I recognize the rightfulness of the +Captain's authority, by asking him to use the power the mate has +consented to give him, to protect me? It seems to me that I do not +necessarily endorse the means by which a man has acquired money or +power, when I ask him to use either in my behalf. +</p> +<p> +An alien does not recognize the rightfulness of a government by +living under it. It has always been held that an English subject may +swear allegiance to an usurper and yet not be guilty of treason to +the true king. Because he may innocently acknowledge the king +<i>de facto</i> (the king <i>in deed</i>,) without assuming him to be king +<i>de jure</i> (king by <i>right</i>.) The distinction itself is as old as +the time of Edward the First. The principle is equally applicable to +suits. It has been universally acted on and allowed. The Catholic, +who shrank from acknowledging the heretical Government of England, +always, I believe, sued in her courts. +</p> +<p> +Who could convince a common man, that by sueing in Constantinople or +Timbuctoo, he does an act which makes him responsible for the +character of those governments? +</p> +<p> +Then, as for taxes. It is only our voluntary acts for which we are +responsible. And when did government ever trust tax-paying to the +voluntary good will of its subjects? When it does so, I, for one, +will refuse to pay. +</p> +<p> +When did any sane man conclude that our Saviour's voluntary payment +of a tax acknowledged the rightfulness of Rome's authority over Judea? +</p> +<p> +"The States," says Chief Justice Marshall, "have only not to elect +Senators, and this government expires without a struggle." +</p> +<p> +Every November, then, we <i>create</i> the government anew. Now, what +"instinct" will tell a common-sense man, that the act of a +<i>sovereign</i>,—voting—which creates a wicked government, is, +<i>essentially</i> the +same as the submission of a <i>subject</i>,—tax-paying,—an act done +without our consent. It should be remembered, that we vote as +<i>sovereigns</i>,—we pay taxes as <i>subjects</i>. Who supposes that the +humble tax-payer of Austria, who does not, perhaps, know in what +name the charter of his bondage runs, is responsible for the doings +of Metternich? And what sane man likens his position to that of the +voting sovereign of the United States? My innocent acts may, through +others' malice, result in evil. In that case, it will be for my best +judgment to determine whether to continue or cease them. They are +not thereby rendered essentially sinful. For instance, I walk +out on Sabbath morning. The priest over the way will exclaim, +"Sabbath-breaker," and the infidel will delude his followers, by +telling them I have no regard for Christianity. Still, it will be +for me to settle which, in present circumstances, is best,—to +remain in, and not be misconstrued, or to go out and bear a +testimony against the superstitious keeping of the day. Different +circumstances will dictate different action on such a point. +</p> +<p> +I may often be the <i>occasion</i> of evil when I am not responsible for +it. Many innocent acts <i>occasion</i> evil, and in such case all I am +bound to ask myself before doing such <i>innocent act</i>, is, "Shall I +occasion, on the whole, more harm or good." There are many cases +where doing a duty even, we shall occasion evil and sin in others. +To save a slaveholder from drowning, when we know he has made a will +freeing his slaves, would put off, perhaps forever, their +emancipation, but of course that is not my fault. This making a man +responsible for all the evil his acts, <i>incidentally</i>, without his +will, occasion, reminds me of that principle of Turkish law which +Dr. Clarke mentions, in his travels, and which they call "homicide +by an intermediate cause." The case he relates is this: A young man +in love poisoned himself, because the girl's father refused his +consent to the marriage. The Cadi sentenced the father to pay a fine +of $80, saying "if you had not had a daughter, this young man had +not loved; if he had not loved, he had never been disappointed; if +not disappointed, he would never have taken poison." It was the same +Cadi possibly, who sentenced the island of Samos to pay for the +wrecking of a vessel, on the principle that "if the island had not +been in the way, the vessel would never have been wrecked!" +</p> +<p> +Then of taxes on imports. Buying and selling, and carrying from +country to country, is good and innocent. But government, if I trade +here, will take occasion to squeeze money out of me. Very well. I +shall deliberate whether I will cease trading, and deprive them of +the opportunity, or go on and use my wealth to reform them. 'Tis a +question of expediency, not of right, which my judgment, not my +conscience, must settle. An act of mine, innocent in itself, and +done from right motives, no after act of another's can make a sin. +To import, is rightful. After-taxation, against my consent, cannot +make it wrong. Neither am I obliged to smuggle, in order to avoid it. +I include in these remarks, all taxes, whether on property, or +imports, or railroads. +</p> +<p> +A chemist, hundreds of years ago, finds out how to temper steel. The +art is useful for making knives, lancets, and machinery. But he +knows that the bad will abuse it by making swords and daggers. Is he +responsible? Certainly not. +</p> +<p> +Similar to this is trading in America,—knowing government will thus +have an opportunity to increase its revenue. +</p> +<p> +But suppose the chemist to see two men fighting, one has the other +down,—to the first our chemist presents a finely tempered dagger. +</p> +<p> +Such is voting under the United States Constitution—appointing an +officer to help the oppressor. +</p> +<p> +The difference between voting and +tax-paying is simply this: I may do an act right in itself, though I +know some evil will result. Paul was bound to preach the gospel to +the Jews, though he knew some of them would thereby be led to add to +their sins by cursing and mobbing him. +</p> +<p> +So I may locate property in Philadelphia, trade there, and ride on +its railroads, though I know government will, without my consent, +thereby enrich itself. Other things being equal, of course I shall +not allow it the opportunity. But the advantages and good results of +my doing so, <i>may be</i> such as would make it my duty there to live +and trade, even subject to such an evil. +</p> +<p> +But on the other hand, I may not do an act wrong in itself to secure +any amount of fancied good. +</p> +<p> +Now, appointing a man by my vote to a pro-slavery office, (and such +is every one under the United States Constitution,) is wrong in +itself, and no other good deeds which such officer may do, will +justify an abolitionist in so appointing him. +</p> +<p> +Let it not be said, that this reasoning will apply to voting—that +voting is the right of every human being, (which I grant only for +the sake of argument,) and innocent in itself. +</p> +<p> +Voting <i>under our Constitution</i> is appointing a man to swear to +protect, and actually to protect slavery. Now, appointing agents +generally is the right of every man, and innocent in itself, but +appointing an agent to commit a murder is sin. +</p> +<p> +I trade, and government taxes me; do I authorize it? No. +</p> +<p> +I vote, and the marshal whom my agent appoints, returns a slave to +South Carolina. Do I authorize it? <i>Yes</i>. I knew it would be his +<i>sworn duty</i>, when I voted; and I assented to it, by voting under +the Constitution which makes it his duty. If I trade, it is said, I +may foresee that government will be helped by the taxes I pay, +therefore I ought not to trade. But I do not trade <i>for the purpose</i> +of paying taxes! And if I am to be charged with all the foreseen +results of my actions, then Garrison is responsible for the Boston +mob! +</p> +<p> +The reason why I am responsible for the pro-slavery act of a United +States officer, for whom I have voted, is this: I must be supposed +to have <i>intended</i> that which my agent is <i>bound</i> by his contract +with me (that is, his oath of office) to do. +</p> +<p> +Allow me to request our opposers to keep distinctly in view the +precise point in debate. This is not whether Massachusetts can +rightfully trade and make treaties with South Carolina, although she +knows that such a course will result in strengthening a wrongdoer. +Such are most of the cases which they consider parallel to ours, and +for permitting which they charge us with inconsistency. But the +question really is, whether Massachusetts can join hands and +strength with South Carolina, for the express and avowed purpose of +sustaining Slavery. This she does in the Constitution. For he who +swears to support an instrument of twelve clauses, swears to support +one as well as another,—and though one only be immoral,—still he +swears to do an immoral act. Now, my conviction is, "which fire will +not burn out of me," that to return fugitive slaves is sin—to +promise so to do, and not do it, is, if possible, baser still; and +that any conjunction of circumstances which makes either necessary, +is of the Devil, and not of God. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION XIV. +</h3> +<p> +Duty requires of a non-voter to quit the country, and go where his +taxes will not help to build up slavery. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. God gave me my birth here. Because bad men about me +"play such tricks before high Heaven, as make the angels weep," does +it oblige me to quit? I have as good right here as they. If they +choose to leave, let them—I Shall remain. 'Twould be a pretty thing, +indeed, if, as often as I found myself next door to a bad man, who +would bring up his children to steal my apples and break my windows, +I were obliged to take the temptation away by cutting down all my +apple trees and moving my house further west, into the wilderness. +This would be, in good John Wesley's phrase, "giving up all the good +times to the devil," with a witness. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION XV. +</h3> +<p> +"Society has the right to prescribe the terms, upon the expressed or +implied agreement to comply with which a person may reside within +its limits." +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. This principle I utterly deny. All that Society has a right +to demand is peaceful submission to its exactions:—<i>consent</i> they +have neither the power nor the right to exact or to imply. Twenty +men live on a lone island. Nineteen set up a government and say, +every man who lives there shall worship idols. The twentieth submits +to all their laws, but refuses to commit idolatry. Have they the +<i>right</i> to say, "Do so, or quit;" or, to say, "If you stay, we +will consider you as impliedly worshipping idols?" Doubtless they +have the <i>power</i>, but the majority have no <i>rights</i>, except those +which justice sanctions. Will the objector show me the justice of +his principle? I was born here. I ask no man's permission to remain. +All that any man or body of men have a right to infer from my +staying here, is that, in doing this <i>innocent act</i>, I think, that on +the whole, I am effecting more good than harm. Lawyers say, I cannot +find this right laid down in the books. That will not trouble me. +Some old play has a character in it who never ties his neckcloth +without a warrant from Mr. Justice Overdo. I claim no relationship +to that very scrupulous individual. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +OBJECTION XVI. +</h3> +<p> +These clauses, to which you refer, are inconsistent with the +Preamble of the Constitution, which describes it as made "to +establish justice" and "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves +and our posterity:" And as, when two clauses of the same instrument +are inconsistent, one must yield and be held void—we hold these +three clauses void. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. A <i>specific</i> clause is not to be held void on account of +general terms, such as those of the preamble. It is rather to be +taken as an exception, allowed and admitted at the time, to those +general terms. +</p> +<p> +Again. You say they are inconsistent. But the Courts and the People +do not think so. Now they, being the majority, settle the law. The +question then is, whether the law being settled,—and according to +your belief settled immorally,—you will <i>volunteer</i> your services +to execute it and carry it into effect? This you do by becoming an +officeholder. It seems to me this question can receive but one +answer from honest men. +</p> +<h3 class="centered"> +LAST OF ALL, THE OBJECTOR CRIES OUT, +</h3> +<p> +The Constitution may be <i>amended</i>, and I shall vote to have it +changed. +</p> +<p> +<b>ANSWER</b>. But at present it is necessary to swear to support it +<i>as it is</i>. What the Constitution may become, a century hence, we +know not; we speak of it <i>as it is</i>, and repudiate it <i>as it is</i>. +How long may one promise to do evil, in hope some time or other to +get the power to do good? We will not brand the Constitution of the +United States as pro-slavery, after—it had ceased to be so! This +objection reminds me of Miss Martineau's story of the little boy, +who hurt himself, and sat crying on the sidewalk. "Don't cry!" said +a friend, "it won't hurt you tomorrow."—"Well then," said the child, +"I won't cry tomorrow." +</p> +<p> +We come then, it seems to me, back to our original conclusion: that +the man who swears to support the Constitution, swears to support +the whole of it, pro-slavery clauses and all,—that he swears to +support it <i>as it is</i>, not as it hereafter may become,—that he +swears to support it in the sense given to it by the Courts and the +Nation, not as he chooses to understand it,—and that the Courts and +the Nation expect such an one in office to do his share toward the +suppression of slave, as well as other, insurrections, and to aid +the return of fugitive slaves. After an <i>abolitionist</i> has taken +such an oath, or by his vote sent another to take it for him, I do +not see how he can look his own principles in the face. +</p> +<p> +Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou lie? +</p> +<p> +We who call upon the slaveholder to do right, no matter what the +consequences or the cost, are certainly bound to look well to our +own example. At least we can hardly expect to win the master to do +justice by <i>setting him an example of perjury</i>. It is almost an +insult in an abolitionist, while not willing to sacrifice even a +petty ballot for his principles, to demand of the slaveholder that +he give up wealth, home, old prejudices and social position at their +call. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +EXTRACTS FROM J.Q. ADAMS. +</h2> +<p> </p> +<p> +The benefits of the Constitution of the United States, were the +restoration of credit and reputation, to the country—the revival of +commerce, navigation, and ship building—the acquisition of the +means of discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection +and encouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the +country. All this, however, as is now well ascertained, was +insufficient to propitiate the rulers of the Southern States to +the adoption of the Constitution. What they specially wanted was +<i>protection</i>. Protection from the powerful and savage tribes of +Indians within their borders, and who were harassing them with the most +terrible of wars—and protection from their own negroes—protection +from their insurrections—protection from their +escape—protection even to the trade by which they were brought into +this country—protection, shall I not blush to say, protection to +the very bondage by which they were held. Yes! it cannot be +denied—the slaveholding lords of the South prescribed, as a +condition of their assent to the Constitution, three special +provisions to secure the perpetuity of their dominion over their +slaves. The first was the immunity for twenty years of preserving +the African slave-trade; the second was the stipulation to surrender +fugitive slaves—an engagement positively prohibited by the laws of +God, delivered from Sinai; and thirdly, the exaction, fatal to the +principles of popular representation, of a representation for +slaves—for articles of merchandise, under the name of persons. +</p> +<p> +In outward show, it is a representation of persons in bondage; in +fact, it is a representation of their masters,—the oppressor +representing the oppressed.—Is it in the compass of human +imagination to devise a more perfect exemplification of the art of +committing the lamb to the tender custody of the wolf?—The +representative is thus constituted, not the friend, agent and trustee +of the person whom he represents, but the most inveterate of his foes. +To call government thus constituted a democracy, is to insult the +understanding of mankind. It is doubly tainted with the infection of +riches and of slavery. <i>There is no name in the language of national +jurisprudence that can define it</i>—no model in the records of +ancient history, or in the political theories of Aristotle, with +which it can be likened. Here is one class of men, consisting of not +more than one-fortieth part of the whole people, not more than +one-thirtieth part of the free population, exclusively devoted to +their personal interests identified with their own as slaveholders +of the same associated wealth, and wielding by their votes, upon +every question of government or of public policy, two-fifths of the +whole power of the House. In the Senate of the Union, the proportion +of the slaveholding power is yet greater. Its operation upon the +government of the nation is, to establish an artificial majority in +the slave representation over that of the free people, in the +American Congress, and thereby to make the <b>PRESERVATION, PROPAGATION, +AND PERPETUATION OF SLAVERY THE VITAL AND ANIMATING SPIRIT OF THE +NATIONAL GOVERNMENT</b>.—The result is seen in the fact that, at this day, +the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the +Speaker of the House of Representatives, and five out of nine of the +Judges of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the United States, are not +only citizens of slaveholding States, but individual slaveholders +themselves. So are, and constantly have been, with scarcely an +exception, all the members of both Houses of Congress from the +slaveholding States; and so are, in immensely disproportionate +numbers, the commanding officers of the army and navy; the officers +of the customs; the registers and receivers of the land offices, and +the post-masters throughout the slaveholding States. +</p> +<p> +Fellow-citizens,—with a body of men thus composed, for legislators +and executors of the laws, what will, what must be, what has been +your legislation? The numbers of freemen constituting your nation +are much greater than those of the slaveholding States, bond and free. +You have at least three-fifths of the whole population of the Union. +Your influence on the legislation and the administration of the +Government ought to be in the proportion of three to two. But how +stands the fact? Besides the legitimate portion of influence +exercised by the slaveholding States by the measure of their numbers, +here is an intrusive influence in every department, by a +representation, nominally of persons, but really of property, +ostensibly of slaves, but effectively of their masters, overbalancing +your superiority of numbers, adding two-fifths of supplementary +power to the two-fifths fairly secured to them by the compact, +<b>CONTROLLING AND OVERRULING THE WHOLE ACTION OF YOUR GOVERNMENT AND +HOME AND ABROAD</b>, and warping it to the sordid private interest and +oppressive policy of 300,000 owners of slaves. +</p> +<p> +In the Articles of Confederation, there was no guaranty for the +property of the slaveholder—no double representation of him in the +Federal councils—no power of taxation—no stipulation for the +recovery of fugitive slaves. But when the powers of <i>government</i> came +to be delegated to the Union, the South—that is, South Carolina and +Georgia—refused their subscription to the parchment, till it should +be saturated with the infection of slavery, which no fumigation +could purify, no quarantine could extinguish. The freemen of the +North gave way, and the deadly venom of slavery was infused into the +Constitution of freedom. Its first consequence has been to invert +the first principle of Democracy, that the will of the majority +shall rule the land. By means of the double representation, the +minority command the whole, and a <b>KNOT OF SLAVEHOLDERS GIVE THE LAW +AND PRESCRIBE THE POLICY OF THE COUNTRY</b>. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +<a name="AE_addr"></a> +THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. +</h2> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> + ADDRESS TO THE FRIENDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY, +</h2> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> + ON THE VIOLATION BY THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES +</h2> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> + OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION AT THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE +</h2> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> + OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. +</h2> +<p> </p> +<p class="centered"> +NEW YORK: +<br> +PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, +<br> +NO. 143 NASSAU STREET. +<br> +</p> +<p> </p> +<p class="centered"> +1840. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +This No. contains 1 sheet.—Postage, under 100 miles, 1-1/2 ct. +over 100, 2-1/2 cts. Please Read and circulate. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h2 class="centered"> +ADDRESS. +</h2> +<p> +<b>TO THE FRIENDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY</b>:— +</p> +<p> +There was a time, fellow citizens, when the above address would have +included the <b>PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES</b>. But, alas! the freedom of +the press, freedom of speech, and the right of petition, are now +hated and dreaded by our Southern citizens, as hostile to the +perpetuity of human bondage; while, by their political influence in +the Federal Government, they have induced numbers at the North to +unite with them in their sacrilegious crusade against these +inestimable privileges. +</p> +<p> +On the 28th January last, the House of Representatives, on motion of +Mr. Johnson, from Maryland, made it a standing RULE of the House +that "no petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper, praying the +abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any State or +Territory of the United States, in which it now exists, <b>SHALL BE +RECEIVED BY THE HOUSE, OR ENTERTAINED IN ANY WAY WHATEVER</b>." +</p> +<p> +Thus has the <b>RIGHT OF PETITION</b> been immolated in the very Temple of +Liberty, and offered up, a propitiatory sacrifice to the demon of +slavery. Never before has an outrage so unblushingly profligate been +perpetrated upon the Federal Constitution. Yet, while we mourn the +degeneracy which this transaction evinces, we behold, in its +attending circumstances, joyful omens of the triumph which awaits +our struggle with the hateful power that now perverts the General +Government into an engine of cruelty and loathsome oppression. +</p> +<p> +Before we congratulate you on these omens, let us recall to your +recollection the steps by which the enemies of human rights have +advanced to their present rash and insolent defiance of moral and +constitutional obligation. +</p> +<p> +In 1831, a newspaper was established in Boston, for the purpose of +disseminating facts and arguments in favor of the duty and policy of +immediate emancipation. The Legislature of Georgia, with all the +recklessness of despotism, passed a law, offering a reward of $5000, +for the abduction of the Editor, and his delivery in Georgia. As +there was no law, by which a citizen of Massachusetts could be tried +in Georgia, for expressing his opinions in the capital of his own +State, this reward was intended as the price of <b>BLOOD</b>. Do you start +at the suggestion? Remember the several sums of $25,000, of $50,000, +and of $100,000, offered in Southern papers for kidnapping certain +abolitionists. Remember the horrible inflictions by Southern Lynch +clubs. Remember the declaration, in the United States Senate, by the +brazen-fronted Preston, that, should an abolitionist be caught in +Carolina, he would be <b>HANGED</b>. But, as the Slaveholders could not +destroy the lives of the Abolitionists, they determined to murder +their characters. Hence, the President of the United States was +induced, in his Message of 1835, to Congress, to charge them with +plotting the massacre of the Southern planters; and even to stultify +himself, by affirming that, for this purpose, they were engaged in +sending, by <i>mail</i>, inflammatory appeals to the <i>slaves</i>—sending +papers to men who could not read them, and by a conveyance through +which they could not receive them! He well knew that the papers +alluded to were appeals on the immorality of converting men, women, +and children, into beasts of burden, and were sent to the masters, +for <i>their</i> consideration. The masters in Charleston, dreading the +moral influence of these appeals on the conscience of the +slaveholding community, forced the Post Office, and made a bonfire +of the papers. The Post Master General, with the sanction of the +President, also hastened to their relief, and, in violation of oaths, +and laws, and the constitution, established ten thousand censors of +the press, each one of whom was authorized to abstract from the mail +every paper which <i>he</i> might think too favorable to the rights of man. +</p> +<p> +For more than twenty years, petitions have been presented to Congress, +for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. The right +to present them, and the power of Congress to grant their prayer, +were, until recently, unquestioned. But the rapid multiplication of +these petitions alarmed the slaveholders, and, knowing that they +tended to keep alive at the North, an interest in the slave, they +deemed it good policy to discourage and, if possible, suppress all +such applications. Hence Mr. Pinckney's famous resolution, in 1836, +declaring, "that all petitions, or papers, relating <i>in any way, or +to any extent</i> whatever to the <i>subject of slavery</i>, shall, without +being printed or referred, be laid on the table; and no further +action, whatever shall be had thereon!" +</p> +<p> +The peculiar atrocity of this resolution was, that it not merely +trampled upon the rights of the petitioners, but took from each +member of the House his undoubted privilege, as a legislator of the District, +to introduce any proposition he might think proper, for the +protection of the slaves. In every Slave State there are laws +affording, at least, some nominal protection to these unhappy beings; +but, according to this resolution, slaves might be flayed alive in +the streets of Washington, and no representative of the people could +offer even a resolution for inquiry. And this vile outrage upon +constitutional liberty was avowedly perpetrated "to repress agitation, +to allay excitement, and re-establish harmony and tranquillity among +the various sections of the Union!!" +</p> +<p> +But this strange opiate did not produce the stupefying effects +anticipated from it. In 1836, the petitioners were only 37,000—the +next session they numbered 110,000. Mr. Hawes, of Ky., now essayed +to restore tranquillity, by gagging the uneasy multitude; but, alas! +at the next Congress, more than 300,000 petitioners carried new +terror to the hearts of the slaveholders. The next anodyne was +prescribed by Mr. Patton, of Va., but its effect was to rouse from +their stupor some of the Northern Legislatures, and to induce them +to denounce his remedy as "a usurpation of power, a violation of the +Constitution, subversive of the fundamental principles of the +government, and at war with the prerogatives of the people."[<a name="rnote12-105"></a><a href="#note12-105">105</a>] It +was now supposed that the people most be drugged by a <i>northern</i> man, +and <i>Atherton</i> was found a fit instrument for this vile purpose; but +the dose proved only the more nauseous and exciting from the foul +hands by which it was administered. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note12-105"></a>[Footnote <a href="#rnote12-105">105</a>: Resolutions of Massachusetts and Connecticut, April and +May, 1838.] +</p> +<p> +In these various outrages, although all action on the petitions was +prohibited, the papers themselves were received and laid on the table, +and <i>therefore</i> it was contended, that the right of petition had +been preserved inviolate. But the slaveholders, maddened by the +failure of all their devices, and fearing the influence which the +mere sight of thousands and tens of thousands of petitions in behalf +of liberty, would exert, and, taking advantage of the approaching +presidential election to operate upon the selfishness of some +northern members, have succeeded in crushing the right of petition +itself. +</p> +<p> +That you may be the more sensible, fellow citizens, of the exceeding +profligacy of the late <b>RULE</b> and of its palpable violation of both the +spirit and the letter of the Constitution, which those who voted for +it had sworn to support, suffer us to recall to your recollection a +few historical facts. +</p> +<p> +The framers of the Federal Constitution supposed the right of +petition too firmly established in the habits and affections of the +people, to need a constitutional guarantee. Their omission to notice +it, roused the jealousy of some of the State conventions, called to +pass upon the constitution. The <i>Virginia</i> convention proposed, +as an amendment, "that every <i>freeman</i> has a right to petition, +or apply to the Legislature, for a redress of grievances." And this +amendment, with others, was ordered to be forwarded to the different +States, for their consideration. The Conventions of North Carolina, +New York, and Rhode Island, were held subsequently, and, of course, +had before them the Virginia amendment. The North Carolina Convention +adopted a declaration of rights, embracing the very words of the +proposed amendment; and this declaration was ordered to be submitted +to Congress, before that State would enter the Union. The Conventions +of New York and of Rhode Island incorporated in their <i>certificates +of ratification</i>, the assertion that "Every <i>person</i> has a right to +petition or apply to the legislature for a redress of grievances"—using +the Virginia phraseology, merely substituting the word +<i>person</i> for <i>freeman</i>, thus claiming the right of petition even +for slaves; while Virginia and North Carolina confined it to freemen. +</p> +<p> +The first Congress, assembled under the Constitution, gave effect to +the wishes thus emphatically expressed, by proposing, as an amendment, +that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of +religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or <i>abridging</i> +the freedom of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to +assemble, and <i>to petition Government</i> for a redress of grievances." +This amendment was duly ratified by the States, and when members of +Congress swear to support the Constitution of the United States, +they are as much bound by their oath to refrain from abridging the +right of petition, as they are to fulfil any other constitutional +obligation. And will the slaveholders and their abettors, dare to +maintain that they have not foresworn themselves, because they have +abridged the right of the people to petition for a redress of +grievances, by a <b>RULE</b> of the House, and not by a <i>law</i>? If so, they +may by a <b>RULE</b> require every member, on taking his seat, to subscribe +the creed of a particular church, and then call their Maker to +witness that they are guiltless of making a <i>law</i> "respecting an +establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." +</p> +<p> +The right to petition is one thing, and the disposition of a petition +after it is received, is another. But the new rule makes no +disposition of the petitions; it <b>PROHIBITS THEIR RECEPTION</b>; they may +not be brought into the legislative chamber. Hundreds of thousands +of the people are debarred all access to their representatives, for +the purpose of offering them a prayer. +</p> +<p> +It is said that the manifold abominations perpetrated in the District +are no grievances to the petitioners, and <i>therefore</i> they have no +right to ask for their removal. But the right guaranteed by the +Constitution, is a right to ask for the redress of <i>grievances</i>, +whether personal, social, or moral. And who, except a slaveholder, +will dare to contend that it is no grievance that our agents, our +representatives, our servants, in our name and by our authority, +enact laws erecting and licensing markets in the Capital of the +Republic, for the sale of human beings, and converting free men into +slaves, for no other crime, than that of being too poor to pay +United States' officers the <b>JAIL FEES</b> accruing from an iniquitous +imprisonment? +</p> +<p> +Again, it is pretended that the objects prayed for, are palpably +unconstitutional, and that <i>therefore</i> the petitions ought not to be +received. And by what authority are the people deprived of their +right to petition for any object which a majority of either +House of Congress, for the time being, may please to regard as +unconstitutional? If this usurpation be submitted to, it will not be +confined to abolition petitions. It is well known that most of the +slaveholders <i>now</i> insist, that all protecting duties are +unconstitutional, and that on account of the tariff the Union was +nearly rent by the very men who are now horrified by the danger to +which it is exposed by these <i>petitions</i>! Should our Northern +Manufacturers again presume to ask Congress to protect them from +foreign competition, the Southern members will find a precedent, +sanctioned by Northern votes, for a rule that "no petition, memorial, +resolution, or other paper, praying for the <b>IMPOSITION OF DUTIES FOR +THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF MANUFACTURES</b>, shall be received by the House, +or entertained in any way whatever." +</p> +<p> +It does indeed, require Southern arrogance, to maintain that, +although Congress is invested by the Constitution with "exclusive +jurisdiction, in all cases whatsoever," over the District of Columbia, +yet that it would be so palpably unconstitutional to abolish the +slave-trade, and to emancipate the slaves in the District, that +petitions for these objects ought not to be received. Yet this is +asserted in that very House, on whose minutes is recorded a +resolution, in 1816, appointing a committee, with power to send for +persons and papers, "to inquire into the existence of an inhuman and +illegal traffic in slaves, carried on, in and through the District +of Columbia, and report whether any, and what means are necessary +for putting a stop to the same:" and another, in 1829, instructing +the Committee on the District of Columbia to inquire into the +expediency of providing by law, "for the gradual abolition of +slavery in the District." +</p> +<p> +In the very first Congress assembled under the Federal Constitution, +petitions were presented, asking its interposition for the +mitigation of the evils, and final abolition of the African +slave-trade, and also praying it, as far as it possessed the power, +to take measures for the abolition of slavery. These petitions +excited the wrath and indignation of many of the slave-holding +members, yet no one thought of refusing to receive them. They were +referred to a select committee, at the instance of Mr. Madison, +himself, who "entered into a critical review of the circumstances +respecting the adoption of the Constitution, and the ideas upon the +limitation of the powers of Congress to interfere in the regulation +of the commerce of slaves, and showed that they undoubtedly were not +precluded from interposing in their importation; and generally to +regulate the mode in which every species of business shall be +transacted. He adverted to the western country, and the Cession of +Georgia, in which Congress have certainly the power to <i>regulate the +subject of slavery</i>; which shows that gentlemen are mistaken in +supposing, that Congress cannot constitutionally interfere in the +business, in any degree, whatever. He was in favor of committing the +petition, and justified the measure by repeated precedents in the +proceedings of the House."—<i>U.S. Gazette, 17th Feb.</i>, 1790. +</p> +<p> +Here we find one of the earliest and ablest expounders of the +Constitution, maintaining the power of Congress to "regulate the +subject of slavery" in the national territories, and urging the +reference of abolition petitions to a special committee. +</p> +<p> +The committee made a report; for which, after a long debate, was +substituted a declaration, by the House, that Congress could not +abolish the slave trade prior to the year 1808, but had a right so +to regulate it as to provide for the humane treatment of the slaves +on the passage; and that Congress could not interfere in the +emancipation or treatment of slaves in the <i>States</i>. +</p> +<p> +This declaration gave entire satisfaction, and no farther abolition +petitions were presented, till after the District of Columbia had +been placed under the "exclusive jurisdiction" of the General +Government. +</p> +<p> +You all remember, fellow citizens, the wide-spread excitement which +a few years since prevailed on the subject of SUNDAY MAILS. Instead +of attempting to quiet the agitation, by outraging the rights of the +petitioners, Congress referred the petitions to a committee, and +made no attempt to stifle discussion. +</p> +<p> +Why, then, we ask, with such authorities and precedents before them, +do the slaveholders in Congress, regardless of their oaths, strive to +gag the friends of freedom, under <i>pretence</i> of allaying agitation? +Because conscience does make cowards of them all—because they know +the accursed system they are upholding will not bear the +light—because they fear, if these petitions are discussed, the +abominations of the American slave trade, the secrets of the +prison-houses in Washington and Alexandria, and the horrors of the +human shambles licensed by the authority of Congress, will be +exposed to the score and indignation of the civilized world. +</p> +<p> +Unquestionably the late <b>RULE</b> surpasses, in its profligate contempt of +constitutional obligation, any act in the annals of the Federal +Government. As such it might well strike every patriot with dismay, +were it not that attending circumstances teach us that it is the +expiring effort of desperation. When we reflect on the past +subserviency of our northern representatives to the mandates of the +slaveholders, we may well raise, on the present occasion, the shout +of triumph, and hail the vote on the recent <b>RULE</b> as the pledge of a +glorious victory. Suffer us to recall to your recollection the +majorities by which the successive attempts to crush the right of +petition and the freedom of debate have been carried. +</p> +<table summary="details on gag votes" border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2"> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Pinckney's Gag was passed +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +May, 1836, by a majority of +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +51 +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Hawes's do. +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Jan. 1837, +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +58 +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Patton's do. +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Dec. 1837, +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +48 +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Atherton's do. +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Dec. 1838, +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +48 +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +JOHNSON's do. +</td> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +Jan. 1840, +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +6 +</td> +</tr> +</table> +<p> +Surely, when we find the majority against us reduced from 58 to +6, we need no new incentive to perseverance. +</p> +<p> +Another circumstance which marks the progress of constitutional +liberty, is the gradual diminution in the number of our northern +<i>serviles</i>. The votes from the free States in favor of the several +gags were as follows:— +</p> +<table summary="Free State Votes pro-gag" border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2"> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +For Pinckney's +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +62 +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +For Hawes's +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +70 +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +For Patton's +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +52 +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +For Atherton's +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +49 +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +For JOHNSON's +</td> +<td align="right" valign="top"> +28 +</td> +</tr> +</table> +<p> +There is also another cheering fact connected with the passage of +the <b>RULE</b> which deserves to be noticed. Heretofore the slaveholders +have uniformly, by enforcing the previous question, imposed their +several gags by a silent vote. On the present occasion they were +twice baffled in their efforts to stifle debate, and were, for days +together, compelled to listen to speeches on a subject which they +have so often declared should not be discussed. +</p> +<p> +A base strife for southern votes has hitherto, to no small extent, +enlisted both the political parties at the north in the service of +the slaveholders. The late unwonted independence of northern +politicians, and the deference paid by them to the wishes of their +own constituents, in preference to those of their southern colleagues, +indicates the advance of public opinion. No less than 49 northern +members of the administration party voted for the Atherton gag, +while only 27 dared to record their names in favor of Johnson's; and +of the representation of <b>SIX</b> States, <i>every vote</i> was given <i>against</i> +the rule, without distinction of party. The tone in which opposite +political journals denounce the late outrage may warn the +slaveholders that they will not much longer hold the north in bonds. +The leading administration paper in the city of New York regards the +<b>RULE</b> with "utter abhorrence;" while the official paper of the +opposition, edited by the state printer, trusts that the names of +the recreant northerners who voted for it may be "handed down to +eternal infamy and execration." +</p> +<p> +The advocates of abolition are no longer consigned to unmitigated +contempt and obloquy. Passing by the various living illustrations of +our remark, we appeal for our proofs to the dead. The late WILLIAM +LEGGETT, the editor of a Democratic Journal in the city of New York, +was denounced, in 1835, by the "Democratic Republican General +Committee," for his abolition doctrines. Far from faltering in his +course, on account of the censure of his own party, he exclaimed, +with a presentiment almost amounting to prophecy, "The stream of +public opinion now sets against us, but it is about to turn, and the +regurgitation will be tremendous. Proud in that day may well be the +man who can float in triumph on the first refluent wave, swept +onward by the deluge which he himself, in advance of his fellows, +had largely shared in occasioning. Such be my fate; and, living or +dying, it will in some measure be mine. I have written my name in +ineffaceable letters on the abolition record." And he did live to +behold the first swelling of the refluent wave. The denounced +abolitionist was honored by a democratic President with a diplomatic +mission; and since his death, the resolution condemning him has been +EXPUNGED from the minutes of the democratic committee. +</p> +<p> +Of the many victims of the recent awful calamity in our waters, what +name has been most frequently uttered by the pulpit and the press in +the accents of lamentation and panegyric? On whose tomb have freedom, +philanthropy, and letters been invoked to strew their funeral wreaths? +All who have heard of the loss of the Lexington are familiar with +the name of CHARLES FOLLEN. And who was he? One of the men +officially denounced by President Jackson as a gang of miscreants, +plotting insurrection and murder—and, recently, a member of the +Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society. +</p> +<p> +Let us then, fellow citizens, in view of all these things, thank God +and take courage. We are now contending, not merely for the +emancipation of our unhappy fellow men, kept in bondage under the +authority of our own representatives—not merely for the overthrow +of the human shambles erected by Congress on the national +domain—but also for the preservation of those great constitutional +rights which were acquired by our fathers, and are now assailed by +the slaveholders and their northern auxiliaries. That you may +remember these auxiliaries and avoid giving them new opportunities +of betraying your rights, we annex a list of their dishonored names. +</p> +<p> +The following twenty-eight members from the Free States voted in the +affirmative on the recent GAG RULE. +</p> +<table summary="Free State members in favor of recent gag" border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2"> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="center" valign="top"> +MAINE. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Virgil D. Parris</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Albert Smith</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="center" valign="top"> +NEW HAMPSHIRE. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Charles G. Atherton</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Edmund Burke</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Ira A. Eastman</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Tristram Shaw</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="center" valign="top"> +NEW YORK. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Nehemiah H. Earle</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>John Fine</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Nathaniel Jones</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Governeur Kemble</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>James de la Montayne</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>John H. Prentiss</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Theron R. Strong</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="center" valign="top"> +PENNSYLVANIA. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>John Davis</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Joseph Fornance</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>James Gerry</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>George M'Cullough</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>David Petriken</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>William S. Ramsey</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="center" valign="top"> +OHIO. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>D.P. Leadbetter</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>William Medill</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Isaac Parrish</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>George Sweeney</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>Jonathan Taylor</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>John B. Weller</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="center" valign="top"> +INDIANA. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>John Davis</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>George H. Proffit</b> +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="center" valign="top"> +ILLINOIS. +</td> +</tr> +<tr align="left" valign="top"> +<td align="left" valign="top"> +<b>John Reynolds</b> +</td> +</tr> +</table> +<p> +Let us turn to our more immediate representatives, and we trust more +faithful servants. Our State Legislatures will not refuse to hear +our prayers. Let us petition them immediately to rebuke the treason +by which the Constitution has been surrendered into the hands of the +slaveholders—let us implore them to demand from Congress, in the +name of the free States, that they shall neither destroy nor abridge +the right of petition—a right without which our government would be +converted into a despotism. +</p> +<p> +We call on you, fellow citizens of every religious faith and party +name, to unite with us in guarding the citadel of our country's +freedom. If there are any who will not co-operate with us in +laboring for the emancipation of the slave, surely there are none +who will stand aloof from us while contending for the liberty of +themselves, their children, and their children's children. +</p> +<p> +To the rescue, then, fellow citizens! and, trusting in HIM without +whom all human effort is weakness, let us not doubt that our faithful +endeavors to preserve the rights HE has given us will, through HIS +blessing, be crowned with success. +</p> +<p class="centered"> +ARTHUR TAPPAN, +<br> +JAMES G. BIRNEY, +<br> +JOSHUA LEAVITT, +<br> +LEWIS TAPPAN, +<br> +SAMUEL E. CORNISH, +<br> +SIMEON S. JOCELYN, +<br> +LA ROY SUNDERLAND, +<br> +THEODORE S. WRIGHT, +<br> +DUNCAN DUNBAR, +<br> +JAMES S. GIBBONS, +<br> +HENRY B. STANTON +<br> +</p> +<p class="centered"> +<i>Executive Committee +<br> +of the +<br> +American +<br> +Anti-Slavery Society</i>. +</p> +<p> +<i>New York, February</i> 13, 1840. +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Part 4 of 4 +by American Anti-Slavery Society + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER, PART 4 OF 4 *** + +***** This file should be named 11274-h.htm or 11274-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/1/2/7/11274/ + +Produced by Stan Goodman, Amy Overmyer, Robert Prince and PG Distributed +Proofreaders + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +Each eBook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the eBook's +eBook number, often in several formats including plain vanilla ASCII, +compressed (zipped), HTML and others. + +Corrected EDITIONS of our eBooks replace the old file and take over +the old filename and etext number. The replaced older file is renamed. +VERSIONS based on separate sources are treated as new eBooks receiving +new filenames and etext numbers. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + +EBooks posted prior to November 2003, with eBook numbers BELOW #10000, +are filed in directories based on their release date. If you want to +download any of these eBooks directly, rather than using the regular +search system you may utilize the following addresses and just +download by the etext year. + + https://www.gutenberg.org/etext06 + + (Or /etext 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 00, 99, + 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90) + +EBooks posted since November 2003, with etext numbers OVER #10000, are +filed in a different way. The year of a release date is no longer part +of the directory path. The path is based on the etext number (which is +identical to the filename). The path to the file is made up of single +digits corresponding to all but the last digit in the filename. For +example an eBook of filename 10234 would be found at: + + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/0/2/3/10234 + +or filename 24689 would be found at: + https://www.gutenberg.org/2/4/6/8/24689 + +An alternative method of locating eBooks: + https://www.gutenberg.org/GUTINDEX.ALL + + + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> diff --git a/old/11274.txt b/old/11274.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6c52148 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/11274.txt @@ -0,0 +1,8345 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Part 4 of 4 +by American Anti-Slavery Society + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Part 4 of 4 + +Author: American Anti-Slavery Society + +Release Date: February 25, 2004 [EBook #11274] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: US-ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER, PART 4 OF 4 *** + + + + +Produced by Stan Goodman, Amy Overmyer, Robert Prince and PG Distributed +Proofreaders + + + + + + + + + +THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER Part 4 of 4 + + + + +By The American Anti-Slavery Society 1839 + + + + No. 12. Chattel Principle The Abhorrence of Jesus Christ + and the Apostles; Or No Refuge for American Slavery + in the New Testament. + + On the Condition of the Free People of Color in the + United States. + + No. 13. Can Abolitionists Vote or Take Office Under the United + States Constitution? + + Address to the Friends of Constitutional Liberty, on the + Violation by the United States House of Representatives + of the Right of Petition at the Executive Committee of + the American Anti-Slavery Society. + + + + + + +No. 12. + +ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. + +CHATTEL PRINCIPLE + +THE ABHORRENCE OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES; OR, +NO REFUGE FOR AMERICAN SLAVERY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. + +BY BERIAH GREEN. + +NEW YORK + +PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, +NO. 143 NASSAU STREET + +1839 + +This No. contains 4-1/2 sheet--Postage under 100 miles, 7 cts. over +100, 10 cts. + +Please Read and circulate. + + + +THE NEW TESTAMENT AGAINST SLAVERY. + + "THE SON OF MAN IS COME TO SEEK AND TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST." + +Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? In 1776 THOMAS +JEFFERSON, supported by a noble band of patriots and surrounded by +the American people, opened his lips in the authoritative declaration: +"We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are +created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain +inalienable rights; that among these are life, LIBERTY, and the +pursuit of happiness." And from the inmost heart of the multitudes +around, and in a strong and clear voice, broke forth the unanimous +and decisive answer: Amen--such truths we do indeed hold to be +self-evident. And animated and sustained by a declaration, so +inspiring and sublime, they rushed to arms, and as the result of +agonizing efforts and dreadful sufferings, achieved under God the +independence of their country. The great truth, whence they derived +light and strength to assert and defend their rights, they made the +foundation of their republic. And in the midst of this republic, +must we prove, that He, who was the Truth, did not contradict +"the truths" which He Himself; as their Creator, had made +self-evident to mankind? + +Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? What, according to +those laws which make it what it is, is American slavery? In the +Statute-book of South Carolina thus it is written:[1] "Slaves shall +be deemed, held, taken, reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels +personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their +executors, administrators and assigns, to all intents, construction +and purposes whatever." The very root of American slavery consists +in the assumption, that law has reduced men to chattels. But this +assumption is, and must be, a gross falsehood. Men and cattle are +separated from each other by the Creator, immutably, eternally, and +by an impassable gulf. To confound or identify men and cattle must +be to lie most wantonly, impudently, and maliciously. And must we +prove, that Jesus Christ is not in favor of palpable, monstrous +falsehood? + +[Footnote 1: Stroud's Slave Laws, p. 23.] + + +Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? How can a system, +built upon a stout and impudent denial of self-evident truth--a +system of treating men like cattle--operate? Thomas Jefferson shall +answer. Hear him. "The whole commerce between master and slave is a +perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most +unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on +the other. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the +lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller +slaves, gives loose to his worst passions, and thus nursed, educated, +and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with +odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy, who can retain his +manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances."[2] Such is the +practical operation of a system, which puts men and cattle into the +same family and treats them alike. And must we prove, that Jesus +Christ is not in favor of a school where the worst vices in their +most hateful forms are systematically and efficiently taught and +practiced? Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? What, in +1818, did the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church affirm +respecting its nature and operation? "Slavery creates a paradox in +the moral system--it exhibits rational, accountable, and immortal +beings, in such circumstances as scarcely to leave them the power of +moral action. It exhibits them as dependent on the will of others, +whether they shall receive religious instruction; whether they shall +know and worship the true God; whether they shall enjoy the +ordinances of the gospel; whether they shall perform the duties and +cherish the endearments of husbands and wives, parents and children, +neighbors and friends; whether they shall preserve their chastity +and purity, or regard the dictates of justice and humanity. Such are +some of the consequences of slavery; consequences not imaginary, but +which connect themselves with its very existence. The evils to which +the slave is _always_ exposed, _often take place_ in their very +worst degree and form; and where all of them do not take place, +still the slave is deprived of his natural rights, degraded as a +human being, and exposed to the danger of passing into the hands of +a master who may inflict upon him all the hardship and injuries +which inhumanity and avarice may suggest."[3] Must we prove, that +Jesus Christ is not in favor of such things? + +[Footnote 2: Notes on Virginia, Boston Ed. 1832, pp. 169, 170.] + +[Footnote 3: Minutes of the General assembly for 1818, p. 29.] + + +Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? It is already widely +felt and openly acknowledged at the South, that they cannot support +slavery without sustaining the opposition of universal Christendom. +And Thomas Jefferson declared, "I tremble for my country when I +reflect that God is just; that his justice can not sleep forever; +that considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a +revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is +among possible events; that it may become practicable by +supernatural influences! The Almighty has no attribute which can +take sides with us in such a contest."[4] And must we prove, that +Jesus Christ is not in favor of what universal Christendom is +impelled to abhor, denounce, and oppose; is not in favor of what +every attribute of Almighty God is armed against? + +[Footnote 4: Notes on Virginia, Boston Ed. 1832, pp. 170, 171.] + + + "YE HAVE DESPISED THE POOR." + +It is no man of straw, with whom, in making out such proof, we are +called to contend. Would to God we had no other antagonist! Would to +God that our labor of love could be regarded as a work of +supererogation! But we may well be ashamed and grieved to find it +necessary to "stop the mouths" of grave and learned ecclesiastics, +who from the heights of Zion have undertaken to defend the +institution of slavery. We speak not now of those, who amidst the +monuments of oppression are engaged in the sacred vocation; who, as +ministers of the Gospel, can "prophesy smooth things" to such as +pollute the altar of Jehovah with human sacrifices; nay, who +themselves bind the victim and kindle the sacrifice. That they +should put their Savior to the torture, to wring from his lips +something in favor of slavery, is not to be wondered at. They +consent to the murder of the children; can they respect the rights +of the Father? But what shall we say of distinguished theologians of +the north--professors of sacred literature at our oldest divinity +schools--who stand up to defend, both by argument and authority, +southern slavery! And from the Bible! Who, Balaam-like, try a +thousand expedients to force from the mouth of Jehovah a sentence +which they know the heart of Jehovah abhors! Surely we have here +something more mischievous and formidable than a man of straw. More +than two years ago, and just before the meeting of the General +Assembly of the Presbyterian church, appeared an article in the +Biblical Repertory,[5] understood to be from the pen of the +Professor of Sacred Literature at Princeton, in which an effort is +made to show, that slavery, whatever may be said of any abuses of +it, is not a violation of the precepts of the Gospel. This article, +we are informed, was industriously and extensively distributed among +the members of the General Assembly--a body of men, who by a +frightful majority seemed already too much disposed to wink at the +horrors of slavery. The effect of the Princeton Apology on the +southern mind, we have high authority for saying, has been most +decisive and injurious. It has contributed greatly to turn the +public eye off from the sin--from the inherent and necessary evils +of slavery to incidental evils, which the abuse of it might be +expected to occasion. And how few can be brought to admit, that +whatever abuses may prevail nobody knows where or how, any such +thing is chargeable upon them! Thus our Princeton prophet has done +what he could to lay the southern conscience asleep upon ingenious +perversions of the sacred volume! + +[Footnote 5: For April, 1836. The General Assembly of the +Presbyterian Church met in the following May, at Pittsburgh, where, +in pamphlet form, this article was distributed. The following +appeared upon the title page: + + PITTSBURGH: + 1836. + _For gratuitous distribution_. +] + + +About a year after this, an effort in the same direction was jointly +made by Dr. Fisk and Professor Stuart. In a letter to a Methodist +clergyman, Mr. Merrit, published in Zion's Herald, Dr. Fisk gives +utterance to such things as the following:-- + +"But that you and the public may see and feel, that you have the +ablest and those who are among the honestest men of this age, +arrayed against you, be pleased to notice the following letter from +Prof. Stuart. I wrote to him, knowing as I did his integrity of +purpose, his unflinching regard for truth, as well as his deserved +reputation as a scholar and biblical critic, proposing the following +questions:--" + +1. Does the New Testament directly or indirectly teach, that slavery +existed in the primitive church? + +2. In 1 Tim. vi. 2, And they that have believing masters, &c., what +is the relation expressed or implied between "they" (servants) and +"believing masters?" And what are your reasons for the construction +of the passage? + +3. What was the character of ancient and eastern slavery?-- +Especially what (legal) power did this relation give the master over +the slave? + + + + + +PROFESSOR STUART'S REPLY. + + + ANDOVER, 10th Apr., 1837 + + REV. AND DEAR SIR,--Yours is before me. A sickness of three + month's standing (typhus fever) in which I have just escaped death, + and which still confines me to my house, renders it impossible for me + to answer your letter at large. + + 1. The precepts of the New Testament respecting the demeanor of + slaves and of their masters, beyond all question, recognize the + existence of slavery. The masters are in part "believing masters," so + that a precept to them, how they are to behave as masters, + recognizes that the relation may still exist, _salva fide et salva + ecclesia_, ("without violating the Christian faith or the church.") + Otherwise, Paul had nothing to do but to cut the band asunder at once. + He could not lawfully and properly temporize with a _malum in se_, + ("that which is in itself sin.") + + If any one doubts, let him take the case of Paul's sending Onesimus + back to Philemon, with an apology for his running away, and sending + him back to be his servant for life. The relation did exist, may + exist. The _abuse_ of it is the essential and fundamental wrong. + Not that the theory of slavery is in itself right. No; "Love thy + neighbor as thyself," "Do unto others that which ye would that others + should do unto you," decide against this. But the relation once + constituted and continued, is not such a _malum in se_ as calls + for immediate and violent disruption at all hazards. So Paul did not + counsel. + + 2. 1 Tim. vi. 2, expresses the sentiment, that slaves, who are + Christians and have Christian masters, are not, on that account, and + because _as Christians they are brethren_, to forego the reverence + due to them as masters. That is, the relation of master and slave is + not, as a matter of course, abrogated between all Christians. Nay, + servants should in such a case, _a fortiori_, do their duty + cheerfully. This sentiment lies on the very face of the case. What + the master's duty in such a case may be in respect to _liberation_, + is another question, and one which the apostle does not here treat of. + + 3. Every one knows, who is acquainted with Greek or Latin antiquities, + that slavery among heathen nations has ever been more unqualified + and at looser ends than among Christian nations. Slaves were + _property_ in Greece and Rome. That decides all questions about + their _relation_. Their treatment depended, as it does now, on the + temper of their masters. The power of the master over the slave was, + for a long time, that of _life and death_. Horrible cruelties at + length mitigated it. In the apostle's day, it was at least as great + as among us. + + After all the spouting and vehemence on this subject, which have been + exhibited, the _good old Book_ remains the same. Paul's conduct + and advice are still safe guides. Paul knew well that Christianity + would ultimately destroy slavery, as it certainly will. He knew, + too, that it would destroy monarchy and aristocracy from the earth: + for it is fundamentally a doctrine of _true liberty and equality_. + Yet Paul did not expect slavery or anarchy to be ousted in a day; and + gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor _ad interim_. + + With sincere and paternal regard, + + Your friend and brother, + + M. STUART. + + + --This, sir, is doctrine that will stand, because it is _Bible + doctrine_. The abolitionists, then, are on a wrong course. They have + traveled out of the record; and if they would succeed, they must + take a different position, and approach the subject in a different + manner. + + Respectfully yours, + + W. FISK + + + + "SO THEY WRAP [SNARL] IT UP." + +What are we taught here? That in the ecclesiastical organizations +which grew up under the hands of the apostles, slavery was admitted +as a relation that did not violate the Christian faith; that the +relation may now in like manner exist; that "the abuse of it is the +essential and fundamental wrong;" and of course, that American +Christians may hold their own brethren in slavery without incurring +guilt or inflicting injury. Thus, according to Prof. Stuart, Jesus +Christ has not a word to say against "the peculiar institutions" of +the South. If our brethren there do not "abuse" the privilege of +enacting unpaid labor, they may multiply their slaves to their +hearts' content, without exposing themselves to the frown of the +Savior or laying their Christian character open to the least +suspicion. Could any trafficker in human flesh ask for greater +latitude! And to such doctrines, Dr. Fisk eagerly and earnestly +subscribes. He goes further. He urges it on the attention of his +brethren, as containing important truth, which they ought to embrace. +According to him, it is "_Bible doctrine_," showing, that "the +abolitionists are on a wrong course," and must, "if they would +succeed, take a different position." + +We now refer to such distinguished names, to show, that in attempting +to prove that Jesus Christ is not in favor of American slavery, we +contend with something else than a man of straw. The ungrateful task, +which a particular examination of Professor Stuart's letter lays +upon us, we hope fairly to dispose of in due season. Enough has now +been said to make it clear and certain, that American slavery has its +apologists and advocates in the northern pulpit; advocates and +apologists, who fall behind few if any of their brethren in the +reputation they have acquired, the stations they occupy, and the +general influence they are supposed to exert. + +Is it so? Did slavery exist in Judea, and among the Jews, in its +worst form, during the Savior's incarnation? If the Jews held slaves, +they must have done in open and flagrant violation of the letter and +the spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Whoever has any doubts of +this may well resolve his doubts in the light of the Argument +entitled "The Bible against Slavery." If, after a careful and +thorough examination of that article, he can believe that +slaveholding prevailed during the ministry of Jesus Christ among the +Jews and in accordance with the authority of Moses, he would do the +reading public an important service to record the grounds of his +belief--especially in a fair and full refutation of that Argument. +Till that is done, we hold ourselves excused from attempting to +prove what we now repeat, that if the Jews during our Savior's +incarnation held slaves, they must have done so in open and flagrant +violation of the letter and spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Could +Christ and the Apostles every where among their countrymen come in +contact with slaveholding, being as it was a gross violation of that +law which their office and their profession required them to honor +and enforce, without exposing and condemning it? + +In its worst forms, we are told, slavery prevailed over the whole +world, not excepting Judea. As, according to such ecclesiastics as +Stuart, Hodge and Fisk, slavery in itself is not bad at all, the term +"_worst_" could be applied only to "_abuses_" of this innocent +relation. Slavery accordingly existed among the Jews, disfigured and +disgraced by the "worst abuses" to which it is liable. These abuses +in the ancient world, Professor Stuart describes as "horrible +cruelties." And in our own country, such abuses have grown so rank, +as to lead a distinguished eye-witness--no less a philosopher and +statesman than Thomas Jefferson--to say, that they had armed against +us every attribute of the Almighty. With these things the Savior +every where came in contact, among the people to whose improvement +and salvation he devoted his living powers, and yet not a word, not +a syllable, in exposure and condemnation of such "horrible cruelties" +escaped his lips! He saw--among the "covenant people" of Jehovah he +saw, the babe plucked from the bosom of its mother; the wife torn +from the embrace of her husband; the daughter driven to the market +by the scourge of her own father;--he saw the word of God sealed up +from those who, of all men, were especially entitled to its +enlightening, quickening influence;--nay, he saw men beaten for +kneeling before the throne of heavenly mercy;--such things he saw +without a word of admonition or reproof! No sympathy with them who +suffered wrong--no indignation at them who inflicted wrong, moved +his heart! + +From the alleged silence of the Savior, when in contact with slavery +among the Jews, our divines infer, that it is quite consistent with +Christianity. And they affirm, that he saw it in its worst forms; +that is, he witnessed what Professor Stuart ventures to call +"horrible cruelties." But what right have these interpreters of the +sacred volume to regard any form of slavery which the Savior found, +as "worst," or even bad? According to their inference--which they +would thrust gag-wise into the mouths of abolitionists--his silence +should seal up their lips. They ought to hold their tongues. They +have no right to call any form of slavery bad--an abuse; much less, +horribly cruel! Their inference is broad enough to protect the most +brutal driver amidst his deadliest inflictions! + + + + "THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS; + I AM NOT COME TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFIL." + +And did the Head of the new dispensation, then, fall so far behind +the prophets of the old in a hearty and effective regard for +suffering humanity? The forms of oppression which they witnessed, +excited their compassion and aroused their indignation. In terms the +most pointed and powerful, they exposed, denounced, threatened. They +could not endure the creatures, "who used their neighbors' service +without wages, and gave him not for his work;"[6] who imposed +"heavy burdens"[7] upon their fellows, and loaded them with +"the bands of wickedness;" who, "hiding themselves from their own +flesh," disowned their own mothers' children. Professions of piety +joined with the oppression of the poor, they held up to universal +scorn and execration, as the dregs of hypocrisy. They warned the +creature of such professions, that he could escape the wrath of +Jehovah only by heart-felt repentance. And yet, according to the +ecclesiastics with whom we have to do, the Lord of these prophets +passed by in silence just such enormities as he commanded them to +expose and denounce! Every where, he came in contact with slavery in +its worst forms--"horrible cruelties" forced themselves upon his +notice; but not a word of rebuke or warning did he utter. He saw +"a boy given for a harlot, and a girl sold for wine, that they might +drink,"[8] without the slightest feeling of displeasure, or any mark +of disapprobation! To such disgusting and horrible conclusions, do +the arguings which, from the haunts of sacred literature, are +inflicted on our churches, lead us! According to them, Jesus Christ, +instead of shining as the light of the world, extinguished the +torches which his own prophets had kindled, and plunged mankind into +the palpable darkness of a starless midnight! O savior, in pity to +thy suffering people, let thy temple be no longer used as a +"den of thieves!" + +[Footnote 6: Jeremiah, xxii. 13.] + +[Footnote 7: Isaiah, lviii. 6, 7.] + +[Footnote 8: Joel, iii. 3.] + + + + "THOU THOUGHTEST THAT I WAS ALTOGETHER SUCH AN ONE AS THYSELF." + +In passing by the worst forms of slavery, with which he every where +came in contact among the Jews, the Savior must have been +inconsistent with himself. He was commissioned to preach glad +tidings to the poor; to heal the broken-hearted; to preach +deliverance to the captives; to set at liberty them that are bruised; +to preach the year of Jubilee. In accordance with this commission, +he bound himself, from the earliest date of his incarnation, to the +poor, by the strongest ties; himself "had not where to lay his head;" +he exposed himself to misrepresentation and abuse for his +affectionate intercourse with the outcasts of society; he stood up +as the advocate of the widow, denouncing and dooming the heartless +ecclesiastics, who had made her bereavement a source of gain; and in +describing the scenes of the final judgment, he selected the very +personification of poverty, disease and oppression, as the test by +which our regard for him should be determined. To the poor and +wretched; to the degraded and despised, his arms were ever open. +They had his tenderest sympathies. They had his warmest love. His +heart's blood he poured out upon the ground for the human family, +reduced to the deepest degradation, and exposed to the heaviest +inflictions, as the slaves of the grand usurper. And yet, according +to our ecclesiastics, that class of sufferers who had been reduced +immeasurably below every other shape and form of degradation and +distress; who had been most rudely thrust out of the family of Adam, +and forced to herd with swine; who, without the slightest offence, +had been made the footstool of the worst criminals; whose "tears +were their meat night and day," while, under nameless insults and +killing injuries they were continually crying, O Lord, O Lord:--this +class of sufferers, and this alone, our biblical expositors, +occupying the high places of sacred literature, would make us +believe the compassionate Savior coldly overlooked. Not an emotion +of pity; not a look of sympathy; not a word of consolation, did his +gracious heart prompt him to bestow upon them! He denounces +damnation upon the devourer of the widow's house. But the monster, +whose trade it is to make widows and devour them and their babes, he +can calmly endure! O Savior, when wilt thou stop the mouths of such +blasphemers! + + + "IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH." + +It seems that though, according to our Princeton professor, +"the subject" of slavery "is hardly alluded to by Christ in any +of his personal instructions,"[9] he had a way of "treating it." +What was that? Why, "he taught the true nature, DIGNITY, EQUALITY, +and destiny of men," and "inculcated the principles of justice and +love."[10] And according to Professor Stuart, the maxims which our +Savior furnished, "decide against" "the theory of slavery." All, then, +that these ecclesiastical apologists for slavery can make of the +Savior's alleged silence is, that he did not, in his personal +instructions, "_apply his own principles to this particular form of +wickedness_." For wicked that must be, which the maxims of the +Savior decide against, and which our Princeton professor assures +us the principles of the gospel, duly acted on, would speedily +extinguish.[11] How remarkable it is, that a teacher should +"hardly allude to a subject in any of his personal instructions," +and yet inculcate principles which have a direct and vital bearing +upon it!--should so conduct, as to justify the inference, that +"slaveholding is not a crime,"[12] and at the same time lend its +authority for its "speedy extinction!" + +[Footnote 9: Pittsburg pamphlet, (already alluded to,) p.9.] + +[Footnote 10: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.] + +[Footnote 11: The same, p. 34.] + +[Footnote 12: The same, p. 13.] + + +Higher authority than sustains _self-evident truths_ there cannot +be. As forms of reason, they are rays from the face of Jehovah. +Not only are their presence and power self-manifested, but they +also shed a strong and clear light around them. In their light, +other truths are visible. Luminaries themselves, it is their +office to enlighten. To their authority, in every department of +thought, the same mind bows promptly, gratefully, fully. And by their +authority, he explains, proves, and disposes of whatever engages his +attention and engrosses his powers as a reasonable and reasoning +creature. For what, when thus employed and when most successful, is +the utmost he can accomplish? Why, to make the conclusions which he +would establish and commend, _clear in the light of reason_;--in +other words, to evince that _they are reasonable_. He expects that +those with whom he has to do will acknowledge the authority of +principle--will see whatever is exhibited in the light of reason. If +they require him to go further, and, in order to convince them, to +do something more than show that the doctrines he maintains, and the +methods he proposes, are accordant with reason--are illustrated and +supported with "self-evident truths"--they are plainly "beside +themselves." They have lost the use of reason. They are not to be +argued with. They belong to the mad-house. + + + + "COME NOW, LET US REASON TOGETHER, SAITH THE LORD." + +Are we to honor the Bible, which Professor Stuart quaintly calls +"the good old book," by turning away from "self-evident truths" to +receive its instructions? Can these truths be contradicted or denied +there? Do we search for something there to obscure their clearness, +or break their force, or reduce their authority? Do we long to find +something there, in the form of premises or conclusions, of arguing +or of inference, in broad statement or blind hints, creed-wise or +fact-wise, which may set us free from the light and power of first +principles? And what if we were to discover what we were thus in +search of?--something directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly +prejudicial to the principles, which reason, placing us under the +authority of, makes self-evident? In what estimation, in that case, +should we be constrained to hold the Bible? Could we longer honor +it as the book of God? _The book of God opposed to the authority of_ +REASON! Why, before what tribunal do we dispose of the claims of the +sacred volume to divine authority? The tribunal of reason. _This +every one acknowledges the moment he begins to reason on the subject_. +And what must reason do with a book, which reduces the authority of +its own principles--breaks the force of self-evident truths? Is he +not, by way of eminence, the apostle of infidelity, who, as a +minister of the gospel or a professor of sacred literature, exerts +himself, with whatever arts of ingenuity or show of piety, to exalt +the Bible at the expense of reason? Let such arts succeed and such +piety prevail, and Jesus Christ is "crucified afresh and put to an +open shame." + +What saith the Princeton professor? Why, in spite of "general +principles," and "clear as we may think the arguments against +DESPOTISM, there have been thousands of ENLIGHTENED _and good men_, +who _honestly_ believe it to be of all forms of government the best +and most acceptable to God."[13] Now these "good men" must have been +thus warmly in favor of despotism, in consequence of, or in +opposition to, their being "enlightened." In other words, the light, +which in such abundance they enjoyed, conducted them to the position +in favor of despotism, where the Princeton professor so heartily +shook hands with them, or they must have forced their way there in +despite of its hallowed influence. Either in accordance with, or in +resistance to the light, they became what he found them--the +advocates of despotism. If in resistance to the light--and he says +they were "enlightened men"--what, so far as the subject with which +alone he and we are now concerned, becomes of their "honesty" and +"goodness?" Good and honest resisters of the light, which was freely +poured around them! Of such, what says Professor Stuart's "good old +Book?" Their authority, where "general principles" command the least +respect, must be small indeed. But if in accordance with the light, +they have become the advocates of despotism, then is despotism +"the best form of government and most acceptable to God." It is +sustained by the authority of reason, by the word of Jehovah, by the +will of Heaven! If this be the doctrine which prevails at certain +theological seminaries, it must be easy to account for the spirit +which they breathe, and the general influence which they exert. Why +did not the Princeton professor place this "general principle" as a +shield, heaven-wrought and reason approved, over that cherished form +of despotism which prevails among the churches of the South, and +leave the "peculiar institutions" he is so forward to defend, under +its protection? + +[Footnote 13: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 12.] + + +What is the "general principle" to which, whatever may become of +despotism, with its "honest" admirers and "enlightened" supporters, +human governments should be universally and carefully adjusted? +Clearly this--_that as capable of, man is entitled to, self +government_. And this is a specific form of a still more +general principle, which may well be pronounced self-evident--_that +every thing should be treated according to its nature_. The mind +that can doubt this, must be incapable of rational conviction. +Man, then,--it is the dictate of reason, it is the voice of +Jehovah--must be treated as _a man_. What is he? What are his +distinctive attributes? The Creator impressed his own image on him. +In this were found the grand peculiarities of his character. Here +shone his glory. Here REASON manifests its laws. Here the WILL puts +forth its volitions. Here is the crown of IMMORTALITY. Why such +endowments? Thus furnished--the image of Jehovah--is he not capable +of self-government? And is he not to be so treated? _Within the +sphere where the laws of reason place him_, may he not act according +to his choice--carry out his own volitions?--may he not enjoy life, +exult in freedom, and pursue as he will the path of blessedness? If +not, why was he so created and endowed? Why the mysterious, awful +attribute of will? To be a source, profound as the depths of hell, +of exquisite misery, of keen anguish, of insufferable torment! Was man, +formed "according to the image of Jehovah," to be crossed, thwarted, +counteracted; to be forced in upon himself; to be the sport of +endless contradictions; to be driven back and forth forever between +mutually repellant forces; and all, all "at the discretion of +another!"[14] How can man be treated according to his nature, as +endowed with reason or will, if excluded from the powers and +privileges of self-government?--if "despotism" be let loose upon +him, to "deprive him of personal liberty, oblige him to serve at the +discretion of another" and with the power of "transferring" such +"authority" over him and such claim upon him, to "another master?" +If "thousands of enlightened and good men" can so easily be found, +who are forward to support "despotism" as "of all governments the +best and most acceptable to God," we need not wonder at the +testimony of universal history, that "the whole creation groaneth +and travaileth in pain together until now." Groans and travail pangs +must continue to be the order of the day throughout "the whole +creation," till the rod of despotism be broken, and man be treated +as man--as capable of, and entitled to, self-government. + +[Footnote 14: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 12.] + + +But what is the despotism whose horrid features our smooth professor +tries to hide beneath an array of cunningly selected words and +nicely-adjusted sentences? It is the despotism of American +slavery--which crushes the very life of humanity out of its victims, +and transforms them to cattle! At its touch, they sink from men to +things! "Slaves," saith Professor Stuart, "were _property_ in Greece +and Rome. That decides all questions about their _relation_." Yes, +truly. And slaves in republican America are _property_; and as that +easily, clearly, and definitely settles "all questions about their +_relation_," why should the Princeton professor have put himself +to the trouble of weaving a definition equally ingenious and +inadequate--at once subtle and deceitful. Ah, why? Was he willing thus +to conceal the wrongs of his mother's children even from himself? If +among the figments of his brain, he could fashion slaves, and make +them something else than property, he knew full well that a very +different pattern was in use among the southern patriarchs. Why did +he not, in plain words and sober earnest, and good faith, describe +the thing as it was, instead of employing honied words and courtly +phrases, to set forth with all becoming vagueness and ambiguity, +what might possibly be supposed to exist in the regions of fancy. + + + "FOR RULERS ARE NOT A TERROR TO GOOD WORKS, BUT TO THE EVIL." + +But are we, in maintaining the principle of self-government, to +overlook the unripe, or neglected, or broken powers of any of our +fellow-men with whom we may be connected?--or the strong passions, +vicious propensities, or criminal pursuits of others? Certainly not. +But in providing for their welfare, we are to exert influences and +impose restraints suited to their character. In wielding those +prerogatives which the social of our nature authorizes us to employ +for their benefit, we are to regard them as they are in truth, not +things, not cattle, not articles of merchandize, but men, our +fellow-men--reflecting, from however battered and broken a surface, +reflecting with us the image of a common Father. And the great +principle of self-government is to be the basis, to which the whole +structure of discipline under which they may be placed, should be +adapted. From the nursery and village school on to the work-house +and state-prison, this principle is ever and in all things to be +before the eyes, present in the thoughts, warm on the heart. +Otherwise, God is insulted, while his image is despised and abused. +Yes, indeed; we remember, that in carrying out the principle of +self-government, multiplied embarrassments and obstructions grow out +of wickedness on the one hand and passion on the other. Such +difficulties and obstacles we are far enough from overlooking. But +where are they to be found? Are imbecility and wickedness, bad +hearts and bad heads, confined to the bottom of society? Alas, the +weakest of the weak, and the desperately wicked, often occupy the +high places of the earth, reducing every thing within their reach to +subserviency to the foulest purposes. Nay, the very power they have +usurped, has often been the chief instrument of turning their heads, +inflaming their passions, corrupting their hearts. All the world +knows, that the possession of arbitrary power has a strong tendency +to make men shamelessly wicked and insufferably mischievous. And +this, whether the vassals over whom they domineer, be few or many. +If you cannot trust man with himself, will you put his fellows +under his control?--and flee from the inconveniences incident to +self-government, to the horrors of despotism? + + +"THOU THAT PREACHEST A MAN SHOULD NOT STEAL, DOST THOU STEAL." + +Is the slaveholder, the most absolute and shameless of all despots, +to be entrusted with the discipline of the injured men who he +himself has reduced to cattle?--with the discipline with which they +are to be prepared to wield the powers and enjoy the privileges of +freemen? Alas, of such discipline as _he_ can furnish, in the +relation of owner to property, they have had enough. From this +sprang the very ignorance and vice, which in the view of many, lie +in the way of their immediate enfranchisement. He it is, who has +darkened their eyes and crippled their powers. And are they to look +to him for illumination and renewed vigor!--and expect "grapes from +thorns and figs from thistles!" Heaven forbid! When, according to +arrangements which had usurped the sacred name of law, he consented +to receive and use them as property, he forfeited all claims to the +esteem and confidence, not only of the helpless sufferers themselves, +but also of every philanthropist. In becoming a slaveholder, he +became the enemy of mankind. The very act was a declaration of war +upon human nature. What less can be made of the process of turning +men to cattle? It is rank absurdity--it is the height of madness, to +propose to employ _him_ to train, for the places of freemen, those +whom he has wantonly robbed of every right--whom he has stolen from +themselves. Sooner place Burke, who used to murder for the sake of +selling bodies to the dissector, at the head of a hospital. Why, +what have our slaveholders been about these two hundred years? Have +they not been constantly and earnestly engaged in the work of +education?--training up their human cattle? And how? Thomas +Jefferson shall answer. "The whole commerce between master and slave, +is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most +unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on +the other." Is this the way to fit the unprepared for the duties and +privileges of American citizens? Will the evils of the dreadful +process be diminished by adding to its length? What, in 1818, was +the unanimous testimony of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian +Church? Why, after describing a variety of influences growing out of +slavery, most fatal to mental and moral improvement, the General +Assembly assure us, that such "consequences are not imaginary, but +connect themselves WITH THE VERY EXISTENCE[15] of slavery. The evils to +which the slave is _always_ exposed, _often_ take place in fact, and +IN THEIR VERY WORST DEGREE AND FORM; and where all of them do not +take place," "still the slave is deprived of his natural right, +degraded as a human being, and exposed to the danger of passing into +the hands of a master who may inflict upon him all the hardships and +injuries which inhumanity and avarice may suggest." Is this the +condition in which our ecclesiastics would keep the slave, at least +a little longer, to fit him to be restored to himself? + +[Footnote 15: The words here marked as emphatic, were so distinguished +by ourselves.] + + + "AND THEY STOPPED THEIR EARS." + +The methods of discipline under which, as slaveholders; the Southrons +now place their human cattle, they with one consent and in great +wrath, forbid us to examine. The statesman and the priest unite in +the assurance, that these methods are none of our business. Nay, they +give us distinctly to understand, that if we come among them to take +observations, and make inquiries, and discuss questions, they will +dispose of us as outlaws. Nothing will avail to protect us from +speedy and deadly violence! What inference does all this warrant? +Surely, not that the methods which they employ are happy and worthy +of universal application. If so, why do they not take the praise, +and give us the benefit of their wisdom, enterprise, and success? Who, +that has nothing to hide, practices concealment? "He that doeth +truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest, that they +are wrought in God." Is this the way of slaveholders? Darkness they +court--they will have darkness. Doubtless "because their deeds are +evil." Can we confide in methods for the benefit of our enslaved +brethren, which it is death for us to examine? What good ever came, +what good can we expect, from deeds of darkness? + +Did the influence of the masters contribute any thing in the West +Indies to prepare the apprentices for enfranchisement? Nay, verily. +All the world knows better. They did what in them lay, to turn back +the tide of blessings, which, through emancipation, was pouring in +upon the famishing around them. Are not the best minds and hearts in +England now thoroughly convinced, that slavery, under no modification, +can be a school for freedom? + +We say such things to the many who allege, that slaves cannot at +once be entrusted with the powers and privileges of self-government. +However this may be, they cannot be better qualified under the +_influence of slavery_. _That must be broken up_ from which their +ignorance, and viciousness, and wretchedness proceeded. That which +can only do what it has always done, pollute and degrade, must not +be employed to purify and elevate. _The lower their character and +condition, the louder, clearer, sterner, the just demand for +immediate emancipation_. The plague-smitten sufferer can derive no +benefit from breathing a little longer an infected atmosphere. + +In thus referring to elemental principles--in thus availing ourselves +of the light of self-evident truths--we bow to the authority and tread +in the foot-prints of the great Teacher. He chid those around him for +refusing to make the same use of their reason in promoting their +spiritual, as they made in promoting their temporal welfare. He gives +them distinctly to understand, that they need not go out of themselves +to form a just estimation of their position, duties, and prospects, +as standing in the presence of the Messiah. "Why, EVEN OF YOURSELVES," +he demands of them, "judge ye not what is _right_?"[16] How could +they, unless they had a clear light, and an infallible standard within +them, whereby, amidst the relations they sustained and the interests +they had to provide for, they might discriminate between truth and +falsehood, right and wrong, what they ought to attempt and what they +ought to eschew? From this pointed, significant appeal of the Savior, +it is clear and certain, that in human consciousness may be found +self-evident truths, self-manifested principles; that every man, +studying his own consciousness, is bound to recognize their presence +and authority, and in sober earnest and good faith to apply them to +the highest practical concerns of "life and godliness." It is in +obedience to the Bible, that we apply self-evident truths, and walk +in the light of general principles. When our fathers proclaimed +these truths, and at the hazard of their property, reputation, and +life, stood up in their defence, they did homage to the sacred +Scriptures--they honored the Bible. In that volume, not a syllable +can be found to justify that form of infidelity, which in the abused +name of piety, reproaches us for practising the lessons which nature +teacheth. These lessons, the Bible requires us[17] reverently to listen +to, earnestly to appropriate, and most diligently and faithfully to +act upon in every direction, and on all occasions. + +[Footnote 16: Luke, xii. 57.] + +[Footnote 17: Cor. xi. 14.] + +Why, our Savior goes so far in doing honor to reason, as to encourage +men universally to dispose of the characteristic peculiarities and +distinctive features of the Gospel in the light of its principles. +"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether +it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."[18] Natural religion--the +principles which nature reveals, and the lessons which nature teaches--he +thus makes a test of the truth and authority of revealed religion. So +far was he, as a teacher, from shrinking from the clearest and most +piercing rays of reason--from calling off the attention of those around +him from the import, bearings, and practical application of general +principles. And those who would have us escape from the pressure of +self-evident truths, by betaking ourselves to the doctrines and precepts +of Christianity, whatever airs of piety they may put on, do foul dishonor +to the Savior of mankind. + +[Footnote 18: John, vii. 17.] + +And what shall we say of the Golden Rule, which, according to the +Savior, comprehends all the precepts of the Bible? "Whatsoever ye +would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is +the law and the prophets." + +According to this maxim, in human consciousness, universally, may be +found, + + 1. The standard whereby, in all the relations and circumstances of + life, we may determine what Heaven demands and expects of us. + + 2. The just application of this standard, is practicable for, and + obligatory upon, every child of Adam. + + 3. The qualification requisite to a just application of this rule to + all the cases in which we can be concerned, is simply this--_to + regard all the members of the human family as our brethren, our + equals_. + +In other words, the Savior here teaches us, that in the principles +and laws of reason, we have an infallible guide in all the relations +and circumstances of life; that nothing can hinder our following +this guide, but the bias of _selfishness_; and that the moment, in +deciding any moral question, we place _ourselves in the room of our +brother_, before the bar of reason, we shall see what decision ought +to be pronounced. Does this, in the Savior, look like fleeing +self-evident truths!--like decrying the authority of general +principles!--like exalting himself at the expense of reason!--like +opening a refuge in the Gospel for those whose practice is at +variance with the dictates of humanity! + +What then is the just application of the Golden Rule--that +fundamental maxim of the Gospel, giving character to, and shedding +light upon, all its precepts and arrangements--to the subject of +slavery?--_that we must "do to" slaves as we would be done by_, AS +SLAVES, _the_ RELATION _itself being justified and continued_? Surely +not. A little reflection will enable us to see, that the Golden Rule +reaches farther in its demands, and strikes deeper in its influences +and operations. The _natural equality_ of mankind lies at the very +basis of this great precept. It obviously requires _every man to +acknowledge another self in every other man_. With my powers and +resources, and in my appropriate circumstances, I am to recognize in +any child of Adam who may address me, another self in his +appropriate circumstances and with his powers and resources. This is +the natural equality of mankind; and this the Golden Rule requires +us to admit, defend, and maintain. + + "WHY DO YE NOT UNDERSTAND MY SPEECH; + EVEN BECAUSE YE CANNOT HEAR MY WORD." + +They strangely misunderstand and grossly misrepresent this doctrine, +who charge upon it the absurdities and mischiefs which _any +"levelling system"_ cannot but produce. In all its bearings, +tendencies, and effects, it is directly contrary and powerfully +hostile to any such system. EQUALITY OF RIGHTS, the doctrine asserts; +and this necessarily opens the way for _variety of condition_. In +other words, every child of Adam has, from the Creator, the +inalienable right of wielding, within reasonable limits, his own +powers, and employing his own resources, according to his own +choice;--the right, while he respects his social relations, to promote +as he will his own welfare. But mark--HIS OWN powers and resources, +and NOT ANOTHER'S, are thus inalienably put under his control. The +Creator makes every man free, in whatever he may do, to exert HIMSELF, +and not another. Here no man may lawfully cripple or embarrass +another. The feeble may not hinder the strong, nor may the strong +crush the feeble. Every man may make the most of himself, in his own +proper sphere. Now, as in the constitutional endowments; and natural +opportunities, and lawful acquisitions of mankind, infinite variety +prevails, so in exerting each HIMSELF, in his own sphere, according +to his own choice, the variety of human condition can be little less +than infinite. Thus equality of rights opens the way for variety of +condition. + +But with all this variety of make, means, and condition, considered +individually, the children of Adam are bound together by strong ties +which can never be dissolved. They are mutually united by the social +of their nature. Hence mutual dependence and mutual claims. While +each is inalienably entitled to assert and enjoy his own personality +as a man, each sustains to all and all to each, various relations. +While each owns and honors the individual, all are to own and honor +the social of their nature. Now, the Golden Rule distinctly +recognizes, lays its requisitions upon, and extends its obligations +to, the whole nature of man, in his individual capacities and social +relations. What higher honor could it do to man, as _an individual_, +than to constitute him the judge, by whose decision, when fairly +rendered, all the claims of his fellows should be authoritatively +and definitely disposed of? "Whatsoever YE WOULD" have done to you, +so do ye to others. Every member of the family of Adam, placing +himself in the position here pointed out, is competent and +authorized to pass judgment on all the cases in social life in which +he may be concerned. Could higher responsibilities or greater +confidence be reposed in men individually? And then, how are their +_claims upon each other_ herein magnified! What inherent worth and +solid dignity are ascribed to the social of their nature! In every +man with whom I may have to do, I am to recognize the presence of +_another self_, whose case I am to make _my own_. And thus I am to +dispose of whatever claims he may urge upon me. + +Thus, in accordance with the Golden Rule, mankind are naturally +brought, in the voluntary use of their powers and resources, to +promote each other's welfare. As his contribution to this great +object, it is the inalienable birthright of every child of Adam, +to consecrate whatever he may possess. With exalted powers and large +resources, he has a natural claim to a correspondent field of effort. +If his "abilities" are small, his task must be easy and his burden +light. Thus the Golden Rule requires mankind mutually to serve each +other. In this service, each is to exert _himself_--employ _his own_ +powers, lay out his own resources, improve his own opportunities. A +division of labor is the natural result. One is remarkable for his +intellectual endowments and acquisitions; another, for his wealth; +and a third, for power and skill in using his muscles. Such +attributes, endlessly varied and diversified, proceed from the basis +of a _common character_, by virtue of which all men and each--one as +truly as another--are entitled, as a birthright, to "life, liberty, +and the pursuit of happiness." Each and all, one as well as another, +may choose his own modes of contributing his share to the general +welfare, in which his own is involved and identified. Under one +great law of mutual dependence and mutual responsibility, all are +placed--the strong as well as the weak, the rich as much as the poor, +the learned no less than the unlearned. All bring their wares, the +products of their enterprise, skill and industry, to the same market, +where mutual exchanges are freely effected. The fruits of muscular +exertion procure the fruits of mental effort. John serves Thomas +with his hands, and Thomas serves John with his money. Peter wields +the axe for James, and James wields the pen for Peter. Moses, Joshua, +and Caleb, employ their wisdom, courage, and experience, in the +service of the community, and the community serve Moses, Joshua, and +Caleb, in furnishing them with food and raiment, and making them +partakers of the general prosperity. And all this by mutual +understanding and voluntary arrangement. And all this according to +the Golden Rule. + +What then becomes of _slavery_--a system of arrangements in which +one man treats his fellow, not as another self, but as a thing--a +chattel--an article of merchandize, which is not to be consulted in +any disposition which may be made of it;--a system which is built on +the annihilation of the attributes of our common nature--in which +man doth to others what he would sooner die than have done to himself? +The Golden Rule and slavery are mutually subversive of each other. If +one stands, the other must fall. The one strikes at the very root of +the other. The Golden Rule aims at the abolition of THE RELATION +ITSELF, in which slavery consists. It lays its demands upon every +thing within the scope of _human action_. To "whatever MEN DO." it +extends its authority. And the relation itself, in which slavery +consists, is the work of human hands. It is what men have done to +each other--contrary to nature and most injurious to the general +welfare. This RELATION, therefore, the Golden Rule condemns. +Wherever its authority prevails, this relation must be annihilated. +Mutual service and slavery--like light and darkness, life and +death--are directly opposed to, and subversive of, each other. The +one the Golden Rule cannot endure; the other it requires, honors, +and blesses. + + + + + "LOVE WORKETH NO ILL TO HIS NEIGHBOR." + +Like unto the Golden Rule is the second great commandment--"_Thou +shalt love thy neighbor as thyself_." "A certain lawyer," who seems +to have been fond of applying the doctrine of limitation of human +obligations, once demanded of the Savior, within what limits the +meaning of the word "neighbor" ought to be confined. "And who is my +neighbor?" The parable of the good Samaritan set that matter in the +clearest light, and made it manifest and certain, that every man +whom we could reach with our sympathy and assistance, was our +neighbor, entitled to the same regard which we cherished for +ourselves. Consistently with such obligations, can _slavery, +as a_ RELATION, be maintained? Is it then a _labor of love_--such +love as we cherish for ourselves--to strip a child of Adam of all the +prerogatives and privileges which are his inalienable birthright? To +obscure his reason, crush his will, and trample on his +immortality?--To strike home to the inmost of his being, and break the +heart of his heart?--To thrust him out of the human family, and +dispose of him as a chattel--as a thing in the hands of an owner, a +beast under the lash of a driver? All this, apart from every thing +incidental and extraordinary, belongs to the RELATION, in which +slavery, as such, consists. All this--well fed or ill fed, +underwrought or overwrought, clothed or naked, caressed or kicked, +whether idle songs break from his thoughtless tongue or "tears be his +meat night and day," fondly cherished or cruelly murdered;--_all this_ +ENTERS VITALLY INTO THE RELATION ITSELF, _by which every slave_, AS A +SLAVE, _is set apart from the rest of the human family_. Is it an +exercise of love, to place our "neighbor" under the crushing +weight, the killing power, of such a relation?--to apply the +murderous steel to the very vitals of his humanity? + + "YE THEREFORE APPLAUD AND DELIGHT IN THE DEEDS OF YOUR FATHERS; + FOR THEY KILLED THEM, AND YE BUILD THEIR SEPULCHRES."[19] + +The slaveholder may eagerly and loudly deny, that any such thing is +chargeable upon him. He may confidently and earnestly allege, that +he is not responsible for the state of society in which he is placed. +Slavery was established before he began to breathe. It was his +inheritance. His slaves are his property by birth or testament. But +why will he thus deceive himself? Why will he permit the cunning and +rapacious spiders, which in the very sanctuary of ethics and +religion are laboriously weaving webs from their own bowels, to +catch him with their wretched sophistries?--and devour him, body, +soul, and substance? Let him know, as he must one day with shame and +terror own, that whoever holds slaves is himself responsible for +_the relation_, into which, whether reluctantly or willingly, he +thus enters. _The relation cannot be forced upon him_. What though +Elizabeth countenanced John Hawkins in stealing the natives of +Africa?--what though James, and Charles, and George, opened a market +for them in the English colonies?--what though modern Dracos have +"framed mischief by law," in legalizing man-stealing and +slaveholding?--what though your ancestors, in preparing to go +"to their own place," constituted you the owner of the "neighbors" +whom they had used as cattle?--what of all this, and as much more like +this, as can be drawn from the history of that dreadful process by +which men are "deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be +_chattels personal_?" Can all this force you to put the cap upon the +climax--to clinch the nail by doing that, without which nothing in +the work of slave-making would be attempted? _The slaveholder is the +soul of the whole system_. Without him, the chattel principle is a +lifeless abstraction. Without him, charters, and markets, and laws, +and testaments, are empty names. And does _he_ think to escape +responsibility? Why, kidnappers, and soul-drivers, and law-makers, +are nothing but his _agents_. He is the guilty _principal_. Let him +look to it. + +[Footnote 19: You join with them in their bloody work. They murder, +and you bury the victims.] + + +But what can he do? Do? Keep his hands off his "neighbor's" throat. +Let him refuse to finish and ratify the process by which the chattel +principle is carried into effect. Let him refuse, in the face of +derision, and reproach, and opposition. Though poverty should fasten +its bony hand upon him, and persecution shoot forth its forked tongue; +whatever may betide him--scorn, flight, flames--let him promptly and +steadfastly refuse. Better the spite and hate of men than the wrath +of Heaven! "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it +from thee; for it is profitable for thee, that one of thy members +should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." + +Professor Stewart admits, that the Golden Rule and the second great +commandment "decide against the theory of slavery, as being in +itself right." What, then, is their relation to the particular +precepts, institutions, and usages, which are authorized and +enjoined in the New Testament? Of all these, they are the summary +expression--the comprehensive description. No precept in the Bible, +enforcing our mutual obligations, can be more or less than _the +application of these injunctions to specific relations or particular +occasions and conditions_. Neither in the Old Testament nor the New, +do prophets teach or laws enjoin, any thing which the Golden Rule +and the second great command do not contain. Whatever they forbid, +no other precept can require; and whatever they require, no other +precept can forbid. What, then, does he attempt, who turns over the +sacred pages to find something in the way of permission or command, +which may set him free from the obligations of the Golden Rule? What +must his objects, methods, spirit be, to force him to enter upon +such inquiries?--to compel him to search the Bible for such a purpose? +Can he have good intentions, or be well employed? Is his frame of +mind adapted to the study of the Bible?--to make its meaning plain +and welcome? What must he think of God, to search his word in quest +of gross inconsistencies, and grave contradictions! Inconsistent +legislation in Jehovah! Contradictory commands! Permissions at war +with prohibitions! General requirements at variance with particular +arrangements! + +What must be the moral character of any institution which the Golden +Rule decides against?--which the second great command condemns? +_It cannot but be wicked_, whether newly established or long +maintained. However it may be shaped, turned, colored--under every +modification and at all times--_wickedness must be its proper +character. It must be_, IN ITSELF, _apart from its circumstances_, +IN ITS ESSENCE, _apart from its incidents_, SINFUL. + + + "THINK NOT TO SAY WITHIN YOURSELVES, + WE HAVE ABRAHAM FOR OUR FATHER." + +In disposing of those precepts and exhortations which have a +specific bearing upon the subject of slavery, it is greatly important, +nay, absolutely essential, that we look forth upon the objects +around us from the right post of observation. Our stand we must take +at some central point, amidst the general maxims and fundamental +precepts, the known circumstances and characteristic arrangements, +of primitive Christianity. Otherwise, wrong views and false +conclusions will be the result of our studies. We cannot, therefore, +be too earnest in trying to catch the general features and prevalent +spirit of the New Testament institutions and arrangements. For to +what conclusions must we come, if we unwittingly pursue our +inquiries under the bias of the prejudice, that the general maxims +of social life which now prevail in this country, were current, on +the authority of the Savior, among the primitive Christians! That, +for instance, wealth, station, talents, are the standard by which our +claims upon, and our regard for, others, should be modified?--That +those who are pinched by poverty, worn by disease, tasked in +menial labors, or marked by features offensive to the taste of the +artificial and capricious, are to be excluded from those refreshing +and elevating influences which intelligence and refinement may be +expected to exert; that thus they are to constitute a class by +themselves, and to be made to know and keep their place at the very +bottom of society? Or, what if we should think and speak of the +primitive Christians, as if they had the same pecuniary resources as +Heaven has lavished upon the American churches?--as if they were as +remarkable for affluence, elegance, and splendor? Or, as if they had +as high a position and as extensive an influence in politics and +literature?--having directly or indirectly, the control over the +high places of learning and of power? + +If we should pursue our studies and arrange our arguments--if we +should explain words and interpret language--under such a bias, what +must inevitably be the results? What would be the worth of our +conclusions? What confidence could be reposed in any instruction we +might undertake to furnish? And is not this the way in which the +advocates and apologists of slavery dispose of the bearing which +primitive Christianity has upon it? They first ascribe, unwittingly, +perhaps, to the primitive churches; the character, relations, and +condition of American Christianity, and amidst the deep darkness and +strange confusion thus produced, set about interpreting the language +and explaining the usages of the New Testament! + + + + "SO THAT YE ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE." + +Among the lessons of instruction which our Savior imparted, having a +general bearing on the subject of slavery, that in which he sets up +the _true standard of greatness_, deserves particular attention. In +repressing the ambition of his disciples, he held up before them the +methods by which alone healthful aspirations for eminence could be +gratified, and thus set the elements of true greatness in the +clearest light. "Ye know, that they which are accounted to rule over +the Gentiles, exercise lordship over them; and their great ones +exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you; but +whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister; _and +whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all_." In +other words, through the selfishness and pride of mankind, the maxim +widely prevails in the world, that it is the privilege, prerogative, +and mark of greatness, TO EXACT SERVICE; that our superiority to +others, while it authorizes us to relax the exertion of our own +powers, gives us a fair title to the use of theirs; that "might," +while it exempts us from serving, "gives the right" to be served. +The instructions of the Savior open the way to greatness for us in +the opposite direction. Superiority to others, in whatever it may +consist, gives us a claim to a wider field of exertion, and demands +of us a larger amount of service. We can be great only as we _are +useful_. And "might gives right" to bless our fellow men, by +improving every opportunity and employing every faculty, +affectionately, earnestly, and unweariedly, in their service. Thus +the greater the man, the more active, faithful, and useful the +servant. + +The Savior has himself taught us how this doctrine must be applied. +He bids us improve every opportunity and employ every power, even +through the most menial services, in blessing the human family. And +to make this lesson shine upon our understandings and move our hearts, +he embodied in it a most instructive and attractive example. On a +memorable occasion, and just before his crucifixion, he discharged +for his disciples the most menial of all offices--taking, _in +washing their feet_, the place of the lowest servant. He took great +pains to make them understand, that only by imitating this example +could they honor their relations to him as their Master; that thus +only would they find themselves blessed. By what possibility could +slavery exist under the influence of such a lesson, set home by such +an example? _Was it while washing the disciples' feet, that our +Savior authorized one man to make a chattel of another_? + +To refuse to provide for ourselves by useful labor, the apostle Paul +teaches us to regard as a grave offence. After reminding the +Thessalonian Christians, that in addition to all his official +exertions he had with his own muscles earned his own bread, he calls +their attention to an arrangement which was supported by apostolical +authority, "that if any would not work, neither should he eat." In +the most earnest and solemn manner, and as a minister of the Lord +Jesus Christ, he commanded and exhorted those who neglected useful +labor, "_with quietness to work and eat their own bread_." What must +be the bearing of all this upon slavery? Could slavery be maintained +where every man eat the bread which himself had earned?--where +idleness was esteemed so great a crime, as to be reckoned worthy of +starvation as a punishment? How could unrequited labor be exacted, +or used, or needed? Must not every one in such a community +contribute his share to the general welfare?--and mutual service and +mutual support be the natural result? + +The same apostle, in writing to another church, describes the true +source whence the means of liberality ought to be derived. "Let him +that stole steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his +hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that +needeth." Let this lesson, as from the lips of Jehovah, be proclaimed +throughout the length and breadth of South Carolina. Let it be +universally welcomed and reduced to practice. Let thieves give up +what they had stolen to the lawful proprietors, cease stealing, and +begin at once to "labor, working with their hands," for necessary +and charitable purposes. Could slavery, in such a case, continue to +exist? Surely not! Instead of exacting unpaid services from others, +every man would be busy, exerting himself not only to provide for +his own wants, but also to accumulate funds, "that he might have to +give to" the needy. Slavery must disappear, root and branch, at once +and forever. + +In describing the source whence his ministers should expect their +support, the Savior furnished a general principle, which has an +obvious and powerful bearing on the subject of slavery. He would +have them remember, while exerting themselves for the benefit of +their fellow men, that "the laborer is worthy of his hire." He has +thus united wages with work. Whoever renders the one is entitled to +the other. And this manifestly according to a mutual understanding +and a voluntary arrangement. For the doctrine that I may force you +to work for me for whatever consideration I may please to fix upon, +fairly opens the way for the doctrine, that you, in turn, may force +me to render you whatever wages you may choose to exact for any +services you may see fit to render. Thus slavery, even as +involuntary servitude, is cut up by the root. Even the Princeton +professor seems to regard it as a violation of the principle which +unites work with wages. + +The apostle James applies this principle to the claims of manual +laborers--of those who hold the plough and thrust in the sickle. He +calls the rich lordlings who exacted sweat and withheld wages, to +"weeping and howling," assuring them that the complaints of +the injured laborer had entered into the ear of the Lord of Hosts, +and that, as a result of their oppression, their riches were +corrupted, and their garments moth-eaten; their gold and silver were +cankered; that the rust of them should be a witness against them, +and should eat their flesh as it were fire; that, in one word, they +had heaped treasures together for the last days, when "miseries were +coming upon them," the prospect of which might well drench them in +tears and fill them with terror. If these admonitions and warnings +were heeded there, would not "the South" break forth into "weeping +and wailing, and gnashing of teeth?" What else are its rich men about, +but withholding by a system of fraud, his wages from the laborer, +who is wearing himself out under the impulse of fear, in cultivating +their fields and producing their luxuries! Encouragement and support +do they derive from James, in maintaining the "peculiar institution" +which they call patriarchal, and boast of as the "corner-stone" of +the republic? + +In the New Testament, we have, moreover, the general injunction, +"_Honor all men_." Under this broad precept, every form of humanity +may justly claim protection and respect. The invasion of any human +right must do dishonor to humanity, and be a transgression of this +command. How then, in the light of such obligations, must slavery be +regarded? Are those men honored, who are rudely excluded from a +place in the human family, and shut up to the deep degradation and +nameless horrors of chattelship? _Can they be held as slaves, and at +the same time be honored as men_? + +How far, in obeying this command, we are to go, we may infer from +the admonitions and instructions which James applies to the +arrangements and usages of religious assemblies. Into these he can +not allow "respect of persons" to enter. "My brethren," he exclaims, +"have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, +with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a +man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel; and there come in also +a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth +the gay clothing, and say unto him, sit thou here in a good place; +and say to the poor, stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool; +are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil +thoughts?" _If ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are +convinced of the law as transgressors_. On this general principle, +then, religious assemblies ought to be regulated--that every man is +to be estimated, not according to his _circumstances_--not according +to anything incidental to his _condition_; but according to his _moral +worth_--according to the essential features and vital elements of his +_character_. Gold rings and gay clothing, as they qualify no man for, +can entitle no man to, a "good place" in the church. Nor can the +"vile raiment of the poor man," fairly exclude him from any sphere, +however exalted, which his heart and head may fit him to fill. To +deny this, in theory or practice, is to degrade a man below a thing; +for what are gold rings, or gay clothing, or vile raiment, but things, +"which perish with the using?" And this must be "to commit sin, and +be convinced of the law as transgressor." + +In slavery, we have "respect of persons," strongly marked, and +reduced to system. Here men are despised not merely for "the vile +raiment," which may cover their scarred bodies. This is bad enough. +But the deepest contempt of humanity here grows out of birth or +complexion. Vile raiment may be, often is, the result of indolence, +or improvidence, or extravagance. It may be, often is, an index of +character. But how can I be responsible for the incidents of my +birth?--how for my complexion? To despise or honor me for these, is to +be guilty of "respect of persons" in its grossest form, and with its +worst effects. It is to reward or punish me for what I had nothing +to do with; for which, therefore, I cannot, without the greatest +injustice, be held responsible. It is to poison the very fountains +of justice, by confounding all moral distinctions. What, then, so +far as the authority of the New Testament is concerned, becomes of +slavery, which cannot be maintained under any form nor for a single +moment, without "respect of persons" the most aggravated and +unendurable? And what would become of that most pitiful, silly, and +wicked arrangement in so many of our churches, in which worshippers +of a dark complexion are to be sent up to the negro pew?[20] + +[Footnote 20: In Carlyle's Review of the Memoirs of Mirabeau, we +have the following anecdote illustrative of the character of a +"grandmother" of the Count. "Fancy the dame Mirabeau sailing stately +towards the church font; another dame striking in to take precedence +of her; the dame Mirabeau despatching this latter with a box on the +ear, and these words, '_Here, as in the army_, THE BAGGAGE _goes +last_!'" Let those who justify the negro-pew arrangement, throw +a stone at this proud woman--if they dare.] + +Nor are we permitted to confine this principle to religious +assemblies. It is to pervade social life everywhere. Even where +plenty, intelligence and refinement, diffuse their brightest rays, +the poor are to be welcomed with especial favor. "Then said he to +him that bade him, when thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not +thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich +neighbors, lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made +thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor and the maimed, +the lame and the blind, and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot +recompense thee, but thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection +of the just." + +In the high places of social life then--in the parlor, the +drawing-room, the saloon--special reference should be had, in every +arrangement, to the comfort and improvement of those who are least +able to provide for the cheapest rites of hospitality. For these, +ample accommodations must be made, whatever may become of our +kinsmen and rich neighbors. And for this good reason, that while +such occasions signify little to the latter, to the former they are +pregnant with good--raising their drooping spirits, cheering their +desponding hearts, inspiring them with life, and hope, and joy. The +rich and the poor thus meeting joyfully together, cannot but +mutually contribute to each other's benefit; the rich will be led to +moderation, sobriety, and circumspection, and the poor to industry, +providence, and contentment. The recompense must be great and sure. + +A most beautiful and instructive commentary on the text in which +these things are taught, the Savior furnished in his own conduct. He +freely mingled with those who were reduced to the very bottom of +society. At the tables of the outcasts of society he did not +hesitate to be a cheerful guest, surrounded by publicans and sinners. +And when flouted and reproached by smooth and lofty ecclesiastics, +as an ultraist and leveler, he explained and justified himself by +observing, that he had only done what his office demanded. It was +his to seek the lost, to heal the sick, to pity the wretched;--in a +word, to bestow just such benefits as the various necessities of +mankind made appropriate and welcome. In his great heart, there was +room enough for those who had been excluded from the sympathy of +little souls. In its spirit and design, the gospel overlooked +none--least of all, the outcasts of a selfish world. + +Can slavery, however modified, be consistent with such a gospel?--a +gospel which requires us, even amidst the highest forms of social +life, to exert ourselves to raise the depressed by giving our +warmest sympathies to those who have the smallest share in the favor +of the world? + +Those who are in "bonds" are set before us as deserving an especial +remembrance. Their claims upon us are described as a modification of +the Golden Rule--as one of the many forms to which its obligations +are reducible. To them we are to extend the same affectionate regard +as we would covet for ourselves, if the chains upon their limbs were +fastened upon ours. To the benefits of this precept, the enslaved +have a natural claim of the greatest strength. The wrongs they +suffer spring from a persecution which can hardly be surpassed in +malignancy. Their birth and complexion are the occasion of the +insults and injuries which they can neither endure nor escape. It is +for _the work of God_, and not their own deserts, that they are +loaded with chains. _This is persecution_. + +Can I regard the slave as another self--can I put myself in his +place--and be indifferent to his wrongs? Especially, can I, thus +affected, take sides with the oppressor? Could I, in such a state of +mind as the gospel requires me to cherish, reduce him to slavery or +keep him in bonds? Is not the precept under hand naturally +subversive of every system and every form of slavery? + +The general descriptions of the church, which are found here and +there in the New Testament, are highly instructive in their bearing +on the subject of slavery. In one connection, the following words +meet the eye: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond +nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in +Christ Jesus."[21] Here we have-- + + 1. A clear and strong description of the doctrine of _human + equality_. "Ye are all ONE;"--so much alike, so truly placed on + common ground, all wielding each his own powers with such freedom, + _that one is the same as another_. + + 2. This doctrine, self-evident in the light of reason, is affirmed on + divine authority. "IN CHRIST JESUS, _ye are all one_." The natural + equality of the human family is a part of the gospel. For-- + + 3. All the human family are included in this description. Whether + men or women, whether bond or free, whether Jews or Gentiles, all + are alike entitled to the benefit of this doctrine. Whether + Christianity prevails, the _artificial_ distinctions which grow out + of birth, condition, sex, are done away. _Natural_ distinctions are + not destroyed. _They_ are recognized, hallowed, confirmed. The + gospel does not abolish the sexes, forbid a division of labor, or + extinguish patriotism. It takes woman from beneath the feet, and + places her by the side of man; delivers the manual laborer from + "the yoke," and gives him wages for his work; and brings the Jew and + the Gentile to embrace each other with fraternal love and confidence. + Thus it raises all to a common level, gives to each the free use of + his own powers and resources, binds all together in one dear and + loving brotherhood. Such, according to the description of the apostle, + was the influence, and such the effect of primitive Christianity. + "Behold the picture!" Is it like American slavery, which, in all its + tendencies and effects, is destructive of all oneness among brethren? + +[Footnote 21: Gal. iii. 28.] + + +"Where the spirit of the Lord is," exclaims the same apostle, with +his eye upon the condition and relations of the church, "_where the +spirit of the Lord is_, THERE IS LIBERTY." Where, then, may we +reverently recognize the presence, and bow before the manifested +power, of this spirit? _There_, where the laborer may not choose how +he shall be employed!--in what way his wants shall be supplied!--with +whom he shall associate!--who shall have the fruit of his exertions! +_There_, where he is not free to enjoy his wife and children! +_There_, where his body and his soul, his very "destiny,"[22] +are placed altogether beyond his control! _There_, where every +power is crippled, every energy blasted, every hope crushed! _There_, +where in all the relations and concerns of life, he is legally +treated as if he had nothing to do with the laws of reason, the +light of immortality, or the exercise of will! Is the spirit of the +Lord _there_, where liberty is decried and denounced, mocked at and +spit upon, betrayed and crucified! In the midst of a church which +justified slavery, which derived its support from slavery, which +carried on its enterprises by means of slavery, would the apostle +have found the fruits of the Spirit of the Lord! Let that Spirit +exert his influences, and assert his authority, and wield his power, +and slavery must vanish at once and for ever. + +[Footnote 22: "The legislature (of South Carolina) from time to time, +has passed many restricted and penal acts, with a view to bring +under direct control and subjection the DESTINY of the black +population." See the Remonstrance of James S. Pope and 352 others +against home missionary efforts for the benefit of the enslaved--a +most instructive paper.] + + +In more than one connection, the apostle James describes Christianity +as "_the law of liberty_." It is, in other words, the law under +which liberty cannot but live and flourish--the law in which liberty +is clearly defined, strongly asserted, and well protected. As the law +of liberty, how can it be consistent with the law of slavery? The +presence and the power of this law are felt wherever the light of +reason shines. They are felt in the uneasiness and conscious +degradation of the slave, and in the shame and remorse which the +master betrays in his reluctant and desperate efforts to defend +himself. This law it is which has armed human nature against the +oppressor. Wherever it is obeyed, "every yoke is broken." + +In these references to the New Testament we have a _general +description_ of the primitive church, and the _principles_ on which +it was founded and fashioned. These principles bear the same +relation to Christian _history_ as to Christian _character_, since +the former is occupied with the development of the latter. What then +is Christian character but Christian principle _realized_, acted out, +bodied forth, and animated? Christian principle is the soul, of +which Christian character is the expression--the manifestation. It +comprehends in itself, as a living seed, such Christian character, +under every form, modification, and complexion. The former is, +therefore, the test and interpreter of the latter. In the light of +Christian principle, and in that light only we can judge of and +explain Christian character. Christian history is occupied with the +forms, modifications, and various aspects of Christian character. +The facts which are there recorded serve to show, how Christian +principle has fared in this world--how it has appeared, what it has +done, how it has been treated. In these facts we have the various +institutions, usages, designs, doings, and sufferings of the church +of Christ. And all these have of necessity, the closest relation to +Christian principle. They are the production of its power. Through +them, it is revealed and manifested. In its light, they are to be +studied, explained, and understood. Without it they must be as +unintelligible and insignificant as the letters of a book scattered +on the wind. + +In the principles of Christianity, then, we have a comprehensive and +faithful account of its objects, institutions, and usages--of how it +must behave, and act, and suffer, in a world of sin and misery. For +between the principles which God reveals, on the one hand, and the +precepts he enjoins, the institutions he establishes, and the usages +he approves, on the other, there must be consistency and harmony. +Otherwise we impute to God what we must abhor in man--practice at war +with principle. Does the Savior, then, lay down the _principle_ that +our standing in the church must depend upon the habits formed within +us, of readily and heartily subserving the welfare of others; and +permit us _in practice_ to invade the rights and trample on the +happiness of our fellows, by reducing them to slavery. Does he, +_in principle_ and by example, require us to go all lengths in +rendering mutual service, or comprehending offices that most menial, +as well as the most honorable; and permit us _in practice_ to EXACT +service of our brethren, as if they were nothing better than +"articles of merchandize!" Does he require us _in principle_ +"to work with quietness and eat our own bread;" and permit us +_in practice_ to wrest from our brethren the fruits of their +unrequited toil? Does he _in principle_ require us, abstaining from +every form of theft, to employ our powers in useful labor, not only +to provide for ourselves but also to relieve the indigence of others; +and permit us _in practice_, abstaining from every form of labor, to +enrich and aggrandize ourselves with the fruits of man-stealing? +Does he require us _in principle_ to regard "the laborer as worthy +of his hire"; and permit us _in practice_ to defraud him of his wages? +Does he require us _in principle_ to honor ALL men; and permit us +_in practice_ to treat multitudes like cattle? Does he _in +principle_ prohibit "respect of persons;" and permit us _in practice_ +to place the feet of the rich upon the necks of the poor? Does he +_in principle_ require us to sympathize with the bondman as +another self; and permit us _in practice_ to leave him unpitied and +unhelped in the hands of the oppressor? _In principle_, "where the +Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;" _in practice_, is _slavery_ +the fruit of the Spirit? _In principle_, Christianity is the law of +liberty; _in practice_, it is the law of slavery? Bring practice in +these various respects into harmony with principle, and what becomes +of slavery? And if, where the divine government is concerned, +practice is the expression of principle, and principle the standard +and interpreter of practice, such harmony cannot but be maintained +and must be asserted. In studying, therefore, fragments of history +and sketches of biography--in disposing of references to institutions, +usages, and facts in the New Testament, this necessary harmony +between principle and practice in the government _of God_, should be +continually present to the thoughts of the interpreter. Principles +assert what practice must be. Whatever principle condemns, God +condemns. It belongs to those weeds of the dung-hill which, planted +by "an enemy," his hand will assuredly "root up." It is most certain +then, that if slavery prevailed in the first ages of Christianity, +it could nowhere have prevailed under its influence and with its +sanction. + + * * * * * + +The condition in which in its efforts to bless mankind, the +primitive church was placed, must have greatly assisted the early +Christians in understanding and applying the principles of the gospel. +Their _Master_ was born in great obscurity, lived in the deepest +poverty, and died the most ignominious death. The place of his +residence, his familiarity with the outcasts of society, his +welcoming assistance and support from female hands, his casting his +beloved mother, when he hung upon the cross, upon the charity of a +disciple--such things evince the depth of his poverty, and show to +what derision and contempt he must have been exposed. Could such an +one, "despised and rejected of men--a man of sorrows and acquainted +with grief," play the oppressor, or smile on those who made +merchandize of the poor! + +And what was the history of the _apostles_, but an illustration of +the doctrine, that "it is enough for the disciple, that he be as his +Master?" Were they lordly ecclesiastics, abounding with wealth, +shining with splendor, bloated with luxury! Were they ambitious of +distinction, fleecing, and trampling, and devouring "the flocks," +that they themselves might "have the pre-eminence!" Were they +slaveholding bishops! Or did they derive their support from the +wages of iniquity and the price of blood! Can such inferences be +drawn from the account of their condition, which the most gifted and +enterprising of their number has put upon record? "Even unto this +present hour, we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and _are +buffetted_, and have _no certain dwelling place, and labor working +with our own hands_. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we +suffer it; being defamed, we entreat; we are made as _the filth of +the world_, and are THE OFFSCOURING OF ALL THINGS unto this day."[23] +Are these the men who practised or countenanced slavery? _With +such a temper, they_ WOULD NOT; _in such circumstances, they_ COULD +NOT. Exposed to "tribulation, distress, and persecution;" subject to +famine and nakedness, to peril and the sword; "killed all the day +long; accounted as sheep for the slaughter,"[24] they would have made +but a sorry figure at the _great-house_ or slave-market. + +[Footnote 23: 1 Cor. iv. 11-13.] + +[Footnote 24: Rom. viii. 35, 36.] + + +Nor was the condition of the brethren, generally, better than that of +the apostles. The position of the apostles doubtless entitled them to +the strongest opposition, the heaviest reproaches, the fiercest +persecution. But derision and contempt must have been the lot of +Christians generally. Surely we cannot think so ill of primitive +Christianity as to suppose that believers, generally, refused to +share in the trials and sufferings of their leaders; as to suppose +that while the leaders submitted to manual labor, to buffeting, to be +reckoned the filth of the world, to be accounted as sheep for the +slaughter, his brethren lived in affluence, ease, and honor! +despising manual labor and living upon the sweat of unrequited toil! +But on this point we are not left to mere inference and conjecture. +The apostle Paul in the plainest language explains the ordination of +Heaven. "But _God hath_ CHOSEN the foolish things of the world to +confound the wise; and God hath CHOSEN the weak things of the world +to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, +and things which are despised hath God CHOSEN, yea, and THINGS WHICH +ARE NOT, to bring to nought things that are."[25] Here we may well +notice, + + 1. That it was not by _accident_, that the primitive churches were + made up of such elements, but the result of the DIVINE CHOICE--an + arrangement of His wise and gracious Providence. The inference is + natural, that this ordination was co-extensive with the triumphs of + Christianity. It was nothing new or strange, that Jehovah had + concealed his glory "from the wise and prudent, and had revealed it + unto babes," or that "the common people heard him gladly," while + "not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, + had been called." + + 2. The description of character, which the apostle records, could be + adapted only to what are reckoned the _very dregs of humanity_. The + foolish and the weak, the base and the contemptible, in the + estimation of worldly pride and wisdom--these were they whose broken + hearts were reached, and moulded, and refreshed by the gospel; these + were they whom the apostle took to his bosom as his own brethren. + +[Footnote 25: 1 Cor. i. 27, 28.] + + +That _slaves_ abounded at Corinth, may easily be admitted. _They_ +have a place in the enumeration of elements of which, according to +the apostle, the church there was composed. The most remarkable +class found there, consisted of "THINGS WHICH ARE NOT"--mere nobodies, +not admitted to the privileges of men, but degraded to a level with +"goods and chattels;" of whom _no account_ was made in such +arrangements of society as subserved the improvement, and dignity, +and happiness of MANKIND. How accurately the description applies to +those who are crushed under the chattel principle! + +The reference which the apostle makes to the "deep poverty of the +churches of Macedonia,"[26] and this to stir up the sluggish +liberality of his Corinthian brethren, naturally leaves the +impression, that the latter were by no means inferior to the former +in the gifts of Providence. But, pressed with want and pinched by +poverty as were the believers in "Macedonia and Achaia, it pleased +them to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which were +at Jerusalem."[27] Thus it appears, that Christians everywhere were +familiar with contempt and indigence, so much so, that the apostle +would dissuade such as had no families from assuming the +responsibilities of the conjugal relation![28] + +[Footnote 26: 2 Cor. viii. 2.] + +[Footnote 27: Rom. xviii. 18-25.] + +[Footnote 28: Cor. vii. 26, 27.] + +Now, how did these good people treat each other? Did the few among +them, who were esteemed wise, mighty, or noble, exert their +influence and employ their power in oppressing the weak, in disposing +of the "things that are not," as marketable commodities!--kneeling +with them in prayer in the evening, and putting them up at auction +the next morning! Did the church sell any of the members to swell +the "certain contribution for the poor saints at Jerusalem!" Far +other wise--as far as possible! In those Christian communities where +the influence of the apostles was most powerful, and where the +arrangements drew forth their highest commendations, believers +treated each other as _brethren_, in the strongest sense of that +sweet word. So warm was their mutual love, so strong the public +spirit, so open-handed and abundant the general liberality, that +they are set forth as "_having all things common_."[29] Slaves and +their holders here? Neither the one nor the other could, in that +relation to each other, have breathed such an atmosphere. The appeal +of the kneeling bondman, "Am I not a man and a brother," must here +have met with a prompt and powerful response. + +[Footnote 29: Acts, iv. 32.] + + +The _tests_ by which our Savior tries the character of his professed +disciples, shed a strong light upon the genius of the gospel. In one +connection,[30] an inquirer demands of the Savior, "What good thing +shall I do that I may have eternal life?" After being reminded of the +obligations which his social nature imposed upon him, he ventured, +while claiming to be free from guilt in his relations to mankind, to +demand, "what lack I yet?" The radical deficiency under which his +character labored, the Savior was not long or obscure in pointing out. +"If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the +poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me." +On this passage it is natural to suggest-- + + 1. That we have here a _test of universal application_. The + rectitude and benevolence of our Savior's character forbid us to + suppose, that he would subject this inquirer, especially as he was + highly amiable, to a trial, where eternal life was at stake, + _peculiarly_ severe. Indeed, the test seems to have been only a fair + exposition of the second great command, and of course it must be + applicable to all who are placed under the obligations of that + precept. Those who cannot stand this test, as their character is + radically imperfect and unsound, must, with the inquirer to whom + our Lord applied it, be pronounced unfit for the kingdom of heaven. + + 2. The least that our Savior can in that passage be understood to + demand is, that we disinterestedly and heartily devote ourselves to + the welfare of mankind, "the poor" especially. We are to put + ourselves on a level with _them_, as we must do "in selling that we + have" for their benefit--in other words, in employing our powers and + resources to elevate their character, condition, and prospects. This + our Savior did; and if we refuse to enter into sympathy and + co-operation with him, how can we be his _followers_? Apply this + test to the slaveholder. Instead of "selling that he hath" for the + benefit of the poor, he BUYS THE POOR, and exacts their sweat with + stripes, to enable him to "clothe himself in purple and fine linen, + and fare sumptuously every day;" or, HE SELLS THE POOR to support + the gospel and convert the heathen! + +[Footnote 30: Luke, xviii. 18-25.] + + +What, in describing the scenes of the final judgment, does our Savior +teach us? _By what standard_ must our character be estimated, and the +retributions of eternity be awarded? A standard, which both the +righteous and the wicked will be surprised to see erected. From the +"offscouring of all things," the meanest specimen of humanity will +be selected--a "stranger" in the hands of the oppressor, naked, +hungry, sickly; and this stranger, placed in the midst of the +assembled universe, by the side of the sovereign Judge, will be +openly acknowledged as his representative. "Glory, honor, and +immortality," will be the reward of those who had recognized and +cheered their Lord through his outraged poor. And tribulation, +anguish, and despair, will seize on "every soul of man" who had +neglected or despised them. But whom, within the limits of our +country, are we to regard especially as the representatives of our +final Judge? Every feature of the Savior's picture finds its +appropriate original in our enslaved countrymen. + + + 1. They are the LEAST of his brethren. + + 2. They are subject to thirst and hunger, unable to command a cup + of water or a crumb of bread. + + 3. They are exposed to wasting sickness, without the ability to + procure a nurse or employ a physician. + + 4. They are emphatically "in prison," restrained by chains, goaded + with whips, tasked, and under keepers. Not a wretch groans in any + cell of the prisons of our country, who is exposed to a confinement + so vigorous and heartbreaking as the law allows theirs to be + continually and permanently. + + 5. And then they are emphatically, and peculiarly, and exclusively, + STRANGERS--_strangers_ in the land which gave them birth. Whom + else do we constrain to remain aliens in the midst of our free + institutions? The Welch, the Swiss, the Irish? The Jews even? + Alas, it is the _negro_ only, who may not strike his roots into + our soil. Every where we have conspired to treat him as a + stranger--every where he is forced to feel himself a stranger. In + the stage and steamboat, in the parlor and at our tables, in the + scenes of business and in the scenes of amusement--even in the + church of God and at the communion table, he is regarded as a + stranger. The intelligent and religious are generally disgusted + and horror-struck at the thought of his becoming identified with + the citizens of our republic--so much so, that thousands of them + have entered into a conspiracy to send him off "out of sight," to + find a home on a foreign shore!--and justify themselves by openly + alleging, that a "single drop" of his blood, in the veins of any + human creature, must make him hateful to his fellow + citizens!--That nothing but banishment from "our coasts," can + redeem him from the scorn and contempt to which his "stranger" + blood has reduced him among his own mother's children! + +Who, then, in this land "of milk and honey," is "hungry and athirst," +but the man from whom the law takes away the last crumb of bread and +the smallest drop of water? + +Who "naked," but the man whom the law strips of the last rag of +clothing? + +Who "sick," but the man whom the law deprives of the power of +procuring medicine or sending for a physician? + +Who "in prison," but the man who, all his life, is under the control +of merciless masters and cruel keepers! + +Who a "stranger," but the man who is scornfully denied the cheapest +courtesies of life--who is treated as an alien in his native country? + +There is one point in this awful description which deserves +particular attention. Those who are doomed to the left hand of the +Judge, are not charged with inflicting _positive_ injuries on their +helpless, needy, and oppressed brother. Theirs was what is often +called _negative_ character. What they _had done_ is not described +in the indictment. Their _neglect_ of duty, what they _had_ NOT +_done_, was the ground of their "everlasting punishment." The +representative of their Judge, they had seen a hungered and they +gave him no meat, thirsty and they gave him no drink, a stranger and +they took him not in, naked and they clothed him not, sick and in +prison and they visited him not. In as much as they did NOT yield to +the claims of suffering humanity--did NOT exert themselves to bless +the meanest of the human family, they were driven away in their +wickedness. But what if the indictment had run thus: I was a +hungered and ye snatched away the crust which might have saved me +from starvation; I was thirsty and ye dashed to the ground the +"cup of cold water," which might have moistened my parched lips; I +was a stranger and ye drove me from the hovel which might have +sheltered me from the piercing wind; I was sick and ye scourged me +to my task; in prison and you sold me for my jail-fees--to what +depths of hell must not those who were convicted under such charges +be consigned! And what is the history of American slavery but one +long indictment, describing under ever-varying forms and hues just +such injuries! + +Nor should it be forgotten, that those who incurred the displeasure +of their Judge, took far other views than he, of their own past +history. The charges which he brought against them, they heard with +great surprise. They were sure that they had never thus turned away +from his necessities. Indeed, when had they seen him thus subject to +poverty, insult, and oppression? Never. And as to that poor +friendless creature, whom they left unpitied and unhelped in the +hands of the oppressor, and whom their Judge now presented as his +own representative, they never once supposed, that _he_ had any +claims on their compassion and assistance. Had they known, that he +was destined to so prominent a place at the final judgment, they +would have treated him as a human being, in despite of any social, +pecuniary, or political considerations. But neither their _negative +virtue_ nor their _voluntary ignorance_ could shield them from the +penal fire which their selfishness had kindled. + +Now amidst the general maxims, the leading principles, the "great +commandments" of the gospel; amidst its comprehensive descriptions +and authorized tests of Christian character, we should take our +position in disposing of any particular allusions to such forms and +usages of the primitive churches as are supported by divine authority. +The latter must be interpreted and understood in the light of the +former. But how do the apologists and defenders of slavery proceed? +Placing themselves amidst the arrangements and usages which grew out +of the _corruptions_ of Christianity, they make these the standard +by which the gospel is to be explained and understood! Some Recorder +or Justice. without the light of inquiry or the aid of a jury, +consigns the negro whom the kidnapper has dragged into his presence +to the horrors of slavery. As the poor wretch shrieks and faints, +Humanity shudders and demands why such atrocities are endured. Some +"priest" or "Levite," "passing by on the other side," quite +self-possessed and all complacent, reads in reply from his broad +phylactery, _Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon_! Yes, echoes the +negro-hating mob, made up of "gentlemen of property and standing" +together with equally gentle-men reeking from the gutter; _Yes--Paul +sent back Onesimus to Philemon_! And Humanity, brow-beaten, stunned +with noise and tumult, is pushed aside by the crowd! A fair specimen +this of the manner in which modern usages are made to interpret the +sacred Scriptures? + +Of the particular passages in the New Testament on which the +apologists for slavery especially rely, the epistle to Philemon +first demands our attention. + + 1. This letter was written by the apostle Paul while a "prisoner of + Jesus Christ" at Rome. + + 2. Philemon was a benevolent and trustworthy member of the church at + Colosse, at whose house the disciples of Christ held their assemblies, + and who owed his conversion, under God, directly or indirectly to + the ministry of Paul. + + 3. Onesimus was the servant of Philemon; under a relation which it + is difficult with accuracy and certainty to define. His condition, + though servile, could not have been like that of an American slave; + as, in that case, however he might have "wronged" Philemon, he could + not also have "owed him ought."[31] The American slave is, according + to law, as much the property of his master as any other chattel; and + can no more "owe" his master than can a sheep or a horse. The basis + of all pecuniary obligations lies in some "value received." How can + "an article of merchandise" stand on this basis and sustain + commercial relations to its owner? There is no _person_ to offer or + promise. _Personality is swallowed up in American slavery_! + + 4. How Onesimus found his way to Rome it is not easy to determine. + He and Philemon appear to have parted from each other on ill terms. + The general character of Onesimus, certainly, in his relation to + Philemon, had been far from attractive, and he seems to have left + him without repairing the wrongs he had done him or paying the debts + which he owed him. At Rome, by the blessing of God upon the + exertions of the apostle, he was brought to reflection and repentance. + + 5. In reviewing his history in the light of Christian truth, he + became painfully aware of the injuries he had inflicted on Philemon. + He longed for an opportunity for frank confession and full + restitution. Having, however, parted with Philemon on ill terms, he + knew not how to appear in his presence. Under such embarrassments, + he naturally sought sympathy and advice of Paul. _His_ influence + upon Philemon, Onesimus knew must be powerful, especially as an + apostle. + + 6. A letter in behalf of Onesimus was therefore written by the + apostle to Philemon. After such salutations, benedictions, and + thanksgiving as the good character and useful life of Philemon + naturally drew from the heart of Paul, he proceeds to the object of + the letter. He admits that Onesimus had behaved ill in the service + of Philemon; not in running away, for how they had parted with each + other is not explained; but in being unprofitable and in refusing to + pay the debts[32] which he had contracted. But his character had + undergone a radical change. Thenceforward fidelity and usefulness + would be his aim and mark his course. And as to any pecuniary + obligations which he had violated, the apostle authorized Philemon + to put them on his account.[33] Thus a way was fairly opened to the + heart of Philemon. And now what does the apostles ask? + + 7. He asks that Philemon would receive Onesimus, How? "Not as a + _servant_, but above a _servant_."[34] How much above? Philemon was + to receive him as "a son" of the apostle--"as a brother + beloved"--nay, if he counted Paul a partner, an equal, he was to + receive Onesimus as he would receive _the apostle himself_.[35] _So + much_ above a servant was he to receive him! + + 8. But was not this request to be so interpreted and complied with + as to put Onesimus in the hands of Philemon as "an article of + merchandise," CARNALLY, while it raised him to the dignity of a + "brother beloved," SPIRITUALLY? In other words, might not Philemon + consistently with the request of Paul have reduced Onesimus to a + chattel, as A MAN, while he admitted him fraternally to his bosom, + as a CHRISTIAN? Such gibberish in an apostolic epistle! Never. As if, + however to guard against such folly, the natural product of mist and + moonshine, the apostle would have Onesimus raised above a servant to + the dignity of a brother beloved, "BOTH IN THE FLESH AND IN THE + LORD;"[36] as a man and Christian, in all the relations, + circumstances, and responsibilities of life. + +[Footnote 31: Philemon, 18.] + +[Footnote 32: Verse 11, 18.] + +[Footnote 33: Verse 18.] + +[Footnote 34: Verse 16.] + +[Footnote 35: Verse 10, 16, 17.] + +[Footnote 36: Verse 16.] + +It is easy now with definiteness and certainty to determine in what +sense the apostle in such connections uses the word "_brother_". It +describes a relation inconsistent with and opposite to the _servile_. +It is "NOT" the relation of a "SERVANT." It elevates its subject +"above" the servile condition. It raises him to full equality with +the master, to the same equality, on which Paul and Philemon stood +side by side as brothers; and this, not in some vague, undefined, +spiritual sense, affecting the soul and leaving the body in bonds, +but in every way, "both in the FLESH and in the Lord." This matter +deserves particular and earnest attention. It sheds a strong light +on other lessons of apostolic instruction. + + 9. It is greatly to our purpose, moreover, to observe that the + apostle clearly defines the _moral character_ of his request. It was + fit, proper, right, suited to the nature and relation of things--a + thing which _ought_ to be done.[37] On this account, he might have + urged it upon Philemon in the form of an _injunction_, on apostolic + authority and with great boldness.[38] _The very nature_ of the + request made it obligatory on Philemon. He was sacredly bound, out + of regard to the fitness of things, to admit Onesimus to full + equality with himself--to treat him as a brother both in the Lord + and as having flesh--as a fellow man. Thus were the inalienable + rights and birthright privileges of Onesimus, as a member of the + human family, defined and protected by apostolic authority. + + 10. The apostle preferred a request instead of imposing a command, + on the ground of CHARITY.[39] He would give Philemon an opportunity + of discharging his obligations under the impulse of love. To this + impulse, he was confident Philemon would promptly and fully yield. + How could he do otherwise? The thing itself was right. The request + respecting it came from a benefactor, to whom, under God, he was + under the highest obligations.[40] That benefactor, now an old man, + and in the hands of persecutors, manifested a deep and tender + interest in the matter and had the strongest persuasion that + Philemon was more ready to grant than himself to entreat. The result, + as he was soon to visit Collosse, and had commissioned Philemon to + prepare a lodging for him, must come under the eye of the apostle. + The request was so manifestly reasonable and obligatory, that the + apostle, after all, described a compliance with it, by the strong + word "_obedience_."[41] + +[Footnote 37: Verse 8. To [Greek: anaekon]. See Robinson's New +Testament Lexicon; "_it is fit, proper, becoming, it ought_." In +what sense King James' translators used the word "convenient" any +one may see who will read Rom. i. 28 and Eph. v. 3, 4.] + +[Footnote 38: Verse 8.] + +[Footnote 39: Verse 9--[Greek: dia taen agapaen]] + +[Footnote 40: Verse 19.] + +[Footnote 41: Verse 21.] + + +Now, how must all this have been understood by the church at Colosse? +--a church, doubtless, made up of such materials as the church at +Corinth, that is, of members chiefly from the humblest walks of life. +Many of them had probably felt the degradation and tasted the +bitterness of the servile condition. Would they have been likely to +interpret the apostle's letter under the bias of feelings friendly to +slavery!--And put the slaveholder's construction on its contents! +Would their past experience or present sufferings--for doubtless +some of them were still "under the yoke"--have suggested to their +thoughts such glosses as some of our theological professors venture +to put upon the words of the apostle! Far otherwise. The Spirit of +the Lord was there, and the epistle was read in the light of +"_liberty_." It contained the principles of holy freedom, faithfully +and affectionately applied. This must have made it precious in the +eyes of such men "of low degree" as were most of the believers, and +welcome to a place in the sacred canon. There let it remain as a +luminous and powerful defence of the cause of emancipation! + +But what saith Professor Stuart? "If any one doubts, let him take +the case of Paul's sending Onesimus back to Philemon, with an apology +for his running away, and sending him back to be his servant for +life."[42] + +[Footnote 42: See his letter to Dr. Fisk, supra pp. 7, 8] + + +"Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon." By what process? Did the +apostle, a prisoner at Rome, seize upon the fugitive, and drag him +before some heartless and perfidious "Judge," for authority to send +him back to Colosse? Did he hurry his victim away from the presence +of the fat and supple magistrate, to be driven under chains and the +lash to the field of unrequited toil, whence he had escaped? Had the +apostle been like some teachers in the American churches, he might, +as a professor of sacred literature in one of our seminaries, or a +preacher of the gospel to the rich in some of our cities, have consented +thus to subserve the "peculiar" interests of a dear slaveholding brother. +But the venerable champion of truth and freedom was himself under +bonds in the imperial city, waiting for the crown of martyrdom. He +wrote a letter to the church a Colosse, which was accustomed to meet +at the house of Philemon, and another letter to that magnanimous +disciple, and sent them by the hand of Onesimus. So much for _the way_ +in which Onesimus was sent back to his master. + + +A slave escapes from a patriarch in Georgia, and seeks a refuge in +the parish of the Connecticut doctor of Divinity, who once gave +public notice that he saw no reason for caring for the servitude of +his fellow men.[43] Under his influence, Caesar becomes a Christian +convert. Burning with love for the son whom he hath begotten in the +gospel, our doctor resolves to send him back to his master. +Accordingly, he writes a letter, gives it to Caesar, and bids him +return, staff in hand, to the "corner-stone of our republican +institutions." Now, what would my Caesar do, who had ever felt a +link of slavery's chain? As he left his _spiritual father_, should +we be surprised to hear him say to himself, What, return of my own +accord to the man who, with the hand of a robber, plucked me from my +mother's bosom!--for whom I have been so often drenched in the sweat +of unrequited toil!--whose violence so often cut my flesh and +scarred my limbs!--who shut out every ray of light from my mind!--who +laid claim to those honors to which my Creator and Redeemer only +are entitled! And for what am I to return? To be cursed, and +smitten, and sold! To be tempted, and torn, and destroyed! I cannot +thus throw myself away--thus rush upon my own destruction. + +[Footnote 43: "Why should I care?"] + + +Who ever heard of the voluntary return of a fugitive from American +oppression? Do you think that the doctor and his friends could +persuade one to carry a letter to the patriarch from whom he had +escaped? And must we believe this of Onesimus? + +"Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon." On what occasion?--"If," +writes the apostle, "he hath wronged thee, or oweth the aught, put +that on my account." Alive to the claims of duty, Onesimus would +"restore" whatever he "had taken away." He would honestly pay his +debts. This resolution the apostle warmly approved. He was ready, at +whatever expense, to help his young disciple in carrying it into +full effect. Of this he assured Philemon, in language the most +explicit and emphatic. Here we find one reason for the conduct of +Paul in sending Onesimus to Philemon. + +If a fugitive slave of the Rev. Dr. Smylie, of Mississippi, should +return to him with a letter from a doctor of divinity in New York, +containing such an assurance, how would the reverend slaveholder +dispose of it? What, he exclaims, have we here? "If Cato has not +been upright in his pecuniary intercourse with you--if he owes you +any thing--put that on my account." What ignorance of southern +institutions! What mockery, to talk of pecuniary intercourse between +a slave and his master! _The slave himself, with all he is and has, +is an article of merchandise_. What can _he_ owe his master? A +rustic may lay a wager with his mule, and give the creature the peck +of oats which he has permitted it to win. But who, in sober earnest, +would call this a pecuniary transaction? + +"TO BE HIS SERVANT FOR LIFE!" From what part of the epistle could +the expositor have evolved a thought so soothing to tyrants--so +revolting to every man who loves his own nature? From this? +"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldst +receive him for ever." Receive him how? _As a servant_, exclaims our +commentator. But what wrote the apostle? "NOT _now as a servant, but +above a servant_, a brother beloved, especially to me, but how much +more unto thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord." Who authorized +the professor to bereave the word "_not_" of its negative influence? +According to Paul, Philemon was to receive Onesimus "_not_ as a +servant;"--according to Stuart, he was to receive him "_as a +servant_!" If the professor will apply the same rules of exposition +to the writings of the abolitionists, all difference between him and +them must in his view presently vanish away. The harmonizing process +would be equally simple and effectual. He has only to understand +them as affirming what they deny, and as denying what they affirm. + +Suppose that Professor Stuart had a son residing, at the South. His +slave, having stolen money of his master, effected his escape. He +fled to Andover, to find a refuge among the "sons of the prophets." +There he finds his way to Professor Stuart's house, and offers to +render any service which the professor, dangerously ill "of a typhus +fever," might require. He is soon found to be a most active, skilful, +faithful nurse. He spares no pains, night and day, to make himself +useful to the venerable sufferer. He anticipates every want. In the +most delicate and tender manner, he tries to sooth every pain. He +fastens himself strongly on the heart of the reverend object of his +care. Touched with the heavenly spirit, the meek demeanor, the +submissive frame, which the sick bed exhibits, Archy becomes a +Christian. A new bond now ties him and his convalescent teacher +together. As soon as he is able to write, the professor sends Archy +with the following letter to the South, to Isaac Stuart, Esq.:-- + +"MY DEAR SON,--With a hand enfeebled by a distressing and dangerous +illness, from which I am slowly recovering, I address you on a +subject which lies very near my heart. I have a request to urge, +which our mutual relation to each other, and your strong obligations +to me, will, I cannot doubt, make you eager fully to grant. I say a +request, though the thing I ask is, in its very nature and on the +principles of the gospel, obligatory upon you. I might, therefore, +boldly demand, what I earnestly entreat. But I know how generous, +magnanimous, and Christ-like you are, and how readily you will 'do +even more than I say'--I, your own father, an old man, almost +exhausted with multiplied exertions for the benefit of my family and +my country and now just rising, emaciated and broken, from the brink +of the grave. I write in behalf of Archy, whom I regard with the +affection of a father, and whom, indeed, 'I have forgotten in my +sickness.' Gladly would I have retained him, to be _an Isaac_ to me; +for how often did not his soothing voice, and skilful hand, and +unwearied attention to my wants remind me of you! But I chose to +give you an opportunity of manifesting, voluntarily, the goodness of +your heart; as, if I had retained him with me, you might seem to +have been forced to grant what you will gratefully bestow. His +temporary absence from you may have opened the way for his permanent +continuance with you. Not now as a slave. Heaven forbid! But +superior to a slave. Superior, did I say? Take him to your bosom, as +a beloved brother; for I own him as a son, and regard him as such, +in all the relations of life, both as a man and a Christian. +'Receive him as myself.' And that nothing may hinder you from +complying with my request at once, I hereby promise, without +adverting to your many and great obligations to me, to pay you every +cent which he took from your drawer. Any preparation which my +comfort with you may require, you will make without much delay, when +you learn, that I intend, as soon as I shall be able 'to perform the +journey,' to make you a visit." + +And what if Dr. Baxter, in giving an account of this letter should +publicly declare that Professor Stuart, of Andover regarded +slaveholding as lawful; for that "he had sent Archy back to his son +Isaac, with an apology for his running away" to be held in perpetual +slavery? With what propriety might not the professor exclaim: False, +every syllable false. I sent him back, NOT TO BE HELD AS A SLAVE, +_but recognized as a dear brother, in all respects, under every +relation, civil and ecclesiastical_. I bade my son receive _Archy as +myself_. If this was not equivalent to a requisition to set him +fully and most honorably free, and that, too, on the ground of +natural obligation and Christian principle, then I know not how to +frame such a requisition. + +I am well aware that my supposition is by no means strong enough +fully to illustrate the case to which it is applied. Professor Stuart +lacks apostolical authority. Isaac Stuart is not a leading member of +a church consisting, as the early churches chiefly consisted, of +what the world regard as the dregs of society--"the offscouring of +all things." Nor was slavery at Colosse, it seems, supported by such +barbarous usages, such horrid laws as disgrace the South. + +But it is time to turn to another passage which, in its bearing on +the subject in hand, is, in our view, as well as in the view of +Dr. Fisk. and Prof. Stuart, in the highest degree authoritative and +instructive. "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their +own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his +doctrines 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." [44] + +[Footnote 44: 1 Tim. vi. 1. 2. The following exposition of this +passage is from the pen of ELIZUR WRIGHT, JR.:-- + + "This word [Greek: antilambanesthai] in our humble opinion, has been + so unfairly used by the commentators, that we feel constrained to + take its part. Our excellent translators, in rendering the clause + 'partakers of the benefit,' evidently lost sight of the component + preposition, which expresses the _opposition of reciprocity_, rather + than the _connection of participation_. They have given it exactly + the sense of [Greek: metalambanein], (2 Tim. ii. 6.) Had the apostle + intended such a sense, he would have used the latter verb, or one of + the more common words, [Greek: metochoi, koinonomtes, &c.] (See Heb. + iii. 1, and 1 Tim. v. 22, where the latter word is used in the clause, + 'neither be partaker of other men's sins.' Had the verb in our text + been used, it might have been rendered, 'neither be the _part-taker_ + of other men's sins.') The primary sense of [Greek: antilambans] is + _to take in return_--_to take instead of, &c._ Hence, in the middle + with the genitive, it signifies _assist_, or _do one's part towards_ + the person or thing expressed by that genitive. In this sense only + is the word used in the New Testament,--(See Luke i. 54, and Acts, xx. + 35.) If this be true, the word [Greek: emsgesai] cannot signify the + benefit conferred by the gospel, as our common version would make it, + but the _well doing_ of the servants, who should continue to serve + their believing masters, while they were no longer under the _yoke_ + of compulsion. This word is used elsewhere in the New Testament but + once (Acts. iv. 3.) in relation to the '_good deed_' done to the + impotent man. The plain import of the clause, unmystified by the + commentators, is, that believing masters would not fail to do + their part towards, or encourage by suitable returns, the free + service of those who had once been under the yoke."] + + + 1. The apostle addresses himself here to two classes of servants, + with instructions to each respectively appropriate. Both the one + class and the other, in Professor Stuart's eye, were slaves. This + he assumes, and thus begs the very question in dispute. The term + servant is generic, as used by the sacred writers. It comprehends + all the various offices which men discharge for the benefit of each + other, however honorable, or however menial; from that of an + apostle[45] opening the path to heaven, to that of washing "one + another's feet."[46] A general term it is, comprehending every + office which belongs to human relations and Christian character.[47] + + [Footnote 45: Cor. iv. 5.] + + [Footnote 46: John, xiii, 14.] + + [Footnote 47: Mat, xx, 26-28.] + + + A leading signification gives us the manual laborer, to whom, in + the division of labor, muscular exertion was allotted. As in his + exertions the bodily powers are especially employed--such powers as + belong to man in common with mere animals--his sphere has generally + been considered low and humble. And as intellectual power is + superior to bodily, the manual laborer has always been exposed in + very numerous ways and in various degrees to oppression. Cunning, + intrigue, the oily tongue, have, through extended and powerful + conspiracies, brought the resources of society under the control of + the few, who stood aloof from his homely toil. Hence his dependence + upon them. Hence the multiplied injuries which have fallen so + heavily upon him. Hence the reduction of his wages from one degree + to another, till at length, in the case of millions, fraud and + violence strip him of his all, blot his name from the record of + _mankind_, and, putting a yoke upon his neck, drive him away + to toil among the cattle. _Here you find the slave_. To reduce + the servant to his condition, requires abuses altogether + monstrous--injuries reaching the very vitals of man--stabs upon the + very heart of humanity. Now, what right has Professor Stuart to make + the word "_servants_," comprehending, even as manual laborers, so + many and such various meanings, signify "_slaves_," especially where + different classes are concerned? Such a right he could never have + derived from humanity, or philosophy, or hermeneutics. It is his by + sympathy with the oppressor? + + Yes, different classes. This is implied in the term "as many,"[48] + which sets apart the class now to be addressed. From these he + proceeds to others, who are introduced by a particle,[49] whose + natural meaning indicates the presence of another and a different + subject. + + [Footnote 48: [Greek: Ochli] See Passow's Schneider.] + + [Footnote 49: [Greek: Dd.] See Passow.] + + 2. The first class are described as "_under the yoke_"--a yoke from + which they were, according to the apostle, to make their escape if + possible.[50] If not, they must in every way regard the master with + respect--bowing to his authority, working his will, subserving his + interests so far as might be consistent with Christian + character.[51] And this, to prevent blasphemy--to prevent the pagan + master from heaping profane reproaches upon the name of God and the + doctrines of the gospel. They should beware of rousing his passions, + which, as his helpless victims, they might be unable to allay or + withstand. + + [Footnote 50: See 1 Cor. vii, 21--[Greek: All' ei kai dunasai + eleuphoros genesthai].] + + [Footnote 51: See 1 Cor. vii, 23--[Greek: Mae ginesthe doulos + anthroton].] + + + But all the servants whom the apostle addressed were not "_under the + yoke_"[52]--an instrument appropriate to cattle and to slaves. These + he distinguishes from another class, who instead of a "yoke"--the + badge of a slave--had "_believing masters_." _To have a "believing + master," then, was equivalent to freedom from "the yoke_." These + servants were exhorted not _to despise_ their masters. What need of + such an exhortation, if their masters had been slaveholders, holding + them as property, wielding them as mere instruments, disposing of + them as "articles of merchandise." But this was not consistent with + believing. Faith, "breaking every yoke," united master and servants + in the bonds of brotherhood. Brethren they were, joined in a + relation which, excluding the yoke,[53] placed them side by side on + the ground of equality, where, each in his appropriate sphere, they + might exert themselves freely and usefully, to the mutual benefit of + each other. Here, servants might need to be cautioned against getting + above their appropriate business, putting on airs, despising their + masters, and thus declining or neglecting their service. [54] + Instead of this, they should be, as emancipated slaves often + have been, [55] models of enterprise, fidelity, activity, and + usefulness--especially as their masters were "worthy of their + confidence and love," their helpers in this well-doing. + +[Footnote 52: See Lev. xxvi. 13; Isa lviii. 6, 9.] + +[Footnote 53: Supra p. 44.] + +[Footnote 54: See Mat. vi. 24.] + +[Footnote 55: Those, for instance, set free by that "believing master" +James G. Birney.] + + +Such, then, is the relation between those who, in the view of +Professor Stuart, were Christian masters and Christian slaves +[56]--the relation of "brethren," which, excluding "the yoke," and of +course conferring freedom, placed them side by side on the common +ground of mutual service, both retaining, for convenience sake, the +one while giving and the other while receiving employment, the +correlative name, _as is usual in such cases_, under which they had +been known. Such was the instruction which Timothy was required, as +a Christian minister, to give. Was it friendly to slaveholding? + +[Footnote 56: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra, p. 7.] + + +And on what ground, according to the Princeton professor, did these +masters and these servants stand in their relation to each other? On +that _of a "perfect religious equality."_[57] In all the relations, +duties, and privileges--in all the objects, interests, and prospects, +which belong to the province of Christianity, servants were as free +as their master. The powers of the one, were allowed as wide a range +and as free an exercise, with as warm encouragements, as active aids, +and as high results, as the other. Here, the relation of a servant +to his master imposed no restrictions, involved no embarrassments, +occasioned no injury. All this, clearly and certainly, is implied in +"_perfect religious equality_," which the Princeton professor +accords to servants in relation to their master. Might the _master_, +then, in order more fully to attain the great ends for which he was +created and redeemed, freely exert himself to increase his +acquaintance with his own powers, and relations, and resources--with +his prospects, opportunities, and advantages? So might his _servants_. +Was _he_ at liberty to "study to approve himself to God," to submit +to his will and bow to his authority, as the sole standard of +affection and exertion? So were _they_. Was _he_ at liberty to +sanctify the Sabbath, and frequent the "solemn assembly?" So were +_they_. Was _he_ at liberty so to honor the filial, conjugal, and +paternal relations, as to find in them that spring of activity and +that source of enjoyment, which they are capable of yielding? So +were _they_. In every department of interest and exertion, they +might use their capacities, and wield their powers, and improve +their opportunities, and employ their resources, as freely as he, in +glorifying God, in blessing mankind, and in laying up imperishable +treasures for themselves! Give perfect religious equality to the +American slave, and the most eager abolitionist must be satisfied. +Such equality would, like the breath of the Almighty, dissolve the +last link of the chain of servitude. Dare those who, for the benefit +of slavery, have given so wide and active a circulation to the +Pittsburg pamphlet, make the experiment? + +[Footnote 57: Pittsburg Pamphlet, p. 9.] + + +In the epistle to the Colossians, the following passage deserves +earnest attention:--"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: and whatsoever ye do, do it +heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing, that of the +Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance; for ye serve +the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong +which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.--Masters, +give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that +ye have a Master in heaven."[58] + +[Footnote 58: Col. iii. 22 to iv. 1.] + + +Here it is natural to remark-- + + 1. That in maintaining the relation, which mutually united them, + both masters and servants were to act in conformity with the + principles of the divine government. Whatever _they_ did, servants + were to do in hearty obedience to the Lord, by whose authority they + were to be controlled and by whose hand they were to be rewarded. To + the same Lord, and according to the same law, was the _master_ to + hold himself responsible. _Both the one and the other were of course + equally at liberty and alike required to study and apply the standard, + by which they were to be governed and judged_. + + 2. The basis of the government under which they thus were placed, + was _righteousness_--strict, stern, impartial. Nothing here of bias + or antipathy. Birth, wealth, station,--the dust of the balance not + so light! Both master and servants were hastening to a tribunal, + where nothing of "respect of persons" could be feared or hoped for. + There the wrong-doer, whoever he might be, and whether from the top + or bottom of society, must be dealt with according to his deservings. + + 3. Under this government, servants were to be universally and + heartily obedient; and both in the presence and absence of the master, + faithfully to discharge their obligations. The master on his part, + in his relations to the servants, was to make JUSTICE AND EQUALITY + the _standard of his conduct_. Under the authority of such + instructions, slavery falls discountenanced, condemned, abhorred. It + is flagrantly at war with the government of God, consists in + "respect of persons" the most shameless and outrageous, treads + justice and equality under foot, and in its natural tendency and + practical effects is nothing else than a system of wrong-doing. What + have _they_ to do with the just and the equal who in their "respect + of persons" proceed to such a pitch as to treat one brother as a + thing because he is a servant, and place him, without the least + regard to his welfare here, or his prospects hereafter, absolutely + at the disposal of another brother, under the name of master, in + the relation of owner to property? Justice and equality on the one + hand, and the chattel principle on the other, are naturally + subversive of each other--proof clear and decisive that the + correlates, masters and servants, cannot here be rendered slaves + and owners, without the grossest absurdity and the greatest + violence. + + + "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; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the + servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good + will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that + whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the + Lord, whether _he be_ bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same + things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master + also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with + him."[59] + + [Footnote 59: Ephesians, vi. 5-9.] + +Without repeating here what has already been offered in exposition +of kindred passages, it may be sufficient to say:-- + + 1. That the relation of the servants here addressed, to their master, + was adapted to make him the object of their heart-felt attachment. + Otherwise they could not have been required to render him an + affectionate service. + + 2. This relation demanded a perfect reciprocity of benefits. It had + its soul in _good-will_, mutually cherished and properly expressed. + Hence "THE SAME THINGS," the same in principle, the same in + substance, the same in their mutual bearing upon the welfare of + the master and the servants, was to be rendered back and forth + by the one and the other. It was clearly the relation of mutual + service. Do we here find the chattel principle? + + 3. Of course, the servants might not be slack, time-serving, + unfaithful. Of course, the master must "FORBEAR THREATENING." + Slavery without threatening! Impossible. Wherever maintained, it is + of necessity a _system of threatening_, injecting into the bosom of + the slave such terrors, as never cease for a moment to haunt and + torment him. Take from the chattel principle the support, which it + derives from "threatening," and you annihilate it at once and + forever. + + 4. This relation was to be maintained in accordance with the + principles of the divine government, where "RESPECT OF PERSONS" + could not be admitted. It was, therefore, totally inconsistent with, + and submissive of, the chattel principle, which in American slavery + is developed in a system of "respect of persons," equally gross and + hurtful. No Abolitionist, however eager and determined in his + opposition to slavery, could ask for more than these precepts, once + obeyed, would be sure to confer. + +"The relation of slavery," according to Professor Stuart, is +recognized in "the precepts of the New Testament," as one which "may +still exist without violating the Christian faith or the church."[60] +Slavery and the chattel principle! So our professor thinks; +otherwise his reference has nothing to do with the subject--with the +slavery which the abolitionist, whom he derides, stands opposed to. +How gross and hurtful is the mistake into which he allows himself to +fall. The relation recognized in the precepts of the New Testament +had its basis and support in "justice and equality;" the very +opposite of the chattel principle; a relation which may exist as +long as justice and equality remain, and thus escape the destruction +to which, in the view of Professor Stuart, slavery is doomed. The +description of Paul obliterates every feature of American slavery, +raising the servant to equality with his master, and placing his +rights under the protection of justice; yet the eye of Professor +Stuart can see nothing in his master and servant but a slave and his +owner. With this relation he is so thoroughly possessed, that, like +an evil angel, it haunts him even when he enters the temple of +justice! + +[Footnote 60: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra p. 7.] + + +"It is remarkable," saith the Princeton professor, "that there is +not even an exhortation" in the writings of the apostles "to masters +to liberate their slaves, much less is it urged as an imperative and +immediate duty."[61] It would be remarkable, indeed, if they were +chargeable with a defect so great and glaring. And so they have +nothing to say upon the subject? _That_ not even the Princeton +professor has the assurance to affirm. He admits that KINDNESS, MERCY, +AND JUSTICE, were enjoined with a _distinct reference to the +government of God_.[62] "Without respect of persons," they were to be +God-like in doing justice. They were to act the part of kind and +merciful "brethren." And whither would this lead them? Could they +stop short of restoring to every man his natural, inalienable +rights?--of doing what they could to redress the wrongs, sooth the +sorrows, improve the character, and raise the condition of the +degraded and oppressed? Especially, if oppressed and degraded by any +agency of theirs. Could it be kind, merciful, or just to keep the +chains of slavery on their helpless, unoffending brother? Would this +be to honor the Golden Rule, or obey the second great command of +"their Master in Heaven?" Could the apostles have subserved the cause +of freedom more directly, intelligibly, and effectually, than _to +enjoin the principles, and sentiments, and habits, in which +freedom consists--constituting its living root and fruitful germ_! + +[Footnote 61: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.] + +[Footnote 62: The same, p. 10.] + + +The Princeton professor himself, in the very paper which the South +has so warmly welcomed and so loudly applauded as a scriptural +defence of "the peculiar institution," maintains, that the "GENERAL +PRINCIPLES OF THE GOSPEL _have_ DESTROYED SLAVERY _throughout the +greater part of Christendom_"[63]--"THAT CHRISTIANITY HAS ABOLISHED +BOTH POLITICAL AND DOMESTIC BONDAGE WHEREVER IT HAS HAD FREE +SCOPE--_that it_ ENJOINS _a fair compensation for labor; insists on +the mental and intellectual improvement of_ ALL _classes of men; +condemns_ ALL _infractions of marital or parental rights; requires, in +short, not only that_ FREE SCOPE _should be allowed to human +improvement, but that_ ALL SUITABLE MEANS _should be employed for the +attainment of that end_."[64] It is indeed "remarkable," that while +neither Christ nor his apostles ever gave "an exhortation to masters +to liberate their slaves," they enjoined such "general principles as +have destroyed domestic slavery throughout the greater part of +Christendom;" that while Christianity forbears "to urge" +emancipation "as an imperative and immediate duty," it throws a +barrier, heaven high, around every domestic circle; protects all the +rights of the husband and the father; gives every laborer a fair +compensation; and makes the moral and intellectual improvement of +all classes, with free scope and all suitable means, the object +of its tender solicitude and high authority. This is not only +"remarkable," but inexplicable. Yes and no--hot and cold, in one and +the same breath! And yet these things stand prominent in what is +reckoned an acute, ingenious, effective defence of slavery! + +[Footnote 63: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 18, 19.] + +[Footnote 64: The same, p. 31.] + + +In his letter to the Corinthian church, the apostle Paul furnishes +another lesson of instruction, expressive of his views and feelings +on the subject of slavery. "Let every man abide in the same calling +wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for +it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 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. Ye are +bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." [65] + +[Footnote 65: 1 Cor. vii. 20-23.] + + +In explaining and applying this passage, it is proper to suggest: + + 1. That it _could_ not have been the object of the apostle to bind + the Corinthian converts to the stations and employments in which the + gospel found them. For he exhorts some of them to escape, if possible, + from their present condition. In the servile state, "under the yoke," + they ought not to remain unless impelled by stern necessity. + "If thou canst be free, use it rather." If they ought to prefer + freedom to bondage and to exert themselves to escape from the latter + for the sake of the former, could their master consistently with the + claims and spirit of the gospel have hindered or discouraged them in + so doing? Their "brother" could _he_ be, who kept "the yoke" upon + their neck, which the apostle would have them shake off if possible? + And had such masters been members of the Corinthian church, what + inferences must they have drawn from this exhortation to their + servants? That the apostle regarded slavery as a Christian + institution?--or could look complacently on any efforts to introduce + or maintain it in the church? Could they have expected less from him + than a stern rebuke, if they refused to exert themselves in the + cause of freedom? + + 2. But while they were to use their freedom, if they could obtain it, + they should not, even on such a subject, give themselves up to + ceaseless anxiety. "The Lord was no respecter of persons." They need + not fear, that the "low estate," to which they had been wickedly + reduced, would prevent them from enjoying the gifts of his hand or + the light of his countenance. _He_ would respect their rights, sooth + their sorrows, and pour upon their hearts, and cherish there, the + spirit of liberty. "For he that is called in the Lord, being a + servant, is the Lord's freeman." In _him_, therefore, should they + cheerfully confide. + + 3. The apostle, however, forbids them so to acquiesce in the servile + relation, as to act inconsistently with their Christian obligations. + To their Savior they belonged. By his blood they had been purchased. + It should be their great object, therefore, to render _Him_ a hearty + and effective service. They should permit no man, whoever he might be, + to thrust in himself between them and their Redeemer. "_Ye are + bought with a price_; BE NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN." + +With his eye upon the passage just quoted and explained, the +Princeton professor asserts that "Paul represents this relation"--the +relation of slavery--"as of comparatively little account."[66] +And this he applies--otherwise it is nothing to his purpose--to +_American_ slavery. Does he then regard it as a small matter, a +mere trifle, to be thrown under the slave-laws of this republic, +grimly and fiercely excluding their victim from almost every means +of improvement, and field of usefulness, and source of comfort; and +making him, body and substance, with his wife and babes, "the +servant of men?" Could such a relation be acquiesced in consistently +with the instructions of the apostle? + +[Footnote 66: Pittsburg pamphlet, p.10.] + +To the Princeton professor we commend a practical trial of the +bearing of the passage in hand upon American slavery. His regard for +the unity and prosperity of the ecclesiastical organizations, which +in various forms and under different names, unite the southern with +the northern churches, will make the experiment grateful to his +feelings. Let him, then, as soon as his convenience will permit, +proceed to Georgia. No religious teacher [67] from any free State, can +be likely to receive so general and so warm a welcome there. To +allay the heat, which the doctrines and movements of the +abolitionists have occasioned in the southern mind, let him with as +much despatch as possible, collect, as he goes from place to place, +masters and their slaves. Now let all men, whom it may concern, see +and own that slavery is a Christian institution! With his Bible in his +hand and his eye upon the passage in question, he addresses himself +to the task of instructing the slaves around him. Let not your hearts, +my brethren, be overcharged with sorrow, or eaten up with anxiety. Your +servile condition cannot deprive you of the fatherly regards of Him +"who is no respecter of persons." Freedom you ought, indeed, to +prefer. If you can escape from "the yoke," throw it off. In the mean +time rejoice that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;" +that the gospel places slaves "on a perfect religious equality" with +their master; so that every Christian is "the Lord's freeman." And, +for your encouragement, remember that "Christianity has abolished +both political and domestic servitude wherever it has had free scope. +It enjoins a fair compensation for labor; it insists on the moral and +intellectual improvement of all classes of men; it condemns all +infractions of marital or parental rights; in short it requires not +only that free scope be allowed to human improvement, but that all +suitable means should be employed for the attainment of that end." +[68] Let your lives, then, be honorable to your relations to your +Savior. He bought you with his own blood; and is entitled to your +warmest love and most effective service. "Be not ye the servants of +men." Let no human arrangements prevent you, as citizens of the +kingdom of heaven, from making the most of your powers and +opportunities. Would such an effort, generally and heartily made, +allay excitement at the South, and quench the flames of discord, +every day rising higher and waxing hotter, in almost every part of +the republic, and cement "the Union?" + +[Footnote 67: Rev. Mr. Savage, of Utica, New York, had, not very +long ago, a free conversation with a gentleman of high standing in +the literary and religious world from a slaveholding State, where +the "peculiar institution" is cherished with great warmth and +maintained with iron rigor. By him, Mr. Savage was assured, that the +Princeton professor had, through the Pittsburg pamphlet, contributed +most powerfully and effectually to bring the "whole South" under the +persuasion, _that slaveholding is in itself right_--a system _to +which the Bible gives countenance and support_. + +In an extract from an article in the Southern Christian Sentinel, a +new Presbyterian paper established in Charleston, South Carolina, +and inserted in the Christian Journal for March 21, 1839, we find +the following paragraphs from the pen of Rev. C.W. Howard, and, +according to Mr. Chester, ably and freely endorsed by the editor. +"There is scarcely any diversity of sentiment at the North upon this +subject. The great mass of the people, believing slavery to be sinful, +are clearly of the opinion that, as a system, it should be abolished +throughout this land and throughout the world. They differ as to the +time and mode of abolition. The abolitionists consistently argue, +that whatever is sinful should be instantly abandoned. The others, +_by a strange sort of reasoning for Christian men_, contend that +though slavery is sinful, _yet it may be allowed to exist until it +shall he expedient to abolish it_; or, if, in many cases, this +reasoning might be translated into plain English, the sense would be, +both in Church and State, _slavery, though sinful, may be allowed to +exist until our interest will suffer us to say that it must be +abolished_. This is not slander; it is simply a plain way of stating +a plain truth. It does seem the evident duty of every man to become +an abolitionist, who believes slavery to be sinful, for the Bible +allows no tampering with sin. + +"To these remarks, there are some noble exceptions, to be found in +both parties in the church. _The South owes a debt of gratitude to +the Biblical Repertory, for the fearless argument in behalf of the +position, that slavery is not forbidden by the Bible_. The writer of +that article is said, without contradiction, to be _Professor Hodge, +of Princeton_--HIS NAME OUGHT TO BE KNOWN AND REVERED AMONG YOU, +_my brethren, for in a land of anti-slavery men, he is the_ ONLY +ONE _who has dared to vindicate your character from the serious +charge of living in the habitual transgression of God's holy law_."] + +[Footnote 68: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 31.] + + +"It is," affirms the Princeton professor, "on all hands acknowledged, +that, at the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, slavery in its +worst forms prevailed over the whole world. _The Savior found it +around him_ IN JUDEA."[69] To say that he found it _in Judea_, is to +speak ambiguously. Many things were to be found "_in_ Judea," which +neither belonged to, nor were characteristic of _the Jews_. It is +not denied that _the Gentiles_, who resided among them, might have +had slaves; _but of the Jews this is denied_. How could the +professor take that as granted, the proof of which entered vitally +into the argument and was essential to the soundness of the +conclusions to which he would conduct us? How could he take +advantage of an ambiguous expression to conduct his confiding +readers on to a position which, if his own eyes were open, he must +have known they could not hold in the light of open day! + +[Footnote 69: The same, p. 9] + + +We do not charge the Savior with any want of wisdom, goodness, or +courage,[70] for refusing to "break down the wall of partition between +Jews and Gentiles" "before the time appointed." While this barrier +stood, he could not, consistently with the plan of redemption, +impart instruction freely to the Gentiles. To some extent, and on +extraordinary occasions, he might have done so. But his business +then was with "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [71] The +propriety of this arrangement is not the matter of dispute between +the Princeton professor and ourselves. + +[Footnote 70: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 10.] + +[Footnote 71: Matt. xv. 24.] + + +In disposing of the question whether the Jews held slaves during our +Savior's incarnation among them, the following points deserve earnest +attention:-- + + 1. Slaveholding is inconsistent with the Mosaic economy. For the + proof of this, we would refer our readers, among other arguments more + or less appropriate and powerful, to the tract already alluded + to.[72] In all the external relations and visible arrangements of + life, the Jews, during our Savior's ministry among them, seem to + have been scrupulously observant of the institutions and usages of + the "Old Dispensation." They stood far aloof from whatever was + characteristic of Samaritans and Gentiles. From idolatry and + slaveholding--those twin-vices which had always so greatly prevailed + among the heathen--they seem at length, as the result of a most + painful discipline, to have been effectually divorced. + + [Footnote 72: "The Bible against Slavery."] + + + 2. While, therefore, John the Baptist; with marked fidelity and + great power, acted among the Jews the part of a _reprover_, he found + no occasion to repeat and apply the language of his + predecessors,[73] in exposing and rebuking idolatry and + slaveholding. Could he, the greatest of the prophets, have been + less effectually aroused by the presence of "the yoke," than was + Isaiah?--or less intrepid and decisive in exposing and denouncing + the sin of oppression under its most hateful and injurious forms? + + [Footnote 73: Psalm lxxxii; Isa. lviii. 1-12 Jer. xxii. 13-16.] + + + 3. The Savior was not backward in applying his own principles plainly + and pointedly to such forms of oppression as appeared among the Jews. + These principles, whenever they have been freely acted on, the + Princeton professor admits, have abolished domestic bondage. Had + this prevailed within the sphere of our Savior's ministry, he could + not, consistently with his general character, have failed to expose + and condemn it. The oppression of the people by lordly ecclesiastics, + of parents by their selfish children, of widows by their ghostly + counsellors, drew from his lips scorching rebukes and terrible + denunciations.[74] How, then, must he have felt and spoke in the + presence of such tyranny, if _such tyranny had been within his + official sphere_, as should _have made widows_, by driving their + husbands to some flesh-market, and their children not orphans, + _but cattle_? + + [Footnote 74: Matt. xxiii; Mark, vii. 1-13.] + + + 4. Domestic slavery was manifestly inconsistent with the _industry_, + which, _in the form of manual labor_, so generally prevailed among + the Jews. In one connection, in the Acts of the Apostles, we are + informed, that, coming from Athens to Corinth, Paul "found a certain + Jew, named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his + wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to + depart from Rome;) and came unto them. And because he was of the + same craft, he abode with them and wrought: (for by their occupation + they were tent-makers.")[75] This passage has opened the way for + different commentators to refer us to the public sentiment and + general practice of the Jews respecting useful industry and manual + labor. According to _Lightfoot_, "it was their custom to bring up + their children to some trade, yea, though they gave them learning or + estates." According to Rabbi Judah, "He that teaches not his son a + trade, is as if he taught him to be a thief."[76] It was, _Kuinoel_ + affirms, customary even for Jewish teachers to unite labor + (opificium) with the study of the law. This he confirms by the + highest Rabbinical authority.[77] _Heinrichs_ quotes a Rabbi as + teaching, that no man should by any means neglect to train his son + to honest industry.[78] Accordingly, the apostle Paul, though + brought up at the "feet of Gamaliel," the distinguished disciple of + a most illustrious teacher, practised the art of tent-making. His + own hands ministered to his necessities; and his example is so + doing, he commends to his Gentile brethren for their imitation.[79] + That Zebedee, the father of John the Evangelist, had wealth, various + hints in the New Testament render probable.[80] Yet how do we find + him and his sons, while prosecuting their appropriate business? In + the midst of the hired servants, "in the ship mending their + nets."[81] + + [Footnote 75: Acts, xviii. 1-3.] + + [Footnote 76: Henry on Acts, xviii. 1-3.] + + [Footnote 77: Kuinoel on Acts.] + + [Footnote 78: Heinrichs on Acts.] + + [Footnote 79: Acts, xx. 34, 35; 1 Thess. iv. 11.] + + [Footnote 80: See Kuinoel's Prolegom. to the Gospel of John.] + + [Footnote 81: Mark, i. 19, 20.] + + + Slavery among a people who, from the highest to the lowest, were + used to manual labor! What occasion for slavery there? And how could + it be maintained? No place can be found for slavery among a people + generally inured to useful industry. With such, especially if + men of learning, wealth, and station, "labor, working with their + hands," such labor must be honorable. On this subject, let Jewish + maxims and Jewish habits be adopted at the South, and the "peculiar + institution" would vanish like a ghost at daybreak. + + 5. Another hint, here deserving particular attention, is furnished + in the allusions of the New Testament to the lowest casts and most + servile employments among the Jews. With profligates, _publicans_ + were joined as depraved and contemptible. The outcasts of society + were described, not as fit to herd with slaves, but as deserving a + place among Samaritans and publicans. They were "_hired servants_," + whom Zebedee employed. In the parable of the prodigal son we have a + wealthy Jewish family. Here servants seem to have abounded. The + prodigal, bitterly bewailing his wretchedness and folly, described + their condition as greatly superior to his own. How happy the change + which should place him by their side? His remorse, and shame, and + penitence made him willing to embrace the lot of the lowest of them + all. But these--what was their condition? They were HIRED SERVANTS. + "Make me as one of thy hired servants." Such he refers to as the + lowest menials known in Jewish life. + +Lay such hints as have now been suggested together; let it be +remembered, that slavery was inconsistent with the Mosaic economy; +that John the Baptist in preparing the way for the Messiah makes no +reference "to the yoke" which, had it been before him, he would, like +Isaiah, have condemned; that the Savior, while he took the part of +the poor and sympathized with the oppressed, was evidently spared the +pain of witnessing within the sphere of his ministry, the presence, +of the chattel principle, that it was the habit of the Jews, whoever +they might be, high or low, rich or poor, learned or rude, "to labor, +working with their hands;" and that where reference was had to the +most menial employments, in families, they were described as carried +on by hired servants; and the question of slavery "in Judea," so far +as the seed of Abraham were concerned, is very easily disposed of. +With every phase and form of society among them slavery was +inconsistent. + +The position which, in the article so often referred to in this paper, +the Princeton professor takes, is sufficiently remarkable. Northern +abolitionists he saw in an earnest struggle with southern +slaveholders. The present welfare and future happiness of myriads of +the human family were at stake in this contest. In the heat of the +battle, he throws himself between the belligerent powers. He gives +the abolitionists to understand, that they are quite mistaken in the +character of the objections they have set themselves so openly and +sternly against. Slaveholding is not, as they suppose, contrary to +the law of God. It was witnessed by the Savior "in its worst +forms"[82] without extorting from his laps a syllable of rebuke. "The +sacred writers did not condemn it." [83] And why should they? By a +definition[84] sufficiently ambiguous and slippery, he undertakes to +set forth a form of slavery which he looks upon as consistent with the +law of Righteousness. From this definition he infers that the +abolitionists are greatly to blame for maintaining that American +slavery is inherently and essentially sinful, and for insisting that +it ought at once to be abolished. For this labor of love the +slaveholding South is warmly grateful and applauds its reverend ally, +as if a very Daniel had come as their advocate to judgment.[85] + +[Footnote 82: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.] + +[Footnote 83: The same, p. 13.] + +[Footnote 84: The same, p. 12.] + +[Footnote 85: Supra, p. 58.] + + +A few questions, briefly put, may not here be inappropriate. + + 1. Was the form of slavery which our professor pronounces innocent + _the form_ witnessed by our Savior "in Judea?" That, _he_ will by + no means admit. The slavery there was, he affirms, of the "worst" + kind. _How then does he account for the alleged silence of the + Savior?--a silence covering the essence and the form--the + institution and its "worst" abuses_? + + 2. Is the slaveholding, which, according to the Princeton professor, + Christianity justifies, the same as that which the abolitionists so + earnestly wish to see abolished? Let us see. + + + _Christianity in supporting Slavery, _The American system for + according to Professor Hodge_, supporting Slavery_, + + "Enjoins a fair compensation for Makes compensation + labor" impossible by reducing the + laborer to a chattel. + + "It insists on the moral and It sternly forbids its + intellectual improvement of all victim to learn to read + classes of men" even the name of his + Creator and Redeemer. + + "It condemns all infractions of It outlaws the conjugal + marital or parental rights." and parental relations. + + "It requires that free scope It forbids any effort, on + should be allowed to human the part of myriads of the + improvement." human family, to improve + their character, + condition, and prospects. + + "It requires that all suitable It inflicts heavy + means should be employed to improve penalties for teaching + mankind" letters to the poorest of + the poor. + + "Wherever it has had free scope, Wherever it has free + it has abolished domestic bondage." scope, it perpetuates + domestic bondage. + + + _Now it is slavery according to the American system_ that the + abolitionists are set against. _Of the existence of any_ such form + of slavery as is consistent with Professor Hodge's account of the + requisitions of Christianity, they know nothing. It has never met + their notice, and of course, has never roused their feelings or + called forth their exertions. What, then, have _they_ to do with the + censures and reproaches which the Princeton professor deals around? + Let those who have leisure and good nature protect the man of + _straw_ he is so hot against. The abolitionists have other business. + It is not the figment of some sickly brain; but that system of + oppression which in theory is corrupting, and in practice destroying + both Church and State;--it is this that they feel pledged to do + battle upon, till by the just judgment of Almighty God it is thrown, + dead and damned, into the bottomless abyss. + + 3. _How can the South feel itself protected by any shield which may + be thrown over_ SUCH SLAVERY, _as may be consistent with what the + Princeton professor describes as the requisitions of Christianity_? + Is _this_ THE _slavery_ which their laws describe, and their hands + maintain? "Fair compensation for labor"--"marital and parental + rights"--"free scope" and "all suitable means" for the "improvement, + moral and intellectual, of all classes of men;"--are these, + according to the statutes of the South, among the objects of + slaveholding legislation? Every body knows that any such + requisitions and American slavery are flatly opposed to and directly + subversive of each other. What service, then, has the Princeton + professor, with all his ingenuity and all his zeal, rendered the + "peculiar institution?" Their gratitude must be of a stamp and + complexion quite peculiar, if they can thank him for throwing their + "domestic system" under the weight of such Christian requisitions as + must at once crush its snaky head "and grind it to powder." + +And what, moreover, is the bearing of the Christian requisitions, +which Professor Hodge quotes, upon the definition of slavery which +he has elaborated? "All the ideas which necessarily enter into the +definition of slavery are, deprivation of personal liberty, +obligation of service at the discretion of another, and the +transferable character of the authority and claim of service of the +master."[86] + +[Footnote 86: Pittsburg pamphlet p. 12.] + + +_According to Professor Hodge's _According to Professor Hodge's +account of the definition of Slavery_, +requisitions of Christianity_, + +The spring of effort in the The laborer must serve at the +laborer is a fair compensation. discretion of another. + +Free scope must be given for He is deprived of personal +his moral and intellectual liberty--the necessary condition, +improvement. and living soul of improvement, + without which he has no control + of either intellect or morals. + + + +His rights as a husband and The authority and claims of the +a father are to be protected. master may throw an ocean between + him and his family, and separate + them from each other's presence + at any moment and forever. + + + +Christianity, then, requires such slavery as Professor Hodge so +cunningly defines, to be abolished. It was well provided for the +peace of the respective parties, that he placed _his definition_ so +far from _the requisitions of Christianity_. Had he brought them +into each other's presence, their natural and invincible antipathy +to each other would have broken out into open and exterminating +warfare. But why should we delay longer upon an argument which is +based on gross and monstrous sophistry? It can mislead only such as +_wish_ to be misled. The lovers of sunlight are in little danger +of rushing into the professor's dungeon. Those who, having something +to conceal, covet darkness, can find it there, to their heart's +content. The hour cannot be far away, when upright and reflective +minds at the South will be astonished at the blindness which could +welcome such protection as the Princeton argument offers to the +slaveholder. + +But _Professor Stuart_ must not be forgotten. In his celebrated +letter to Dr. Fisk, he affirms that "_Paul did not expect slavery to +be ousted in a day_."[87] _Did not_ EXPECT! What then! Are the +_requisitions_ of Christianity adapted to any EXPECTATIONS which +in any quarter and on any ground might have risen to human +consciousness? And are we to interpret the _precepts_ of the gospel +by the expectations of Paul? The Savior commanded all men every +where to repent, and this, though "Paul did not expect" that human +wickedness, in its ten thousand forms would in any community +"be ousted in a day." Expectations are one thing; requisitions quite +another. + +[Footnote 87: Supra, p. 7.] + + +In the mean time, while expectation waited, Paul, the professor adds, +"gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor." _That_ he +did. Of what character were these precepts? Must they not have been +in harmony with the Golden Rule? But this, according to Professor +Stuart, "decides against the righteousness of slavery" even as a +"theory." Accordingly, Christians were required, _without respect of +persons_, to do each other justice--to maintain equality as common +ground for all to stand upon--to cherish and express in all their +intercourse that tender love and disinterested charity which one +_brother_ naturally feels for another. These were the "ad interim +precepts."[88] which cannot fail, if obeyed, to cut up slavery, +"root and branch," at once and forever. + +[Footnote 88: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7.] + + +Professor Stuart comforts us with the assurance that "_Christianity +will ultimately certainly destroy slavery_." Of this _we_ have not +the feeblest doubt. But how could _he_ admit a persuasion and utter +a prediction so much at war with the doctrine he maintains, that +"_slavery may exist without_ VIOLATING THE CHRISTIAN FAITH OR THE +CHURCH?"[89] What, Christianity bent on the destruction of an ancient +and cherished institution which hurts neither her character nor +condition?[90] Why not correct its abuses and purify its spirit; and +shedding upon it her own beauty, preserve it, as a living trophy of +her reformatory power? Whence the discovery that, in her onward +progress, she would trample down and destroy what was no way hurtful +to her? This is to be _aggressive_ with a witness. Far be it from +the Judge of all the earth to whelm the innocent and guilty in the +same destruction! In aid of Professor Stuart, in the rude and +scarcely covert attack which he makes upon himself, we maintain that +Christianity will certainly destroy slavery on account of its +inherent wickedness--its malignant temper--its deadly effects--its +constitutional, insolent, and unmitigable opposition to the +authority of God and the welfare of man. + +[Footnote 89: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7.] + +[Footnote 90: Professor Stuart applies here the words, _salva fide et +salva ecclesia_.] + + +"Christianity will _ultimately_ destroy slavery." "ULTIMATELY!" What +meaneth that portentous word? To what limit of remotest time, +concealed in the darkness of futurity, may it look? Tell us, O +watchman, on the hill of Andover. Almost nineteen centuries have +rolled over this world of wrong and outrage--and yet we tremble in +the presence of a form of slavery whose breath is poison, whose fang +is death! If any one of the incidents of slavery should fall, but +for a single day, upon the head of the prophet, who dipped his pen +in such cold blood, to write that word "ultimately," how, under the +sufferings of the first tedious hour, would he break out in the +lamentable cry, "How _long_, O Lord, HOW LONG!" In the agony of +beholding a wife or daughter upon the table of the auctioneer, while +every bid fell upon his heart like the groan of despair, small +comfort would he find in the dull assurance of some heartless prophet, +quite at "ease in Zion," that "ULTIMATELY _Christianity would +destroy slavery_." As the hammer falls, and the beloved of his soul, +all helpless and most wretched, is borne away to the haunts of +_legalized_ debauchery, his hearts turns to stone, while the cry +dies upon his lips, "_How_ LONG, _O Lord_, HOW LONG!" + +"_Ultimately_!" In _what circumstances_ does Professor Stuart +assure himself that Christianity will destroy slavery? Are we, as +American citizens, under the sceptre of a Nero? When, as integral parts +of this republic--as living members of this community, did we forfeit +the prerogatives of _freemen_? Have we not the right to speak and +act as wielding the powers which the privileges of self-government +has put in our possession? And without asking leave of priest or +statesman of the North or the South, may we not make the most of the +freedom which we enjoy under the guaranty of the ordinances of Heaven +and the Constitution of our country! Can we expect to see Christianity +on higher vantage-ground than in this country she stands upon? In +the midst of a republic based on the principle of the equality of +mankind, where every Christian, as vitally connected with the state, +freely wields the highest political rights and enjoys the richest +political privileges; where the unanimous demand of one-half of the +members of the churches would be promptly met in the abolition of +slavery, what "_ultimately_" must Christianity here wait for before +she crushes the chattel principle beneath her heel? Her triumph over +slavery is retarded by nothing but the corruption and defection so +widely spread through the "sacramental host" beneath her banners! +Let her voice be heard and her energies exerted, and the _ultimately_ +of the "dark spirit of slavery" would at once give place to the +_immediately_ of the Avenger of the Poor. + + + +No. 12. + +THE + +ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. + + * * * * * + + + + +DISUNION. + + +ADDRESS OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY + +AND + +F. JACKSON'S LETTER ON THE PRO-SLAVERY CHARACTER +OF THE CONSTITUTION + + + + +NEW YORK: + +AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. + +142 NASSAU STREET. + +1845. + + + +BOSTON: +PRINTED BY DAVID H. ELA, +NO. 37, CORNHILL. + + + + + +ADDRESS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE +OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY +TO Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the U. States. + + +At the Tenth Anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, held +in the city of New-York, May 7th, 1844,--after grave deliberation, +and a long and earnest discussion,--it was decided, by a vote of +nearly three to one of the members present, that fidelity to the +cause of human freedom, hatred of oppression, sympathy for those who +are held in chains and slavery in this republic, and allegiance to +God, require that the existing national compact should be instantly +dissolved; that secession from the government is a religious and +political duty; that the motto inscribed on the banner of Freedom +should be, NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS; that it is impracticable for +tyrants and the enemies of tyranny to coalesce and legislate together +for the preservation of human rights, or the promotion of the +interests of Liberty; and that revolutionary ground should be +occupied by all those who abhor the thought of doing evil that good +may come, and who do not mean to compromise the principles of +Justice and Humanity. + +A decision involving such momentous consequences, so well calculated +to startle the public mind, so hostile to the established order of +things, demands of us, as the official representatives of the +American Society, a statement of the reasons which led to it. This +is due not only to the Society, but also to the country and the world. + +It is declared by the American people to be a self-evident truth, +"that all men are created equal; that they are endowed BY THEIR +CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are +life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness." It is further +maintained by them, that "all governments derive their just powers +from the consent of the governed;" that "whenever any form of +government becomes destructive of human rights, it is the right of +the people to alter or to abolish it, and institute a new government, +laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers +in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their +safety and happiness." These doctrines the patriots of 1776 sealed +with their blood. They would not brook even the menace of oppression. +They held that there should be no delay in resisting, at whatever +cost or peril, the first encroachments of power on their liberties. +Appealing to the great Ruler of the universe for the rectitude of +their course, they pledged to each other "their lives, their +fortunes and their sacred honor," to conquer or perish in their +struggle to be free. + +For the example which they set to all people subjected to a despotic +sway, and the sacrifices which they made, their descendants cherish +their memories with gratitude, reverence their virtues, honor their +deeds, and glory in their triumphs. + +It is not necessary, therefore, for us to prove that a state of +slavery is incompatible with the dictates of reason and humanity; or +that it is lawful to throw off a government which is at war with the +sacred rights of mankind. + +We regard this as indeed a solemn crisis, which requires of every +man sobriety of thought, prophetic forecast, independent judgment, +invincible determination, and a sound heart. A revolutionary step is +one that should not be taken hastily, nor followed under the +influence of impulsive imitation. To know what spirit they are +of--whether they have counted the cost of the warfare--what are the +principles they advocate--and how they are to achieve their object--is +the first duty of revolutionists. + +But, while circumspection and prudence are excellent qualities in +every great emergency, they become the allies of tyranny whenever +they restrain prompt, bold and decisive action against it. + +We charge upon the present national compact, that it was formed at +the expense of human liberty, by a profligate surrender of principle, +and to this hour is cemented with human blood. + +We charge upon the American Constitution, that it contains provisions, +and enjoins duties, which make it unlawful for freemen to take the +oath of allegiance to it, because they are expressly designed to +favor a slaveholding oligarchy, and, consequently, to make one +portion of the people a prey to another. + +We charge upon the existing national government, that it is an +insupportable despotism, wielded by a power which is superior to all +legal and constitutional restraints--equally indisposed and unable to +protect the lives or liberties of the people--the prop and safeguard +of American slavery. + +These charges we proceed briefly to establish: + +I. It is admitted by all men of intelligence,--or if it be denied in +any quarter, the records of our national history settle the question +beyond doubt,--that the American Union was effected by a guilty +compromise between the free and slaveholding States; in other words, +by immolating the colored population on the altar of slavery, by +depriving the North of equal rights and privileges, and by +incorporating the slave system into the government. In the expressive +and pertinent language of scripture, it was "a covenant with death, +and an agreement with hell"--null and void before God, from the first +hour of its inception--the framers of which were recreant to duty, +and the supporters of which are equally guilty. + +It was pleaded at the time of the adoption, it is pleaded now, that, +without such a compromise there could have been no union; that, +without union, the colonies would have become an easy prey to the +mother country; and, hence, that it was an act of necessity, +deplorable indeed when viewed alone, but absolutely indispensable to +the safety of the republic. + +To this we reply: The plea is as profligate as the act was tyrannical. +It is the jesuitical doctrine, that the end sanctifies the means. It +is a confession of sin, but the denial of any guilt in its +perpetration. It is at war with the government of God, and +subversive of the foundations of morality. It is to make lies our +refuge, and under falsehood to hide ourselves, so that we may escape +the overflowing scourge. "Therefore, thus saith the Lord God, +Judgment will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet; +and the bail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters +shall overflow the hiding place." Moreover, "because ye trust in +oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon; therefore this +iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in +a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant. And he +shall break it as the breaking of the potter's vessel that is broken +in pieces; he shall not spare." + +This plea is sufficiently broad to cover all the oppression and +villany that the sun has witnessed in his circuit, since God said, +"Let there by light." It assumes that to be practicable, which is +impossible, namely, that there can be freedom with slavery, union +with injustice, and safety with blood guiltiness. A union of virtue +with pollution is the triumph of licentiousness. A partnership +between right and wrong, is wholly wrong. A compromise of the +principles of Justice, is the deification of crime. + +Better that the American Union had never been formed, than that it +should have been obtained at such a frightful cost! If they were +guilty who fashioned it, but who could not foresee all its frightful +consequences, how much more guilty are they, who, in full view of +all that has resulted from it, clamor for its perpetuity! If it was +sinful at the commencement, to adopt it on the ground of escaping a +greater evil, is it not equally sinful to swear to support it for the +same reason, or until, in process of time, it be purged from its +corruption? + +The fact is, the compromise alluded to, instead of effecting a union, +rendered it impracticable; unless by the term union we are to +understand the absolute reign of the slaveholding power over the +whole country, to the prostration of Northern rights. In the just +use of words, the American Union is and always has been a sham--an +imposture. It is an instrument of oppression unsurpassed in the +criminal history of the world. How then can it be innocently +sustained? It is not certain, it is not even probable, that if it had +not been adopted, the mother country would have reconquered the +colonies. The spirit that would have chosen danger in preference to +crime,--to perish with justice rather than live with dishonor,--to +dare and suffer whatever might betide, rather than sacrifice the +rights of one human being,--could never have been subjugated by any +mortal power. Surely it is paying a poor tribute to the valor and +devotion of our revolutionary fathers in the cause of liberty, to say +that, if they had sternly refused to sacrifice their principles, they +would have fallen an easy prey to the despotic power of England. + +II. The American Constitution is the exponent of the national compact. +We affirm that it is an instrument which no man can innocently bind +himself to support, because its anti-republican and anti-Christian +requirements are explicit and peremptory; at least, so explicit that, +in regard to all the clauses pertaining to slavery, they have been +uniformly understood and enforced in the same way, by all the courts +and by all the people; and so peremptory, that no individual +interpretation or authority can set them aside with impunity. It is +not a ball of clay, to be moulded into any shape that party +contrivance or caprice may choose it to assume. It is not a form of +words, to be interpreted in any manner, or to any extent, or for the +accomplishment of any purpose, that individuals in office under it +may determine. _It means precisely what those who framed and adopted +it meant_--NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS, _as a matter of bargain and +compromise_. Even if it can be construed to mean something else, +without violence to its language, such construction is not to be +tolerated _against the wishes of either party_. No just or honest +use of it can be made, in opposition to the plain intention of its +framers, _except to declare the contract at an end, and to refuse to +serve under it_. + +To the argument, that the words "slaves" and "slavery" are not to be +found in the Constitution, and therefore that it was never intended +to give any protection or countenance to the slave system, it is +sufficient to reply, that though no such words are contained in that +instrument, other words were used, intelligently and specifically, +TO MEET THE NECESSITIES OF SLAVERY; and that these were adopted _in +good faith, to be observed until a constitutional change could be +effected_. On this point, as to the design of certain provisions, no +intelligent man can honestly entertain a doubt. If it be objected, +that though these provisions were meant to cover slavery, yet, as +they can fairly be interpreted to mean something exactly the reverse, +it is allowable to give to them such an interpretation, _especially +as the cause of freedom will thereby be promoted_--we reply, that +this is to advocate fraud and violence toward one of the contracting +parties, _whose co-operation was secured only by an express +agreement and understanding between them both, in regard to the +clauses alluded to_; and that such a construction, if enforced by +pains and penalties, would unquestionably lead to a civil war, in +which the aggrieved party would justly claim to have been betrayed, +and robbed of their constitutional rights. + +Again, if it be said, that those clauses, being immoral, are null and +void--we reply, it is true they are not to be observed; but it is +also true that they are portions of an instrument, the support of +which, AS A WHOLE, is required by oath or affirmation; and, therefore, +_because they are immoral_, and BECAUSE OF THIS OBLIGATION +TO ENFORCE IMMORALITY, no one can innocently swear to support the +Constitution. + +Again, if it be objected, that the Constitution was formed by the +people of the United States, in order to establish justice, to +promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to +themselves and their posterity: and therefore, it is to be so +construed as to harmonize with these objects; we reply, again, that +its language is _not to be interpreted in a sense which neither of +the contracting parties understood_, and which would frustrate every +design of their alliance--to wit, _union at the expense of the +colored population of the country_. Moreover, nothing is more +certain than that the preamble alluded to never included, in the +minds of those who framed it, _those who were then pining in +bondage_--for, in that case, a general emancipation of the slaves +would have instantly been proclaimed throughout the United States. The +words, "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our +posterity," assuredly meant only the white population. "To promote the +general welfare," referred to their own welfare exclusively. "To +establish justice," was understood to be for their sole benefit as +slaveholders, and the guilty abettors of slavery. This is +demonstrated by other parts of the same instrument, and by their own +practice under it. + +We would not detract aught from what is justly their due; but it is +as reprehensible to give them credit for _what they did not possess_, +as it is to rob them of what is theirs. It is absurd, it is false, +it is an insult to the common sense of mankind, to pretend that the +Constitution was intended to embrace the entire population of the +country under its sheltering wings; or that the parties to it were +actuated by a sense of justice and the spirit of impartial liberty; +or that it needs no alteration, but only a new interpretation, to +make it harmonize with the object aimed at by its adoption. As truly +might it be argued, that because it is asserted in the Declaration +of Independence, that all men are created equal, and endowed with an +inalienable right to liberty, therefore none of its signers were +slaveholders, and since its adoption, slavery has been banished from +the American soil! The truth is, our fathers were intent on securing +liberty _to themselves_, without being very scrupulous as to the +means they used to accomplish their purpose. They were not actuated +by the spirit of universal philanthropy; and though _in words_ they +recognized occasionally the brotherhood of the human race, _in +practice_ they continually denied it. They did not blush to enslave +a portion of their fellow-men, and to buy and sell them as cattle in +the market, while they were fighting against the oppression of the +mother country, and boasting of their regard for the rights of man. +Why, then, concede to them virtues which they did not posses. +_Why cling to the falsehood, that they were not respecters of +persons in the formation of the government_? + +Alas! that they had no more fear of God, no more regard for man, in +their hearts! "The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah [the +North and South] is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, +and the city full of perverseness; for they say, the Lord hath +forsaken the earth, and the Lord seeth not." + +We proceed to a critical examination of the American Constitution, +in its relations to slavery. + +In ARTICLE 1, Section 9, it is declared--"the migration or +importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall +think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress, prior +to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty +may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for +each person." + +In this Section, it will be perceived, the phraseology is so guarded +as not to imply, _ex necessitate_, any criminal intent or inhuman +arrangement; and yet no one has ever had the hardihood or folly to +deny, that it was clearly understood by the contracting parties, to +mean that there should be no interference with the African slave +trade, on the part of the general government, until the year 1808. +For twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution, the +citizens of the United States were to be encouraged and protected in +the prosecution of that infernal traffic--in sacking and burning the +hamlets of Africa--in slaughtering multitudes of the inoffensive +natives on the soil, kidnapping and enslaving a still greater +proportion, crowding them to suffocation in the holds of the slave +ships, populating the Atlantic with their dead bodies, and +subjecting the wretched survivors to all the horrors of unmitigated +bondage! This awful covenant was strictly fulfilled; and though, +since its termination, Congress has declared the foreign slave +traffic to be piracy, yet all Christendom knows that the American +flag, instead of being the terror of the African slavers, has given +them the most ample protection. + +The manner in which the 9th Section was agreed to, by the national +convention that formed the constitution, is thus frankly avowed by +the Hon. Luther Martin,[91] who was a prominent member of that body: + + "The Eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion of slavery, (!) + _were very willing to indulge the Southern States_ at least with + a temporary liberty to prosecute the slave trade, provided the + Southern States would, in the return, _gratify_ them by laying no + restriction on navigation acts; and, after a very little time, the + committee, by a great majority, agreed on a report, _by which the + general government was to be prohibited from preventing the + importation of slaves_ for a limited time; and the restrictive + clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted." + + +Behold the iniquity of this agreement! How sordid were the motives +which led to it! what a profligate disregard of justice and humanity, +on the part of those who had solemnly declared the inalienable right +of all men to be free and equal, to be a self-evident truth! + +It is due to the national convention to say, that this section was +not adopted "without considerable opposition." Alluding to it, +Mr. Martin observes-- + +[Footnote 91: Speech before the Legislature of Maryland in 1787.] + +"It was said we had just assumed a place among the independent +nations in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great +Britain to _enslave us_; that this opposition was grounded upon the +preservation of those rights to which God and nature has entitled us, +not in _particular_, but in _common with all the rest of mankind_; +that we had appealed to the Supreme Being for his assistance, as the +God of freedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve +the rights which he had thus imparted to his creatures; that now, +when we had scarcely risen from our knees, from supplicating his +mercy and protection in forming our government over a free people, a +government formed pretendedly on the principles of liberty, and for +its preservation,--in that government to have a provision, not only +of putting out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade, +even encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States +the power and influence in the Union in proportion as they cruelly +and wantonly sported with the rights of their fellow-creatures, +ought to be considered as a solemn mockery of, and insult to, that +God whose protection we had thus implored, and could not fail to +hold us up in detestation, and render us contemptible to every true +friend of liberty in the world. It was said that national crimes can +only be, and frequently are, punished in this world by _national +punishments_, and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus +giving it a national character, sanction, and encouragement, ought +to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and +vengeance of him who is equally the Lord of all, and who views +with equal eye the poor _African slave_ and his _American master_![92] + +[Footnote 92: How terribly and justly has this guilty nation been +scourged, since these words were spoken, on account of slavery and +the slave trade! Secret Proceedings, p. 64.] + + +"It was urged that, by this system, we were giving the general +government full and absolute power to regulate commerce, under which +general power it would have a right to restrain, or totally prohibit, +the slave trade: it must, therefore, appear to the world absurd and +disgraceful to the last degree that we should except from the +exercise of that power the only branch of commerce which is +unjustifiable in its nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind. +That, on the contrary, we ought to prohibit expressly, in our +Constitution, the further importation of slaves, and to authorize +the general government, from time to time, to make such regulations +as should be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of +slavery, and the emancipation of the slaves already in the States. +That slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and +has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, +as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and +habituates to tyranny and oppression. It was further urged that, by +this system of government, every State is to be protected both from +foreign invasion and from domestic insurrections; and, from this +consideration, it was of the utmost importance it should have the +power to restrain the importation of slaves, since in proportion as +the number of slaves increased in any State, in the same proportion +is the State weakened and exposed to foreign invasion and domestic +insurrection: and by so much less will it be able to protect itself +against either, and therefore by so much, want aid from, and be a +burden to, the Union. + +"It was further said, that, in this system, as we were giving the +general government power, under the idea of national character, or +national interest, to regulate even our weights and measures, and +have prohibited all possibility of emitting paper money, and passing +insolvent laws, &c., it must appear still more extraordinary that we +prohibited the government from interfering with the slave trade, +than which nothing could more effect our national honor and interest. + +"These reasons influenced me, both in the committee and in the +convention, most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as +it now makes part of the system."[93] + +[Footnote 93: Secret Proceedings, p. 64.] + + +Happy had it been for this nation, had these solemn considerations +been heeded by the framers of the Constitution! But for the sake of +securing some local advantages, they choose to do evil that good may +come, and to make the end sanctify the means. They were willing to +enslave others, that they might secure their own freedom. They did +this deed deliberately, with their eyes open, with all the facts and +consequences arising therefrom before them, in violation of all +their heaven-attested declarations, and in atheistical distrust of +the overruling power of God. "The Eastern States were very willing +to _indulge_ the Southern States" in the unrestricted prosecution of +their piratical traffic, provided in return they could be _gratified_ +by no restriction being laid on navigation acts!!--Had there been no +other provision of the Constitution justly liable to objection, this +one alone rendered the support of that instrument incompatible with +the duties which men owe to their Creator, and to each other. It was +the poisonous infusion in the cup, which, though constituting but a +very slight portion of its contents, perilled the life of every one +who partook of it. + +If it be asked to what purpose are these animadversions, since the +clause alluded to has long since expired by its own limitation--we +answer, that, if at any time the foreign slave trade could be +_constitutionally_ prosecuted, it may yet be renewed, under the +Constitution, at the pleasure of Congress, whose prohibitory statute +is liable to be reversed at any moment, in the frenzy of Southern +opposition to emancipation. It is ignorantly supposed that the +bargain was, that the traffic _should cease_ in 1808; but the only +thing secured by it was, the _right_ of Congress (not any obligation) +to prohibit it at that period. If, therefore, Congress had not +chosen to exercise that right, _the traffic might have been +prolonged indefinitely, under the Constitution_. The right to +destroy any particular branch of commerce, implies the right to +re-establish it. True, there is no probability that the African slave +trade will ever again be legalized by the national government; but +no credit is due the framers of the Constitution on this ground; for, +while they threw around it all the sanction and protection of the +national character and power for twenty years, _they set no bounds to +its continuance by any positive constitutional prohibition_. + +Again, the adoption of such a clause, and the faithful execution of +it, prove what was meant by the words of the preamble--"to form a +more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, +provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and +secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our +posterity"--namely, that the parties to the Constitution regarded +only their own rights and interests, and never intended that its +language should be so interpreted as to interfere with slavery, or to +make it unlawful for one portion of the people to enslave another, +_without an express alteration in that instrument, in the manner +therein set forth_. While, therefore, the Constitution remains as it +was originally adopted, they who swear to support it are bound to +comply with all its provisions, as a matter of allegiance. For it +avails nothing to say, that some of those provisions are at war with +the law of God and the rights of man, and therefore are not +obligatory. Whatever may be their character, they are +_constitutionally_ obligatory; and whoever feels that he cannot +execute them, or swear to execute them, without committing sin, has no +other choice left than to withdraw from the government, or to violate +his conscience by taking on his lips an impious promise. The object of +the Constitution is not to define _what is the law of God_, but WHAT IS +THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE--which will is not to be frustrated by an +ingenious moral interpretation, by those whom they have elected to +serve them. + +ARTICLE 1, Sect. 2, provides--"Representatives and direct taxes +shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included +within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which +shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, +including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding +Indians not taxed, _three-fifths of all other persons_." + +Here, as in the clause we have already examined, veiled beneath a +form of words as deceitful as it is unmeaning in a truly democratic +government, is a provision for the safety, perpetuity and +augmentation of the slaveholding power--a provision scarcely less +atrocious than that which related to the African slave trade, and +almost as afflictive in its operation--a provision still in force, +with no possibility of its alteration, so long as a majority of the +slave States choose to maintain their slave system--a provision which, +at the present time, enables the South to have twenty-five additional +representatives in Congress on the score of _property_, while the +North is not allowed to have one--a provision which concedes to the +oppressed three-fifths of the political power which is granted to +all others, aid then puts this power into the hands of their +oppressors, to be wielded by them for the more perfect security of +their tyrannous authority, and the complete subjugation of the +non-slaveholding States. + +Referring to this atrocious bargain, ALEXANDER HAMILTON remarked in +the New York Convention-- + +"The first thing objected to, is that clause which allows a +representation for three-fifths of the negroes. Much has been said +of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own: +whether this is _reasoning_ or _declamation_, (!!) I will not +presume to say. It is the _unfortunate_ situation of the Southern +States to have a great part of their population, as well as _property_, +in blacks. The regulation complained of was one result of _the +spirit of accommodation_ which governed the Convention; and +without this _indulgence_, NO UNION COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN FORMED. +But, sir, considering some _peculiar advantages_ which we derive +from them it is entirely JUST that they should be _gratified_--The +Southern States possess certain staples,--tobacco, rice, indigo, +&c.--which must be _capital_ objects in treaties of commerce with +foreign nations; and the advantage which they necessarily procure in +these treaties will be felt throughout the United States." + +If such was the patriotism, such the love of liberty, such the +morality of ALEXANDER HAMILTON, what can be said of the character of +those who were far less conspicuous than himself in securing +American independence, and in framing the American Constitution? + +Listen, now, to the opinions of JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, respecting the +constitutional clause now under consideration:-- + +"'In outward show, it is a representation of persons in bondage; in +fact, it is a representation of their masters,--the oppressor +representing the oppressed.'--'Is it in the compass of human +imagination to devise a more perfect exemplification of the art of +committing the lamb to the tender custody of the wolf?'--'The +representative is thus constituted, not the friend, agent and +trustee of the person whom he represents, but the most inveterate of +his foes.'--'It was _one_ of the curses from that Pandora's box, +adjusted at the time, as usual, by a _compromise_, the whole +advantage of which inured to the benefit of the South, and to +aggravate the burdens of the North.'--'If there be a parallel to it +in human history, it can only be that of the Roman Emperors, who, +from the days when Julius Caesar substituted a military despotism in +the place of a republic, among the offices which they always +concentrated upon themselves, was that of tribune of the people. A +Roman Emperor tribune of the people, is an exact parallel to that +feature in the Constitution of the United States which makes the +master the representative of his slave.'--'The Constitution of the +United States expressly prescribes that no title of nobility shall +be granted by the United States. The spirit of this interdict is not +a rooted antipathy to the grant of mere powerless empty _titles_, +but to titles of _nobility_; to the institution of privileged orders +of men. But what order of men under the most absolute of monarchies, +or the most aristocratic of republics, was ever invested with such +an odious and unjust privilege as that of the separate and exclusive +representation of less than half a million owners of slaves, in the +Hall of this House, in the Chair of the Senate, and in the +Presidential mansion?'--'This investment of power in the owners of +one species of property concentrated in the highest authorities of +the nation, and disseminated through thirteen of the twenty-six +States of the Union, constitutes a privileged order of men in the +community, more adverse to the rights of all, and more pernicious to +the interests of the whole, than any order of nobility ever known. +To call government thus constituted a democracy, is to insult the +understanding of mankind. To call it an aristocracy, is to do +injustice to that form of government. Aristocracy is the government +of _the best_. Its standard qualification for accession to power +_is merit_, ascertained by popular election recurring at short +intervals of time. If even that government is prone to degenerate +into tyranny, what must be the character of that form of polity in +which the standard qualification for access to power is wealth in +the possession of slaves? It is doubly tainted with the infection of +riches and of slavery. _There is no name in the language of national +jurisprudence that can define it_--no model in the records of +ancient history, or in the political theories of Aristotle, with +which it can be likened. It was introduced into the Constitution of +the United States by an equivocation--a representation of property +under the name of persons. Little did the members of the Convention +from the free States foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden +under the mask of this concession.'--'The House of Representatives +of the United States consists of 223 members--all, by the _letter_ of +the Constitution, representatives only of _persons_, as 135 of them +really are; but the other 88, equally representing the _persons_ of +their constituents, by whom they are elected, also represent, under +the name of _other persons_, upwards of two and a half millions of +_slaves_, held as the _property_ of less than half a million of +the white constituents, and valued at twelve hundred millions of +dollars. Each of these 88 members represents in fact the whole of +that mass of associated wealth, and the persons and exclusive +interests of its owners; all thus knit together, like the members of +a moneyed corporation, with a capital not of thirty-five or forty or +fifty, but of twelve hundred millions of dollars, exhibiting the +most extraordinary exemplification of the anti-republican tendencies +of associated wealth that the world ever saw,'--'Here is one class +of men, consisting of not more than one fortieth part of the whole +people, not more than one-thirtieth part of the free population, +exclusively devoted to their personal interests identified with +their own as slaveholders of the same associated wealth, and +wielding by their votes, upon every question of government or of +public policy, two-fifths of the whole power of the House. In the +Senate of the Union, the proportion of the slaveholding power is yet +greater. By the influence of slavery, in the States where the +institution is tolerated, over their elections, no other than a +slaveholder can rise to the distinction of obtaining a seat in the +Senate; and thus, of the 52 members of the federal Senate, 26 are +owners of slaves, and as effectively representatives of that +interest as the 88 members elected by them to the House.'--'By this +process it is that all political power in the States is absorbed and +engrossed by the owners of _slaves_, and the overruling policy of +the States is shaped to strengthen and consolidate their domination. +The legislative, executive, and judicial authorities are all in +their hands--the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of the +black code of slavery--every law of the legislature becomes a link +in the chain of the slave; every executive act a rivet to his +hapless fate; every judicial decision a perversion of the human +intellect to the justification of _wrong_.--Its reciprocal +operation upon the government of the nation is, to establish an +artificial majority in the slave representation over that of the +free people, in the American Congress, and thereby to make the +PRESERVATION, PROPAGATION, AND PERPETUATION OF SLAVERY THE VITAL AND +ANIMATING SPIRIT OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.--The result is seen +in the fact that, at this day, the President of the United States, +the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of +Representatives, and five out of nine of the Judges of the Supreme +Judicial Courts of the United States, are not only citizens of +slaveholding States, but individual slaveholders themselves. So are, +and constantly have been, with scarcely an exception, all the +members of both Houses of Congress from the slaveholding States; and +so are, in immensely disproportionate numbers, the commanding +officers of the army and navy; the officers of the customs; the +registers and receivers of the land offices, and the post-masters +throughout the slaveholding States.--The Biennial Register indicates +the birth-place of all the officers employed in the government of +the Union. If it were required to designate the owners of this +species of property among them, it would be little more than a +catalogue of slaveholders.'" + +It is confessed by Mr. Adams, alluding to the national convention +that framed the Constitution, that "the delegation from the free +States, in their extreme anxiety to conciliate the ascendency of the +Southern slaveholder, did listen to a _compromise between right and +wrong_--_between freedom and slavery_; of the ultimate fruits of which +they had no conception, but which already even now is urging the +Union to its inevitable ruin and dissolution, by a civil, servile, +foreign, and Indian war, all combined in one; a war, the essential +issue of which will be between freedom and slavery, and in which the +unhallowed standard of slavery will be the desecrated banner of the +North American Union--that banner, first unfurled to the breeze, +inscribed with the self-evident truths of the Declaration of +Independence." + +Hence, to swear to support the Constitution of the United States, _as +it is_, is to make "a compromise between right and wrong," and to +wage war against human liberty. It is to recognize and honor as +republican legislators, _incorrigible men-stealers_, MERCILESS +TYRANTS, BLOOD THIRSTY ASSASSINS, who legislate with deadly weapons +about their persons, such as pistols, daggers, and bowie-knives, +with which they threaten to murder any Northern senator or +representative who shall dare to stain their _honor_, or interfere +with their _rights_! They constitute a banditti more fierce and cruel +than any whose atrocities are recorded on the pages of history or +romance. To mix with them on terms of social or religious fellowship, +is to indicate a low state of virtue; but to think of administering +a free government by their co-operation, is nothing short of insanity. + +Article IV., Section 2, declares,--"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." + +Here is a third clause, which, like the other two, makes no mention +of slavery or slaves, in express terms; and yet, like them, was +intelligently framed and mutually understood by the parties to the +ratification, and intended both to protect the slave system and to +restore runaway slaves. It alone makes slavery a national institution, +a national crime, and all the people who are not enslaved, the +body-guard over those whose liberties have been cloven down. This +agreement, too, has been fulfilled to the letter by the North. + +Under the Mosaic dispensation it was imperatively commanded,--"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 warning which the +prophet Isaiah gave to oppressing Moab was of a similar kind: +"Take counsel, execute judgment; make thy shadow as the night in the +midst of the noon-day; hide the outcasts; bewray not him that +wandereth. Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab; be thou a covert +to them from the face of the spoiler." The prophet Obadiah brings +the following charge against treacherous Edom, which is precisely +applicable to this guilty nation:--"For thy violence against thy +brother Jacob, shame shall come over thee, and thou shalt be cut off +for ever. In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the +day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and +foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, +_even thou wast as one of them_. But thou shouldst not have looked +on the day of thy brother, in the day that he became a stranger; +neither shouldst thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah, in +the day of their destruction; neither shouldst thou have spoken +proudly in the day of distress; neither shouldst thou have _stood in +the cross-way, to cut off those of his that did escape_; neither +shouldst thou have _delivered up those of his that did remain_, in +the day of distress." + +How exactly descriptive of this boasted republic is the impeachment +of Edom by the same prophet! "The pride of thy heart hath deceived +thee, thou whose habitation is high; that sayeth in thy heart, Who +shall bring me down to the ground? Though thou exalt thyself as the +eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I +bring thee down, saith the Lord." The emblem of American pride and +power is the _eagle_, and on her banner she has mingled _stars_ with +its _stripes_. Her vanity, her treachery, her oppression, her +self-exaltation, and her defiance of the Almighty, far surpass the +madness and wickedness of Edom. What shall be her punishment? Truly, +it may be affirmed of the American people, (who live not under the +Levitical but Christian code, and whose guilt, therefore, is the +more awful, and their condemnation the greater,) in the language of +another prophet--"They all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every +man his brother with a net. That they may do evil with both hands +earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and +the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: _so they wrap it +up_." Likewise of the colored inhabitants of this land it may be said, +--"This is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared +in holes, and they are hid in prison-houses; they are for a prey, +and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore." + +By this stipulation, the Northern States are made the hunting ground +of slave-catchers, who may pursue their victims with blood-hounds, +and capture them with impunity wherever they can lay their robber +hands upon them. At least twelve or fifteen thousand runaway slaves +are now in Canada, exiled from their native land, because they could +not find, throughout its vast extent, a single road on which they +could dwell in safety, _in consequence of this provision of the +Constitution_? How is it possible, then, for the advocates of +liberty to support a government which gives over to destruction +one-sixth part of the whole population? + +It is denied by some at the present day, that the clause which has +been cited, was intended to apply to runaway slaves. This indicates +either ignorance, or folly, or something worse. JAMES MADISON as one +of the framers of the Constitution, is of some authority on this +point. Alluding to that instrument, in the Virginia convention, he +said:-- + + "Another clause _secures us that property which we now possess_. At + present, if any slave elopes to those States where slaves are free, + _he becomes emancipated by their laws_; for the laws of the States + are _uncharitable_(!) to one another in this respect; but in this + constitution, 'No person held to service or labor in one State, + under the laws thereof, shall, in consequence of any law or + regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but + shall be delivered upon claim of the party to whom such service or + labor away be due. THIS CLAUSE WAS EXPRESSLY INSERTED TO ENABLE THE + OWNERS OF SLAVES TO RECLAIM THEM. _This is a better security than + any that now exists_. No power is given to the general government to + interfere with respect to the property in slaves now held by the + States." + +In the same convention, alluding to the same clause, GOV. RANDOLPH +said:-- + + "Every one knows that slaves are held to service or labor. And, when + authority is given to owners of slaves to _vindicate their + property_, can it be supposed they can be deprived of it? If a + citizen of this State, in consequence of this clause, can take his + runaway slave in Maryland, can it be seriously thought that, after + taking him and bringing him home, he could be made free?" + +It is objected, that slaves are held as property, and therefore, as +the clause refers to persons, it cannot mean slaves. But this is +criticism against fact. Slaves are recognized not merely as property, +but also as persons--as having a mixed character--as combining the +human with the brutal. This is paradoxical, we admit; but slavery is +a paradox--the American Constitution is a paradox--the American +Union is a paradox--the American Government is a paradox; and if any +one of these is to be repudiated on that ground, they all are. That +it is the duty of the friends of freedom to deny the binding +authority of them all, and to secede from them all, we distinctly +affirm. After the independence of this country had been achieved, +the voice of God exhorted the people, saying, "Execute true judgment, +and show mercy and compassion every man to his brother: and oppress +not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and +let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. But +they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped +their ears, that they should not hear; yea, they made their hearts +as an adamant stone." "Shall I not visit for these things? saith the +Lord. Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?" + +Whatever doubt may have rested on any honest mind, respecting the +meaning of the clause in relation to persons held to service or labor, +must have been removed by the unanimous decision of the Supreme +Court of the United States, in the case of Prigg versus The State of +Pennsylvania. By that decision, any Southern slave-catcher is +empowered to seize and convey to the South, without hindrance or +molestation on the part of the State, and without any legal process +duly obtained and served, any person or persons, irrespective of +caste or complexion, whom he may choose to claim as runaway slaves; +and if, when thus surprised and attacked, or on their arrival South, +they cannot prove by legal witnesses, that they are freemen, their +doom is sealed! Hence the free colored population of the North are +specially liable to become the victims of this terrible power, and +all the other inhabitants are at the mercy of prowling kidnappers, +because there are multitudes of white as well as black slaves on +Southern plantations, and slavery is no longer fastidious with +regard to the color of its prey. + +As soon as that appalling decision of the Supreme Court was +enunciated, in the name of the Constitution, the people of the North +should have risen _en masse_, if for no other cause, and declared the +Union at an end; and they would have done so, if they had not lost +their manhood, and their reverence for justice and liberty. + +In the 4th Sect. of Art. IV., the United States guarantee to protect +every State in the Union "_against domestic violence_." By the 8th +Section of Article 1., congress is empowered "to provide for calling +forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, _suppress +insurrections_, and repel invasions." These provisions, however +strictly they may apply to cases of disturbance among the white +population, were adopted with special reference to the slave +population, for the purpose of keeping them in their chains by the +combined military force of the country; and were these repealed, and +the South left to manage her slaves as best she could, a servile +insurrection would ere long be the consequence, as general as it +would unquestionably be successful. Says Mr. Madison, respecting +these clauses:-- + + "On application of the legislature or executive, as the case may be, + the militia of the other States are to be called to suppress + domestic insurrections. Does this bar the States from calling forth + their own militia? No; but it gives them a _supplementary_ security + to suppress insurrections and domestic violence." + +The answer to Patrick Henry's objection, as urged against the +constitution in the Virginia convention, that there was no power left +to the States to quell an insurrection of slaves, as it was wholly +vested in congress, George Nicholas asked:-- + + "Have they it now? If they have, does the constitution take it away? + If it does, it must be in one of those clauses which have been + mentioned by the worthy member. The first part gives the general + government power to call them out when necessary. Does this take it + away from the States? No! but _it gives an additional security_; + for, beside the power in the State government to use their own + militia, it will be _the duty of the general government_ to aid + them WITH THE STRENGTH OF THE UNION, when called for." + +This solemn guaranty of security to the slave system, caps the +climax of national barbarity, and stains with human blood the +garments of all the people. In consequence of it, that system has +multiplied its victims from five hundred thousand to nearly three +millions--a vast amount of territory has been purchased, in order to +give it extension and perpetuity--several new slave States have been +admitted into the Union--the slave trade has been made one of the +great branches of American commerce--the slave population, though +over-worked, starved, lacerated, branded, maimed, and subjected to +every form of deprivation and every species of torture, have been +over awed and crushed,--or, whenever they have attempted to gain +their liberty by revolt, they have been shot down and quelled by the +strong arm of the national government; as, for example, in the case +of Nat Turner's insurrection in Virginia, when the naval and military +forces of the government were called into active service. Cuban +bloodhounds have been purchased with the money of the people, and +imported and used to hunt slave fugitives among the everglades of +Florida. A merciless warfare has been waged for the extermination or +expulsion of the Florida Indians, because they gave succor to those +poor hunted fugitives--a warfare which has cost the nation several +thousand lives, and forty millions of dollars. But the catalogue +of enormities is too long to be recapitulated in the present address. + +We have thus demonstrated that the compact between the North and the +South embraces every variety of wrong and outrage,--is at war with +God and man, cannot be innocently supported, and deserves to be +immediately annulled. In behalf of the Society which we represent, +we call upon all our fellow-citizens, who believe it is right to +obey God rather than man, to declare themselves peaceful +revolutionists, and to unite with us under the stainless banner of +Liberty, having for its motto--"EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL--NO UNION WITH +SLAVEHOLDERS!" + +It is pleaded that the Constitution provides for its own amendment; +and we ought to use the elective franchise to effect this object. +True, there is such a proviso; but, until the amendment be made, +that instrument is binding as it stands. Is it not to violate every +moral instinct, and to sacrifice principle to expediency, to argue +that we may swear to steal, oppress and murder by wholesale, because +it may be necessary to do so only for the time being, and because +there is some remote probability that the instrument which requires +that we should be robbers, oppressors and murderers, may at some +future day be amended in these particulars? Let us not palter with +our consciences in this manner--let us not deny that the compact was +conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity--let us not be so +dishonest, even to promote a good object, as to interpret the +Constitution in a manner utterly at variance with the intentions and +arrangements of the contracting parties; but, confessing the guilt +of the nation, acknowledging the dreadful specifications in the bond, +washing our hands in the waters of repentance from all further +participation in this criminal alliance, and resolving that we will +sustain none other than a free and righteous government, let us +glory in the name of revolutionists, unfurl the banner of disunion, +and consecrate our talents and means to the overthrow of all that is +tyrannical in the land,--to the establishment of all that is free, +just, true and holy,--to the triumph of universal love and peace. + +If, in utter disregard of the historical facts which have been cited, +it is still asserted, that the Constitution needs no amendment to +make it a free instrument, adapted to all the exigencies of a free +people, and was never intended to give any strength or countenance +to the slave system--the indignant spirit of insulted Liberty +replies:--"What though the assertion be true? Of what avail is a mere +piece of parchment? In itself, though it be written all over with +words of truth and freedom--though its provisions be as impartial and +just as words can express, or the imagination paint--though it be as +pure as the gospel, and breathe only the spirit of Heaven--it is +powerless; it has no executive vitality; it is a lifeless corpse, even +though beautiful in death. I am famishing for lack of bread! How is my +appetite relieved by holding up to my gaze a painted loaf? I am +manacled, wounded, bleeding dying! What consolation is it to know, +that they who are seeking to destroy my life, profess in words to be +my friends?" If the liberties of the people have been betrayed--if +judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off, and +truth has fallen in the streets, and equality cannot enter--if the +princes of the land are roaring lions, the judges evening wolves, +the people light and treacherous persons, the priests covered with +pollution--if we are living under a frightful despotism, which scoffs +at all constitutional restraints, and wields the resources of the +nation to promote its own bloody purposes--tell us not that the +forms of freedom are still left to us! Would such tameness and +submission have freighted the May-Flower for Plymouth Rock? Would it +have resisted the Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, or any of those entering +wedges of tyranny with which the British government sought to rive +the liberties of America? The wheel of the Revolution would have +rusted on its axle, if a spirit so weak had been the only power to +give it motion. Did our fathers say, when their rights and liberties +were infringed--"_Why, what is done cannot be undone_. That is the +first thought." No, it was the last thing they thought of: or, rather, +it never entered their minds at all. They sprang to the conclusion at +once--"_What is done_ SHALL _be undone_. That is our FIRST and ONLY +thought." + + + "Is water running in our veins? Do we remember still + Old Plymouth Rock, and Lexington, and famous Bunker Hill? + The debt we owe our fathers' graves? and to the yet unborn, + Whose heritage ourselves must make a thing of pride or scorn?" + + "Gray Plymouth Rock hath yet a tongue, and Concord is not dumb; + And voices from our fathers' graves and from the future come: + They call on us to stand our ground--they charge us still to be + Not only free from chains ourselves, but foremost to make free!" + + +It is of little consequence who is on the throne, if there be behind +it a power mightier than the throne. It matters not what is the +theory of the government, if the practice of the government be unjust +and tyrannical. We rise in rebellion against a despotism +incomparably more dreadful than that which induced the colonists to +take up arms against the mother country; not on account of a +three-penny tax on tea, but because fetters of living iron are +fastened on the limbs of millions of our countrymen, and our most +sacred rights are trampled in the dust. As citizens of the State, +we appeal to the State in vain for protection and redress. As +citizens of the United States, we are treated as outlaws in one +half of the country, and the national government consents to our +destruction. We are denied the right of locomotion, freedom of speech, +the right of petition, the liberty of the press, the right peaceably +to assemble together to protest against oppression and plead for +liberty--at least in thirteen States of the Union. If we venture, as +avowed and unflinching abolitionists, to travel South of Mason and +Dixon's line, we do so at the peril of our lives. If we would escape +torture and death, on visiting any of the slave States, we must +stifle our conscientious convictions, bear no testimony against +cruelty and tyranny, suppress the struggling emotions of humanity, +divest ourselves of all letters and papers of an anti-slavery +character, and do homage to the slaveholding power--or run the risk +of a cruel martyrdom! These are appalling and undeniable facts. + +Three millions of the American people are crushed under the American +Union! They are held as slaves--trafficked as merchandise--registered +as goods and chattels! The government gives them no protection--the +government is their enemy--the government keeps them in chains! +There they lie bleeding--we are prostrate by their side--in +their sorrows and sufferings we participate--their stripes are +inflicted on our bodies, their shackles are fastened on our limbs, +their cause is ours! The Union which grinds them to the dust +rests upon us, and with them we will struggle to overthrow it! +The Constitution, which subjects them to hopeless bondage, is one +that we cannot swear to support! Our motto is, "NO UNION WITH +SLAVEHOLDERS," either religious or political. They are the fiercest +enemies of mankind, and the bitterest foes of God! We separate from +them not in anger, not in malice, not for a selfish purpose, not to +do them an injury, not to cease warning, exhorting, reproving them +for their crimes, not to leave the perishing bondman to his fate--O +no! But to clear our skirts of innocent blood--to give the oppressor +no countenance--to signify our abhorrence of injustice and +cruelty--to testify against an ungodly compact--to cease striking +hands with thieves and consenting with adulterers--to make no +compromise with tyranny--to walk worthily of our high profession--to +increase our moral power over the nation--to obey God and vindicate +the gospel of his Son--hasten the downfall of slavery in America, +and throughout the world! + +We are not acting under a blind impulse. We have carefully counted +the cost of this warfare, and are prepared to meet its consequences. +It will subject us to reproach, persecution, infamy--it will prove a +fiery ordeal to all who shall pass through it--it may cost us our +lives. We shall be ridiculed as fools, accused as visionaries, +branded as disorganizers, reviled as madmen, threatened and perhaps +punished as traitors. But we shall bide our time. Whether safety +or peril, whether victory or defeat, whether life or death be ours, +believing that our feet are planted on an eternal foundation, that +our position is sublime and glorious, that our faith in God is +rational and steadfast, that we have exceeding great and precious +promises on which to rely, THAT WE ARE IN THE RIGHT, we shall not +falter nor be dismayed, "though the earth be removed, and though the +mountains be carried into the midst of the sea,"--though our ranks +be thinned to the number of "three hundred men." Freemen! are you +ready for the conflict? Come what may, will you sever the chain that +binds you to a slaveholding government, and declare your independence? +Up, then, with the banner of revolution! Not to shed blood--not to +injure the person or estate of any oppressor--not by force and arms +to resist any law--not to countenance a servile insurrection--not to +wield any carnal weapons! No--ours must be a bloodless strife, +excepting _our_ blood be shed--for we aim, as did Christ our leader, +not to destroy men's lives, but to save them--to overcome evil with +good--to conquer through suffering for righteousness' sake--to set +the captive free by the potency of truth! + +Secede, then, from the government. Submit to its exactions, but pay +it no allegiance, and give it no voluntary aid. Fill no offices +under it. Send no senators or representatives to the national or +State legislature; for what you cannot conscientiously perform +yourself, you cannot ask another to perform as your agent. Circulate +a declaration of DISUNION FROM SLAVEHOLDERS, throughout the country. +Hold mass meetings--assemble in conventions--nail your banners to +the mast! + +Do you ask what can be done, if you abandon the ballot-box? What did +the crucified Nazarene do without the elective franchise? What did +the apostles do? What did the glorious army of martyrs and +confessors do? What did Luther and his intrepid associates do? What +can women and children do? What has Father Mathew done for teetotalism? +What has Daniel O'Connell done for Irish repeal? "Stand, having your +loins girt about with truth, and having on the breast-plate of +righteousness," and arrayed in the whole armor of God! + +The form of government that shall succeed the present government of +the United States, let time determine. It would be a waste of time +to argue that question, until the people are regenerated and turned +from their iniquity. Ours is no anarchical movement, but one of +order and obedience. In ceasing from oppression, we establish liberty. +What is now fragmentary, shall in due time be crystallized, and +shine like a gem set in the heavens, for a light to all coming ages. + +Finally--we believe that the effect of this movement will be,--First, +to create discussion and agitation throughout the North; and these +will lead to a general perception of its grandeur and importance. + +Secondly, to convulse the slumbering South like an earthquake, and +convince her that her only alternative is, to abolish slavery, or be +abandoned by that power on which she now relies for safety. + +Thirdly, to attack the slave power in its most vulnerable point, and +to carry the battle to the gate. + +Fourthly, to exalt the moral sense, increase the moral power, and +invigorate the moral constitution of all who heartily espouse it. + +We reverently believe that, in withdrawing from the American Union, +we have the God of justice with us. We know that we have our +enslaved countrymen with us. We are confident that all free hearts +will be with us. We are certain that tyrants and their abettors will +be against us. + +In behalf of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery +Society, + +WM. LLOYD GARRISON, _President_. + + WENDELL PHILLIPS, } _Secretaries_. + MARIA WESTON CHAPMAN, } + + _Boston, May_ 20, 1844. + + * * * * * + + +LETTER FROM FRANCIS JACKSON. + +BOSTON, 4TH July, 1844 + +_To His Excellency George N. Briggs_: + +SIR--Many years since, I received from the Executive of the +Commonwealth a commission as Justice of the Peace. I have held the +office that it conferred upon me till the present time, and have +found it a convenience to myself, and others. It might continue to +be so, could I consent longer to hold it. But paramount +considerations forbid, and I herewith transmit to you my commission, +respectfully asking you to accept my resignation. + +While I deem it a duty to myself to take this step, I feel called on +to state the reasons that influence me. + +In entering upon the duties of the office in question, I complied +with the requirements of the law, by taking an oath "_to support the +Constitution of the United States_." I regret that I ever took that +oath. Had I then as maturely considered its full import, and the +obligations under which it is understood, and meant to lay those who +take it, as I have done since, I certainly never would have taken it, +seeing, as I now do, that the Constitution of the United States +contains provisions calculated and intended to foster, cherish, +uphold and perpetuate _slavery_. It pledges the country to guard and +protect the slave system so long as the slaveholding States choose +to retain it. It regards the slave code as lawful in the States +which enact it. Still more, "it has done that, which, until its +adoption, was never before done for African slavery. It took it out +of its former category of municipal law and local life, adopted it +as a national institution, spread around it the broad and sufficient +shield of national law, and thus gave to slavery a national existence." +Consequently, the oath to support the Constitution of the United +States is a solemn promise to do that which is morally wrong; that +which is a violation of the natural rights of man, and a sin in the +sight of God. + +I am not, in this matter, constituting myself a judge of others. I +do not say that no honest man can take such an oath, and abide by it. +I only say, that _I_ would not now deliberately take it; and that, +having inconsiderately taken it, I can no longer suffer it to lie +upon my soul. I take back the oath, and ask you, sir, to take back +the commission, which was the occasion of my taking it. + +I am aware that my course in this matter is liable to be regarded as +singular, if not censurable; and I must, therefore, be allowed to +make a more specific statement of those _provisions of the +Constitution_ which support the enormous wrong, the heinous sin of +slavery. + +The very first Article of the Constitution takes slavery at once +under its legislative protection, as a basis of representation in +the popular branch of the National Legislature. It regards slaves +under the description "of all other _persons_"--as of only +three-fifths of the value of free persons; thus to appearance +undervaluing them in comparison with freemen. But its dark and +involved phraseology seems intended to blind us to the consideration, +that those underrated slaves are merely a _basis_, not the _source_ +of representation; that by the laws of all the States where they live, +they are regarded not as _persons_; but as _things_; that they are +not the _constituency_ of the representative, but his property; and +that the necessary effect of this provision of the Constitution is, +to take legislative power out of the hands of _men_, as such, and +give it to the mere possessors of goods and chattels. Fixing upon +thirty thousand persons, as the smallest number that shall send one +member into the House of Representatives, it protects slavery by +distributing legislative power in a free and in a slave State thus: +To a congressional district in South Carolina, containing fifty +thousand slaves, claimed as the property of five hundred whites, who +hold, on an average, one hundred apiece, it gives one Representative +in Congress; to a district in Massachusetts containing a population +of thirty thousand five hundred, one Representative is assigned. But +inasmuch as a slave is never permitted to vote, the fifty thousand +persons in a district in Carolina form no part of "the constituency;" +that is found only in the five hundred free persons. Five hundred +freemen of Carolina could send one Representative to Congress, while +it would take thirty thousand five hundred freemen of Massachusetts, +to do the same thing: that is, one slaveholder in Carolina is +clothed by the Constitution with the same political power and +influence in the Representatives Hall at Washington, as sixty +Massachusetts men like you and me, who "eat their bread in the sweat +of their own brows." + +According to the census of 1830, and the ratio of representation +based upon that, slave property added twenty-five members to the +House of Representatives. And as it has been estimated, (as an +approximation to the truth,) that the two and a half million slaves +in the United States are held as property by about two hundred and +fifty thousand persons--giving an average of ten slaves to each +slaveholder, those twenty-five Representatives, each chosen, at most, +by only ten thousand voters, and probably by less than three-fourths +of that number, were the representatives, not only of the two +hundred and fifty thousand persons who chose them; but of _property_ +which, five years ago, when slaves were lower in market, than at +present, were estimated, by the man who is now the most prominent +candidate for the Presidency, at twelve hundred millions of dollars--a +sum, which, by the natural increase of five years, and the enhanced +value resulting from a more prosperous state of the planting +interest, cannot now be less than fifteen hundred millions of dollars. +All this vast amount of property, as it is "peculiar," is also +identical in its character. In Congress, as we have seen, it is +animated by one spirit, moves in one mass, and is wielded with one +aim; and when we consider that tyranny is always timid, and despotism +distrustful, we see that this vast money power would be false to +itself, did it not direct all its eyes and hands, and put forth all +its ingenuity and energy, to one end--self-protection and +self-perpetuation. And this it has ever done. In all the vibrations +of the political scale, whether in relation to a Bank or Sub-Treasury, +Free Trade or a Tariff, this immense power has moved, and will +continue to move, in one mass, for its own protection. + +While the weight of the slave influence is thus felt in the House of +Representatives, "in the Senate of the Union," says John Quincy Adams, +"the proportion of slaveholding power is still greater. By the +influence of slavery in the States where the institution is tolerated, +over their elections, no other than a slaveholder can rise to the +distinction of obtaining a seat in the Senate; and thus, of the +fifty-two members of the federal Senate, twenty-six are owners of +slaves, and are as effectually representatives of that interest, as +the eighty-eight members elected by them to the House." + +The dominant power which the Constitution gives to the slave interest, +as thus seen and exercised in the _Legislative Halls_ of our nation, +is equally obvious and obtrusive in every other department of the +National government. + +In the _Electoral colleges_, the same cause produces the same +effect--the same power is wielded for the same purpose, as in the +Halls of Congress. Even the preliminary nominating conventions, before +they dare name a candidate for the highest office in the gift of the +people, must ask of the Genius of slavery, to what votary she will +show herself propitious. This very year, we see both the great +political parties doing homage to the slave power, by nominating +each a slaveholder for the chair of the State. The candidate of one +party declares. "I should have opposed, and would continue to oppose, +any scheme whatever of emancipation, either gradual or immediate;" +and adds, "It is not true, and I rejoice that it is not true, that +either of the two great parties of this country has any design or +aim at abolition. I should deeply lament it, if it were true."[94] + +[Footnote 94: Henry Clay's speech in the United States Senate in 1839, +and confirmed at Raleigh, N.C. 1844.] + + +The other party nominates a man who says, "I have no hesitation in +declaring that I am in favor of the immediate re-annexation of Texas +to the territory and government of the United States." + +Thus both the political parties, and the candidates of both, vie +with each other, in offering allegiance to the slave power, as a +condition precedent to any hope of success in the struggle for the +executive chair; a seat that, for more than three-fourths of the +existence of our constitutional government, has been occupied by a +slaveholder. + +The same stern despotism overshadows even the sanctuaries of +_justice_. Of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United +States, five are slaveholders, and of course, must be faithless to +their own interest, as well as recreant to the power that gives them +place, or must, so far as _they_ are concerned, give both to law and +constitution such a construction as shall justify the language of +John Quincy Adams, when he says--"The legislative, executive, and +judicial authorities, are all in their hands--for the preservation, +propagation, and perpetuation of the black code of slavery. Every +law of the legislature becomes a link in the chain of the slave; +every executive act a rivet to his hapless fate; every judicial +decision a perversion of the human intellect to the justification of +wrong." + +Thus by merely adverting but briefly to the theory and the practical +effect of this clause of the Constitution, that I have sworn to +support, it is seen that it throws the political power of the nation +into the hands of the slaveholders; a body of men, which, however it +may be regarded by the Constitution as "persons," is in fact and +practical effect, a vast moneyed corporation, bound together by an +indissoluble unity of interest, by a common sense of a common danger; +counselling at all times for its common protection; wielding the +whole power, and controlling the destiny of the nation. + +If we look into the legislative halls, slavery is seen in the chair +of the presiding officer of each, and controlling the action of both. +Slavery occupies, by prescriptive right, the Presidential chair. The +paramount voice that comes from the temple of national justice, +issues from the lips of slavery. The army is in the hands of slavery, +and at her bidding, must encamp in the everglades of Florida, or +march from the Missouri to the borders of Mexico, to look after her +interests in Texas. + +The navy, even that part that is cruising off the coast of Africa, to +suppress the foreign slave trade, is in the hands of slavery. + +Freemen of the North, who have even dared to lift up their voice +against slavery, cannot travel through the slave States, but at the +peril of their lives. + +The representatives of freemen are forbidden, on the floor of +Congress, to remonstrate against the encroachments of slavery, or to +pray that she would let her poor victims go. + +I renounce my allegiance to a Constitution that enthrones such a +power, wielded for the purpose of depriving me of my rights, of +robbing my countrymen of their liberties, and of securing its own +protection, support and perpetuation. + +Passing by that clause of the Constitution, which restricted Congress +for twenty years, from passing any law against the African slave +trade, and which gave authority to raise a revenue on the stolen +sons of Africa, I come to that part of the fourth article, which +guarantees protection against "_domestic violence_," and which +pledges to the South the military force of the country, to protect +the masters against their insurgent slaves: binds us, and our +children, to shoot down our fellow-countrymen, who may rise, in +emulation of our revolutionary fathers, to vindicate their inalienable +"right to life, _liberty_ and the pursuit of happiness,"--this +clause of the Constitution, I say distinctly, I never will +support. + +That part of the Constitution which provides for the surrender of +fugitive slaves, I never have supported and never will. I will join +in no slave-hunt. My door shall stand open, as it has long stood, for +the panting and trembling victim of the slave-hunter. When I shut it +against him, may God shut the door of his mercy against me! Under +this clause of the Constitution, and designed to carry it into effect, +slavery has demanded that laws should be passed, and of such a +character, as have left the free citizen of the North without +protection for his own liberty. The question, whether a man seized +in a free State as a slave, _is_ a slave or not, the law of Congress +does not allow a jury to determine: but refers it to the decision of +a Judge of a United States' Court, or even of the humblest State +magistrate, it may be, upon the testimony or affidavit of the party +most deeply interested to support the claim. By virtue of this law, +freemen have been seized and dragged into perpetual slavery--and +should I be seized by a slave-hunter in any part of the country +where I am not personally known, neither the Constitution nor laws +of the United States would shield me from the same destiny. + +These, sir, are the specific parts of the Constitution of the United +States, which in my opinion are essentially vicious, hostile at once +to the liberty and to the morals of the nation. And these are the +principal reasons of my refusal any longer to acknowledge my +allegiance to it, and of my determination to revoke my oath to +support it. I cannot, in order to keep the law of man, break the law +of God, or solemnly call him to witness my promise that I will break +it. + +It is true that the Constitution provides for its own amendment, and +that by this process, all the guarantees of Slavery may be expunged. +But it will be time enough to swear to support it when this is done. +It cannot be right to do so, until these amendments are made. + +It is also true that the framers of the Constitution did studiously +keep the words "Slave" and "Slavery" from its face. But to do our +constitutional fathers justice, while they forebore--from very +shame--to give the word "Slavery" a place in the Constitution, they +did not forbear--again to do them justice--to give place in it to +the _thing_. They were careful to wrap up the idea, and the substance +of Slavery, in the clause for the surrender of the fugitive, though +they sacrificed justice in doing so. + +There is abundant evidence that this clause touching "persons held +to service or labor," not only operates practically, under the +judicial construction, for the protection of the slave interest; but +that it was intended so to operate by the framers of the +Constitution. The highest judicial authorities--Chief Justice Shaw, +of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in the Latimer case, and +Mr. Justice Story, in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the +case of _Prigg_ vs. _The State of Pennsylvania_,--tell us, I know +not on what evidence, that without this "compromise," this security +for Southern slaveholders, "the Union could not have been formed." +And there is still higher evidence, not only that the framers of the +Constitution meant by this clause to protect slavery, but that they +did this, knowing that slavery was wrong. Mr. Madison[95] informs us +that the clause in question, as it came out of the hands of Dr. +Johnson, the chairman of the "committee on style," read thus: "No +person legally held to service, or labor, in one State, escaping into +another, shall," &c., and that the word "legally" was struck out, and +the words "under the laws thereof" inserted after the word "State," in +compliance with the wish of some, who thought the term _legal_ +equivocal, and favoring the idea that slavery was legal "_in a moral +view_." A conclusive proof that, although future generations might +apply that clause to other kinds of "service or labor," when slavery +should have died out, or been killed off by the young spirit of +liberty, which was _then_ awake and at work in the land; still, +slavery was what they were wrapping up in "equivocal" words; and +wrapping it up for its protection and safe keeping: a conclusive proof +that the framers of the Constitution were more careful to protect +themselves in the judgment of coming generations, from the charge +of ignorance, than of sin; a conclusive proof that they knew that +slavery was _not_ "legal in a moral view," that it was a violation +of the moral law of God; and yet knowing and confessing its +immorality, they dared to make this stipulation for its support and +defence. + +[Footnote 95: Madison Papers, p. 1589] + +This language may sound harsh to the ears of those who think it a +part of their duty, as citizens, to maintain that whatever the +patriots of the Revolution did, was right; and who hold that we are +bound to _do_ all the iniquity that they covenanted for us that we +_should_ do. But the claims of truth and right are paramount to +all other claims. + +With all our veneration for our constitutional fathers, we must +admit,--for they have left on record their own confession of it,--that +in this part of their work they intended to hold the shield of +their protection over a wrong, knowing that it was a wrong. They +made a "compromise" which they had no right to make--a compromise of +moral principle for the sake of what they probably regarded as +"political expediency." I am sure they did not know--no man could +know, or can now measure, the extent, or the consequences of the +wrong, that they were doing. In the strong language of John Quincy +Adams,[96] in relation to the article fixing the basis of +representation, "Little did the members of the Convention, from the +free States, imagine or foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden +under the mask of this concession." + +[Footnote 96: See his Report on the Massachusetts Resolutions.] + + +I verily believe that, giving all due consideration to the benefits +conferred upon this nation by the Constitution, its national unity, +its swelling masses of wealth, its power, and the external +prosperity of its multiplying millions; yet the _moral_ injury that +has been done, by the countenance shown to slavery by holding over +that tremendous sin the shield of the Constitution, and thus +breaking down in the eyes of the nation the barrier between right +and wrong; by so tenderly cherishing slavery as, in less than the +life of man, to multiply her children from half a million to nearly +three millions; by exacting oaths from those who occupy prominent +stations in society, that they will violate at once the rights of +man and the law of God; by substituting itself as a rule of right, +in place of the moral laws of the universe;--thus in effect, +dethroning the Almighty in the hearts of this people and setting up +another sovereign in his stead--more than outweighs it all. A +melancholy and monitory lesson this, to all timeserving and +temporising statesmen! A striking illustration of the _impolicy_ of +sacrificing _right_ to any considerations of expediency! Yet, what +better than the evil effects that we have seen, could the authors of +the Constitution have reasonably expected, from the sacrifice of +right, in the concessions they made to slavery? Was it reasonable in +them to expect that after they had introduced a vicious element into +the very Constitution of the body politic which they were calling +into life, it would not exert its vicious energies? Was it reasonable +in them to expect that, after slavery had been corrupting the public +morals for a whole generation, their children would have too much +virtue to _use_ for the defence of slavery, a power which they +themselves had not too much virtue to _give_? It is dangerous for +the sovereign power of a State to license immorality; to hold the +shield of its protection over any thing that is not "legal in a moral +view." Bring into your house a benumbed viper, and lay it down upon +your warm hearth, and soon it will not ask you into which room it +may crawl. Let Slavery once lean upon the supporting arm, and bask +in the fostering smile of the State, and you will soon see, as we +now see, both her minions and her victims multiply apace till the +politics, the morals, the liberties, even the religion of the nation, +are brought completely under her control. + + +To me, it appears that the virus of slavery, introduced into the +Constitution of our body politic, by a few slight punctures, has now +so pervaded and poisoned the whole system of our National Government, +that literally there is no health in it. The only remedy that I can +see for the disease, is to be found in the _dissolution of the +patient_. + +The Constitution of the United States, both in theory and practice, +is so utterly broken down by the influence and effects of slavery, +so imbecile for the highest good of the nation, and so powerful for +evil, that I can give no voluntary assistance in holding it up any +longer. + +Henceforth it is dead to me, and I to it. I withdraw all profession +of allegiance to it, and all my voluntary efforts to sustain it. The +burdens that it lays upon me, while it is held up by others, I shall +endeavor to bear patiently, yet acting with reference to a higher law, +and distinctly declaring, that while I retain my own liberty, I will +be a party to no compact, which helps to rob any other man of his. + +Very respectfully, your friend, + +FRANCIS JACKSON. + + + * * * * * + +FROM MR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH AT NIBLO'S GARDENS. + +"We have slavery, already, amongst us. The Constitution found it +among us; it recognized it and gave it SOLEMN GUARANTIES. To the +full extent of these guaranties we are all bound, in honor, in +justice, and by the Constitution. All the stipulations, contained in +the Constitution, _in favor of the slaveholding States_ which are +already in the Union, ought to be fulfilled, and so far as depends +on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fullness of their spirit, and to +the exactness of their letter."!!! + + * * * * * + +EXTRACTS FROM JOHN Q. ADAMS'S ADDRESS + +AT NORTH BRIDGEWATER, NOV. 6, 1844. + +The benefits of the Constitution of the United States, were the +restoration of credit and reputation, to the country--the revival of +commerce, navigation, and ship-building--the acquisition of the +means of discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection +and encouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the +country. All this, however, as is now well ascertained, was +insufficient to propitiate the rulers of the Southern States to +the adoption of the Constitution. What they specially wanted was +_protection_.--Protection from the powerful and savage tribes of +Indians within their borders, and who were harassing them with the most +terrible of wars--and protection from their own negroes--protection +from their insurrections--protection from their escape--protection +even to the trade by which they were brought into the +country--protection, shall I not blush to say, protection to the very +bondage by which they were held. Yes! it cannot be denied--the +slaveholding lords of the South prescribed, as a condition of their +assent to the Constitution, three special provisions to secure the +perpetuity of their dominion over their slaves. The first was the +immunity for twenty years of preserving the African slave-trade; the +second was the stipulation to surrender fugitive slaves--an +engagement positively prohibited by the laws of God, delivered from +Sinai; and thirdly, the exaction fatal to the principles of popular +representation, of a representation for slaves--for articles of +merchandise, under the name of persons. + +The reluctance with which the freemen of the North submitted to the +dictation of these conditions, is attested by the awkward and +ambiguous language in which they are expressed. The word slave is +most cautiously and fastidiously excluded from the whole instrument. +A stranger, who should come from a foreign land, and read the +Constitution of the United States, would not believe that slavery or +a slave existed within the borders of our country. There is not a +word in the Constitution _apparently_ bearing upon the condition of +slavery, nor is there a provision but would be susceptible of +practical execution, if there were not a slave in the land. + +The delegates from South Carolina and Georgia distinctly avowed that, +without this guarantee of protection to their property in slaves, +they would not yield their assent to the Constitution; and the +freemen of the North, reduced to the alternative of departing from +the vital principle of their liberty, or of forfeiting the Union +itself, averted their faces, and with trembling hand subscribed the +bond. + +Twenty years passed away--the slave markets of the South were +saturated with the blood of African bondage, and from midnight of the +31st of December, 1807, not a slave from Africa was suffered ever +more to be introduced upon our soil. But the internal traffic was +still lawful, and the _breeding_ States soon reconciled themselves to +a prohibition which gave them the monopoly of the interdicted trade, +and they joined the full chorus of reprobation, to punish with death +the slave-trader from Africa, while they cherished and shielded and +enjoyed the precious profits of the American slave-trade exclusively +to themselves. + +Perhaps this unhappy result of their concession had not altogether +escaped the foresight of the freemen of the North; but their intense +anxiety for the preservation of the whole Union, and the habit +already formed of yielding to the somewhat peremptory and overbearing +tone which the relation of master and slave welds into the nature of +the lord, prevailed with them to overlook this consideration, the +internal slave-trade having scarcely existed while that with Africa +had been allowed. But of one consequence which has followed from the +slave representation, pervading the whole organic structure of the +Constitution, they certainly were not prescient; for if they had been, +never--no, never would they have consented to it. + +The representation, ostensibly of slaves, under the name of persons, +was in its operation an exclusive grant of power to one class of +proprietors, owners of one species of property, to the detriment of +all the rest of the community. This species of property was odious +in its nature, held in direct violation of the natural and +inalienable rights of man, and of the vital principles of +Christianity; it was all accumulated in one geographical section of +the country, and was all held by wealthy men, comparatively small in +numbers, not amounting to a tenth part of the free white population +of the States in which it was concentrated. + +In some of the ancient, and in some modern republics, extraordinary +political power and privileges have been invested in the owners of +horses; but then these privileges and these powers have been granted +for the equivalent of extraordinary duties and services to the +community, required of the favoured class. The Roman knights +constituted the cavalry of their armies, and the bushels of rings +gathered by Hannibal from their dead bodies, after the battle of +Cannae, amply prove that the special powers conferred upon them were +no gratuitous grants. But in the Constitution of the United States, +the political power invested in the owners of slaves is entirely +gratuitous. No extraordinary service is required of them; they are, +on the contrary, themselves grievous burdens upon the community, +always threatened with the danger of insurrections, to be smothered +in the blood of both parties, master and slave, and always +depressing the condition of the poor free laborer, by competition +with the labor of the slave. The property in horses was the gift of +God to man, at the creation of the world; the property in slaves is +property acquired and held by crimes, differing in no moral aspect +from the pillage of a freebooter, and to which no lapse of time can +give a prescriptive right. You are told that this is no concern of +yours, and that the question of freedom and slavery is exclusively +reserved to the consideration of the separate States. But if it be so, +as to the mere question of right between master and slave, it is of +tremendous concern to you that this little cluster of slave-owners +should possess, besides their own share in the representative hall +of the nation, the exclusive privilege of appointing two-fifths of +the whole number of the representatives of the people. This is now +your condition, under that delusive ambiguity of language and of +principle, which begins by declaring the representation in the +popular branch of the legislature a representation of persons, and +then provides that one class of persons shall have neither part not +lot in the choice of their representatives; but their elective +franchise shall be transferred to their masters, and the oppressors +shall represent the oppressed. The same perversion of the +representative principle pollutes the composition of the colleges of +electors of President and Vice President of the United States, and +every department of the government of the Union is thus tainted at +its source by the gangrene of slavery. + +Fellow-citizens,--with a body of men thus composed, for legislators +and executors of the laws, what will, what must be, what has been +your legislation? The numbers of freemen constituting your nation +are much greater than those of the slaveholding States, bond and free. +You have at least three-fifths of the whole population of the Union. +Your influence on the legislation and the administration of the +government ought to be in the proportion of three to two.--But how +stands the fact? Besides the legitimate portion of influence +exercised by the slaveholding States by the measure of their numbers, +here is an intrusive influence in every department, by a +representation nominally of persons, but really of property, +ostensibly of slaves, but effectively of their masters, +overbalancing your superiority of numbers, adding two-fifths of +supplementary power to the two-fifths fairly secured to them by the +compact, CONTROLLING AND OVERRULING THE WHOLE ACTION OF YOUR +GOVERNMENT AT HOME AND ABROAD, and warping it to the sordid private +interest and oppressive policy of 300,000 owners of slaves. + +From the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United +States, the institution of domestic slavery has been becoming more +and more the abhorrence of the civilized world. But in proportion as +it has been growing odious to all the rest of mankind, it has been +sinking deeper and deeper into the affections of the holders of +slaves themselves. The cultivation of cotton and of sugar, unknown +in the Union at the establishment of the Constitution, has added +largely to the pecuniary value of the slave. And the suppression of +the African slave-trade as piracy upon pain of death, by securing +the benefit of a monopoly to the virtuous slaveholders of the +ancient dominion, has turned her heroic tyrannicides into a +community of slave-breeders for sale, and converted the land of +George Washington, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas +Jefferson, into a great barracoon--a cattle-show of human beings, an +emporium, of which the staple articles of merchandise are the flesh +and blood, the bones and sinews of immortal man. + +Of the increasing abomination of slavery in the unbought hearts of +men at the time when the Constitution of the United States was formed, +what clearer proof could be desired, than that the very same year in +which that charter of the land was issued, the Congress of the +Confederation, with not a tithe of the powers given by the people to +the Congress of the new compact, actually abolished slavery for ever +throughout the whole Northwestern territory, without a remonstrance +or a murmur. But in the articles of confederation, there was no +guaranty for the property of the slaveholder--no double representation +of him in the Federal councils--no power of taxation--no stipulation +for the recovery of fugitive slaves. But when the powers of +_government_ came to be delegated to the Union, the South--that +is, South Carolina and Georgia--refused their subscription to +the parchment, till it should be saturated with the infection +of slavery, which no fumigation could purify, no quarantine could +extinguish. The freemen of the North gave way, and the deadly +venom of slavery was infused into the Constitution of freedom. Its +first consequence has been to invert the first principle of Democracy, +that the will of the majority of numbers shall rule the land. By +means of the double representation, the minority command the whole, +and a KNOT OF SLAVEHOLDERS GIVE THE LAW AND PRESCRIBE THE POLICY OF +THE COUNTRY. To acquire this superiority of a large majority of +freemen, a persevering system of engrossing nearly all the seats +of power and place, is constantly for a long series of years +pursued, and you have seen, in a period of fifty-six years, the +Chief-magistracy of the Union held, during forty-four of them, by +the owners of slaves. The Executive departments, the Army and Navy, +the Supreme Judicial Court and diplomatic missions abroad, all +present the same spectacle:--an immense majority of power in the +hands of a very small minority of the people--millions made for a +fraction of a few thousands. + +* * * * * + +From that day (1830), SLAVERY, SLAVEHOLDING, SLAVE-BREEDING AND +SLAVE-TRADING, HAVE FORMED THE WHOLE FOUNDATION OF THE POLICY OF THE +FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and of the slaveholding States, at home and +abroad; and at the very time when a new census has exhibited a large +increase upon the superior numbers of the free States, it has +presented the portentous evidence of increased influence and +ascendancy of the slaveholding power. + +Of the prevalence of that power, you have had continual and +conclusive evidence in the suppression for the space of ten years of +the right of petition, guarantied, if there could be a guarantee +against slavery, by the first article amendatory of the Constitution. + + + +No. 13. + +THE +ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. + + * * * * * + +ON THE CONDITION OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR +IN THE UNITED STATES. + + * * * * * + +NEW YORK: + +PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, +NO. 143 NASSAU STREET. + +1839. + + * * * * * + +This No. contains 1-1/2 sheet.--Postage, under 100 miles, +2-1/2 cts. over 100, 3 cts. + +Please Read and circulate. + + + + + ON THE CONDITION OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR. + + * * * * * + +It appears from the census of 1830, that there were then 319,467 +free colored persons in the United States. At the present time the +number cannot be less than 360,000. Fifteen States of the Federal +Union have each a smaller population than this aggregate. Hence if +the whole mass of human beings inhabiting Connecticut, or New Jersey, +or any other of these fifteen States, were subjected to the ignorance, +and degradation, and persecution and terror we are about to describe, +as the lot of this much injured people, the amount of suffering would +still be numerically less than that inflicted by a professedly +Christian and republican community upon the free negroes. Candor, +however, compels us to admit that, deplorable as is their condition, +it is still not so wretched as Colonizationists and slaveholders, +for obvious reasons, are fond of representing it. It is not true +that free negroes are "more vicious and miserable than slaves _can_ +be,"[97] nor that "it would be as humane to throw slaves from the +decks of the middle passage, as to set them free in this country,"[98] +nor that "a sudden and universal emancipation without +colonization, would be a greater CURSE to the slaves themselves, +than the bondage in which they are held." + +[Footnote 97: Rev. Mr. Bacon, of New Haven, 7 Rep. Am. Col. Soc. +p. 99.] + +[Footnote 98: African Repository, Vol. IV. p. 226.] + + +It is a little singular, that in utter despite of these rash +assertions slaveholders and colonizationists unite in assuring us, +that the slaves are rendered _discontented_ by _witnessing_ the +freedom of their colored brethren; and hence we are urged to assist +in banishing to Africa these sable and dangerous mementoes of liberty. + +We all know that the wife and children of the free negro are not +ordinarily sold in the market--that he himself does not toil under +the lash, and that in certain parts of our country he is permitted +to acquire some intelligence, and to enjoy some comforts, utterly +and universally denied to the slave. Still it is most unquestionable, +that these people grievously suffer from a cruel and wicked +prejudice--cruel in its consequences; wicked in its voluntary +adoption, and its malignant character. + +Colonizationists have taken great pains to inculcate the opinion that +prejudice against color is implanted in our nature by the Author of +our being; and whence they infer the futility of every effort to +elevate the colored man in this country, and consequently the duty +and benevolence of sending him to Africa, beyond the reach of our +cruelty.[99] The theory is as false in fact as it is derogatory to +the character of that God whom we are told is LOVE. With what +astonishment and disgust should we behold an earthly parent exciting +feuds and animosities among his own children; yet we are assured, +and that too by professing Christians, that our heavenly Father has +implanted a principle of hatred, repulsion and alienation between +certain portions of his family on earth, and then commanded them, as +if in mockery, to "love one another." + +[Footnote 99: "Prejudices, which neither refinement, nor argument, +nor education, NOR RELIGION ITSELF can subdue, mark the people of +color, whether bond or free, as the subjects of a degradation +_inevitable and incurable_."--_Address of the Connecticut Col. +Society_. "The managers consider it clear that causes exist, and are +now operating, to prevent their improvement and elevation to any +considerable extent as a class in this country, which are fixed, not +only beyond the control of the friends of humanity, but of _any +human power_: CHRISTIANITY cannot do for them here, what it will do +for them in Africa. This is not the _fault_ of the colored man, +_nor of the white man_, but an ORDINATION OF PROVIDENCE, _and no +more to be changed than the laws of nature_."--15 Rep. Am. Col. Soc. +p. 47. + +"The people of color must, in this country, remain for ages, +probably for ever, a separate and distinct caste, weighed down by +causes powerful, universal, invincible, which neither legislation +nor CHRISTIANITY can remove."--African Repository Vol. VIII. p. 196. + +"Do they (the abolitionists) not perceive that in thus confounding +all the distinctions which GOD himself has made, they arraign the +wisdom and goodness of Providence itself? It has been His divine +pleasure, to make the black man black, and the white man white, and +to distinguish them by other _repulsive_ constitutional +differences."--Speech in Senate of the United States, February 7, +1839, by HENRY CLAY, PRESIDENT OF THE AM. COL. SOC.] + + +In vain do we seek in nature, for the origin of this prejudice. Young +children never betray it, and on the continent of Europe it is +unknown. We are not speaking of matters of taste, or of opinions of +personal beauty, but of a prejudice against complexion, leading to +insult, degradation and oppression. In no country in Europe is any +man excluded from refined society, or deprived of literary, religious, +or political privileges on account of the tincture of his skin. If +this prejudice is the fiat of the Almighty, most wonderful is it, +that of all the kindreds of the earth, none have been found +submissive to the heavenly impulse, excepting the white inhabitants +of North America; and of these, it is no less strange than true, +that this divine principle of repulsion is most energetic in such +persons as, in other respects, are the least observant of their +Maker's will. This prejudice is sometimes erroneously regarded as +the _cause_ of slavery; and some zealous advocates of emancipation +have flattered themselves that, could the prejudice be destroyed, +negro slavery would fall with it. Such persons have very inadequate +ideas of the malignity of slavery. They forget that the slaves in +Greece and Rome were of the same hue as their masters; and that at +the South, the value of a slave, especially of a female, rises, as +the complexion recedes from the African standard. + +Were we to inquire into the geography of this prejudice, we should +find that the localities in which it attains its rankest luxuriance, +are not the rice swamps of Georgia, nor the sugar fields of Louisiana, +but the hills and valleys of New England, and the prairies of Ohio! +It is a fact of acknowledged notoriety, that however severe may be +the laws against colored people at the South, the prejudice against +their _persons_ is far weaker than among ourselves. + +It is not necessary for our present purpose, to enter into a +particular investigation of the condition of the free negroes in the +slave States. We all know that they suffer every form of oppression +which the laws can inflict upon persons not actually slaves. That +unjust and cruel enactments should proceed from a people who keep +two millions of their fellow men in abject bondage, and who believe +such enactments essential to the maintenance of their despotism, +certainly affords no cause for surprise. + +We turn to the free States, where slavery has not directly steeled +our hearts against human suffering, and where no supposed danger of +insurrection affords a pretext for keeping the free blacks in +ignorance and degradation; and we ask, what is the character of the +prejudice against color _here_? Let the Rev. Mr. Bacon, of +Connecticut, answer the question. This gentleman, in a vindication +of the Colonization Society, assures us, "The _Soodra_ is not +farther separated from the _Brahim_ in regard to all his privileges, +civil, intellectual, and moral, than the negro from the white man by +the prejudices which result from the difference made between them by +THE GOD OF NATURE."--(_Rep. Am. Col. Soc._ p. 87.) + +We may here notice the very opposite effect produced on Abolitionists +and Colonizationists, by the consideration that this difference +_is_ made by the GOD OF NATURE; leading the one to discard the +prejudice, and the other to banish its victims. + +With these preliminary remarks we will now proceed to take a view of +the condition of the free people of color in the non-slaveholding +States; and will consider in order, the various disabilities and +oppressions to which they are subjected, either by law or the +customs of society. + + +1. GENERAL EXCLUSION FROM THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. + +Were this exclusion founded on the want of property, or any other +qualification deemed essential to the judicious exercise of the +franchise, it would afford no just cause of complaint; but it is +founded solely on the color of the skin, and is therefore irrational +and unjust. That taxation and representation should be inseparable, +was one of the axioms of the fathers of our revolution; and one of +the reasons they assigned for their revolt from the crown of Britain. +But _now_, it is deemed a mark of fanaticism to complain of the +disfranchisement of a whole race, while they remain subject to the +burden of taxation. It is worthy of remark, that of the thirteen +original States, only _two_ were so recreant to the principles of +the Revolution, as to make a _white skin_ a qualification for +suffrage. But the prejudice has grown with our growth, and +strengthened with our strength; and it is believed that in _every_ +State constitution subsequently formed or revised,[excepting +Vermont and Maine, and the Revised constitution of Massachusetts,] +the crime of a dark complexion has been punished, by debarring its +possessor from all approach to the ballot-box.[100] The necessary +effect of this proscription in aggravating the oppression and +degradation of the colored inhabitants must be obvious to all who +call to mind the solicitude manifested by demagogues, and +office-seekers, and law makers, to propitiate the good will of all +who have votes to bestow. + +[Footnote 100: From this remark the revised constitution of New York +is _nominally_ an exception; colored citizens, possessing a _freehold_ +worth two hundred and fifty dollars, being allowed to vote; while +suffrage is extended to _white_ citizens without any property +qualification.] + + +2. DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF LOCOMOTION. + +It is in vain that the Constitution of the United States expressly +guarantees to "the citizens of each State, all the privileges and +immunities of citizens in the several States:"--It is in vain that +the Supreme Court of the United States has solemnly decided that this +clause confers on every citizen of one State the right to "pass +through, or reside in any other State for the purposes of trade, +agriculture, professional pursuits, or _otherwise_." It is in vain +that "the members of the several State legislatures" are required to +"be bound by oath or affirmation to support" the constitution +conferring this very guarantee. Constitutions, and judicial decisions, +and religious obligations are alike outraged by our State enactments +against people of color. There is scarcely a slave State in which a +citizen of New York, with a dark skin, may visit a dying child +without subjecting himself to legal penalties. But in the slave +States we look for cruelty; we expect the rights of humanity and the +laws of the land to be sacrificed on the altar of slavery. In the +free States we had reason to hope for a greater deference to decency +and morality. Yet even in these States we behold the effects of a +miasma wafted from the South. The Connecticut Black Act, prohibiting, +under heavy penalties, the instruction of any colored person from +another State, is well known. It is one of the encouraging signs of +the times, that public opinion has recently compelled the repeal of +this detestable law. But among all the free States, OHIO stands +pre-eminent for the wickedness of her statutes against this class of +our population. These statutes are not merely infamous outrages on +every principle of justice and humanity, but are gross and palpable +violations of the State constitution, and manifest an absence of +moral sentiment in the Ohio legislature as deplorable as it is +alarming. We speak the language, not of passion, but of sober +conviction; and for the truth of this language we appeal, first, to +the Statutes themselves, and then to the consciences of our readers. +We shall have occasion to notice these laws under the several +divisions of our subject to which they belong; at present we ask +attention to the one intended to prevent the colored citizens of +other States from removing into Ohio. By the constitution of New York, +the colored inhabitants are expressly recognized as "citizens." Let +us suppose then a New York freeholder and voter of this class, +confiding in the guarantee given by the Federal constitution removes +into Ohio. No matter how much property he takes with him; no matter +what attestations he produces to the purity of his character, he is +required by the Act of 1807, to find, within twenty days, two +freehold sureties in the sum of five hundred dollars for his _good +behavior_; and likewise for his _maintenance_, should he at any +future period from any cause whatever be unable to maintain himself, +and in default of procuring such sureties he is to be removed by the +overseers of the poor. The legislature well knew that it would +generally be utterly impossible for a stranger, and especially a +_black_ stranger, to find such sureties. It was the _design_ of +the Act, by imposing impracticable conditions, to prevent colored +emigrants from remaining within the State; and in order more +certainly to effect this object, it imposes a pecuniary penalty on +every inhabitant who shall venture to "harbor," that is, receive +under his roof, or who shall even "employ" an emigrant who has not +given the required sureties; and it moreover renders such inhabitant +so harboring or employing him, legally liable for his future +maintenance!! + +We are frequently told that the efforts of the abolitionists have in +fact aggravated the condition of the colored people, bond and free. +The _date_ of this law, as well as the date of most of the laws +composing the several slave codes, show what credit is to be given +to the assertion. If a barbarous enactment is _recent_, its odium is +thrown upon the friends of the blacks--if _ancient_, we are assured +it is _obsolete_. The Ohio law was enacted only four years after the +State was admitted into the Union. In 1800 there were only three +hundred and thirty-seven free blacks in the territory, and in 1830 +the number in the State was nine thousand five hundred. Of course a +very large proportion of the present colored population of the State +must have entered it in ignorance of this iniquitous law, or in +defiance of it. That the law has not been universally enforced, +proves only that the people of Ohio are less profligate than their +legislators--that it has remained in the statute book for thirty-two +years, proves the depraved state of public opinion and the horrible +persecution to which the colored people are legally exposed. But let +it not be supposed that this vile law is in fact obsolete, and its +very existence forgotten. + +In 1829, a very general effort was made to enforce this law, and +about _one thousand free blacks_ were in consequence of it driven +out of the State; and sought a refuge in the more free and Christian +country of Canada. Previous to their departure, they sent a +deputation to the Governor of the Upper Province, to know if they +would be admitted, and received from Sir James Colebrook this +reply,--"Tell the _republicans_ on your side of the line, that we +royalists do not know men by their color. Should you come to us, you +will be entitled to all the privileges of the rest of his majesty's +subjects." This was the origin of the Wilberforce colony in Upper +Canada. + +We have now before us an Ohio paper, containing a proclamation by +John S. Wiles, overseer of the poor in the town of Fairfield, dated +12th March, 1838. In this instrument notice is given to all +"black or mulatto persons" residing in Fairfield, to comply with the +requisitions of the Act of 1807 within twenty days, or the law would +be enforced against them. The proclamation also addresses the white +inhabitants of Fairfield in the following terms,--"Whites, look out! +If any person or persons _employing_ any black or mulatto person, +contrary to the 3d section of the above law, you may look out for +the breakers." The extreme vulgarity and malignity of this notice +indicates the spirit which gave birth to this detestable law, and +continues it in being. + +Now what says the constitution of Ohio? "ALL are born free and +independent, and have certain natural, inherent, inalienable rights; +among which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, +_acquiring, possessing, and protecting property_, and pursuing and +attaining happiness and safety." Yet men who had called their Maker +to witness, that they would obey this very constitution, require +impracticable conditions, and then impose a pecuniary penalty and +grievous liabilities on every man who shall give to an innocent +fellow countryman a night's lodging, or even a meal of victuals in +exchange for his honest labor! + + +3. DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION. + +We explicitly disclaim all intention to imply that the several +disabilities and cruelties we are specifying are of universal +application. The laws of some States in relation to people of color +are more wicked than others; and the spirit of persecution is not in +every place equally active and malignant. In none of the free States +have these people so many grievances to complain of as in Ohio, and +for the honor of our country we rejoice to add, that in no other +State in the Union, has their right to petition for a redress of +their grievances been denied. + +On the 14th January, 1839, a petition for relief from certain legal +disabilities, from colored inhabitants of Ohio, was presented to the +_popular_ branch of the legislature, and its rejection was moved +by George H. Flood.[101] This rejection was not a denial of the prayer, +but an _expulsion of the petition itself_, as an intruder into the +house. "The question presented for our decision," said one of the +members, "is simply this--Shall human beings, who are bound by every +enactment upon our statute book, be _permitted_ to _request_ the +legislature to modify or soften the laws under which they live?" To +the Grand Sultan, crowded with petitions as he traverses the streets +of Constantinople, such a question would seem most strange; but +American democrats can exert a tyranny over _men who have no votes_, +utterly unknown to Turkish despotism. Mr. Flood's motion was lost by +a majority of only _four_ votes; but this triumph of humanity and +republicanism was as transient as it was meagre. The _next_ day, the +House, by a large majority, resolved: "That the blacks and mulattoes +who may be residents within this State, have no constitutional right +to present their petitions to the General Assembly for any purpose +whatsoever, and that any reception of such petitions on the part of +the General Assembly is a mere act of privilege or policy, and not +imposed by any expressed or implied power of the Constitution." + +[Footnote 101: It is sometimes interesting to preserve the names of +individuals who have perpetrated bold and unusual enormities.] + + +The phraseology of this resolution is as clumsy as its assertions are +base and sophistical. The meaning intended to be expressed is simply, +that the Constitution of Ohio, neither in terms nor by implication, +confers on such residents as are negroes or mulattoes, any right +to offer a petition to the legislature for any object whatever; nor +imposes on that body any obligation to notice such a petition; and +whatever attention it may please to bestow upon it, ought to be +regarded as an act not of duty, but merely of favor or expediency. +Hence it is obvious, that the _principle_ on which the resolution is +founded is, that the reciprocal right and duty of offering and +hearing petitions _rest solely on constitutional enactment_, and not +on moral obligation. The reception of negro petitions is declared +to be a mere act of _privilege or policy_. Now it is difficult to +imagine a principle more utterly subversive of all the duties of +rulers, the rights of citizens, and the charities of private life. +The victim of oppression or fraud has no _right_ to appeal to the +constituted authorities for redress; nor are those authorities under +any obligation to consider the appeal--the needy and unfortunate +have no right to implore the assistance of their more fortunate +neighbors: and all are at liberty to turn a deaf ear to the cry of +distress. The eternal and immutable principles of justice and +humanity, proclaimed by Jehovah, and impressed by him on the +conscience of man, have no binding force on the legislature of Ohio, +unless expressly adopted and enforced by the State Constitution! + +But as the legislature has thought proper thus to set at defiance the +moral sense of mankind, and to take refuge behind the enactments of +the Constitution, let us try the strength of their entrenchments. The +words of the Constitution, which it is pretended sanction the +resolution we are considering are the following, viz.--"The _people_ +have a right to assemble together in a peaceable manner to consult +for their common good, to _instruct their representatives_, and to +apply to the legislature for a redress of grievances." It is obvious +that this clause confers no rights, but is merely declaratory of +existing rights. Still, as the right of the people to apply for a +redress of grievances is coupled with the right of _instructing +their representatives_, and as negroes are not electors and +consequently are without representatives, it is inferred that they +are not part of _the people_. That Ohio legislators are not +Christians would be a more rational conclusion. One of the members +avowed his opinion that "none but voters had a right to petition." If +then, according to the principle of the resolution, the Constitution +of Ohio denies the right of petition to all but electors, let us +consider the practical results of such a denial. In the first place, +every female in the State is placed under the same disability with +"blacks and mulattoes." No wife has a right to ask for a divorce--no +daughter may plead for a father's life. Next, no man under +twenty-one years--no citizen of any age, who from want of sufficient +residence, or other qualification, is not entitled to vote--no +individual among the tens of thousands of aliens in the +State--however oppressed and wronged by official tyranny or +corruption, has a right to seek redress from the representatives of +the people, and should he presume to do so, may be told, that, like +"blacks and mulattoes," he "has no constitutional right to present +his petition to the General Assembly for any purpose whatever." +Again--the State of Ohio is deeply indebted to the citizens of other +States, and also to the subjects of Great Britain for money borrowed +to construct her canals. Should any of these creditors lose their +certificates of debt, and ask for their renewal; or should their +interest be withheld, or paid in depreciated currency, and were they +to ask for justice at the hands of the legislature, they might be +told, that any attention paid to their request must be regarded as a +"mere act of privilege or policy, and not imposed by any expressed +or implied power of the Constitution," for, not being voters, they +stood on the same ground as "blacks and mulattoes." Such is the +folly and wickedness in which prejudice against color has involved +the legislators of a republican and professedly Christian State in +the nineteenth century. + + +4. EXCLUSION FROM THE ARMY AND MILITIA. + +The Federal Government is probably the only one in the world that +forbids a portion of its subjects to participate in the national +defence, not from any doubts of their courage, loyalty, or physical +strength, but merely on account of the tincture of their skin! To +such an absurd extent is this prejudice against color carried, that +some of our militia companies have occasionally refused to march to +the sound of a drum when beaten by a black man. To declare a certain +class of the community unworthy to bear arms in defence of their +native country, is necessarily to consign that class to general +contempt. + + +5. EXCLUSION FROM ALL PARTICIPATION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. + +No colored man can be a judge, juror, or constable. Were the talents +and acquirements of a Mansfield or a Marshall veiled in a sable skin, +they would be excluded from the bench of the humblest court in the +American republic. In the slave States generally, no black man can +enter a court of justice as a witness against a white one. Of course +a white man may, with perfect impunity, defraud or abuse a negro to +any extent, provided he is careful to avoid the presence of any of +his own caste, at the execution of his contract, or the indulgence of +his malice. We are not aware that an outrage so flagrant is +sanctioned by the laws of any _free_ State, with one exception. That +exception the reader will readily believe can be none other than OHIO. +A statute of this State enacts, "that no black or mulatto _person_ or +_persons_ shall hereafter be permitted to be sworn, or give evidence +in any court of Record or elsewhere, in this State, in any cause +depending, or matter of controversy, when either party to the same +is a WHITE person; or in any prosecution of the State against any +WHITE person." + +We have seen that on the subject of petition the legislature regards +itself as independent of all obligation except such as is imposed by +the Constitution. How mindful they are of the requirements even of +that instrument, when obedience to them would check the indulgence of +their malignity to the blacks, appears from the 7th Section of the +8th Article, viz.--"All courts shall be open, and every _person_, for +any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall +have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered +without denial or delay." + +Ohio legislators may deny that negroes and mulattoes are citizens, or +people; but they are estopped by the very words of the statute just +quoted, from denying that they are "_persons_." Now, by the +Constitution every _person_, black as well as white, is to have +justice administered to him without denial or delay. But by the law, +while any unknown _white_ vagrant may be a witness in any case +whatever, no black suitor is permitted to offer a witness of his own +color, however well established may be his character for +intelligence and veracity, to prove his rights or his wrongs; and +hence in a multitude of cases, justice is denied in despite of the +Constitution; and why denied? Solely from a foolish and wicked +prejudice against color. + + +6. IMPEDIMENTS TO EDUCATION. + +No people have ever professed so deep a conviction of the importance +of popular education as ourselves, and no people have ever resorted +to such cruel expedients to perpetuate abject ignorance. More than +one third of the whole population of the slave States are prohibited +from learning even to read, and in some of them free men, if with +dark complexions, are subject to stripes for teaching their own +children. If we turn to the free States, we find that in all of them, +without exception, the prejudices and customs of society oppose +almost insuperable obstacles to the acquisition of a liberal +education by colored youth. Our academies and colleges are barred +against them. We know there are instances of young men with dark +skins having been received, under peculiar circumstances, into +northern colleges; but we neither know nor believe, that there have +been a dozen such instances within the last thirty years. + +Colored children are very generally excluded from our common schools, +in consequence of the prejudices of teachers and parents. In some of +our cities there are schools _exclusively_ for their use, but in the +country the colored population is usually too sparse to justify such +schools; and white and black children are rarely seen studying under +the same roof; although such cases do sometimes occur, and then they +are confined to elementary schools. Some colored young men, who +could bear the expense, have obtained in European seminaries the +education denied them in their native land. + +It may not be useless to cite an instance of the malignity with +which the education of the blacks is opposed. The efforts made in +Connecticut to prevent the establishment of schools of a higher order +than usual for colored pupils, are too well known to need a recital +here; and her BLACK ACT, prohibiting the instruction of colored +children from other States, although now expunged from her statute +book through the influence of abolitionists, will long be remembered +to the opprobrium of her citizens. We ask attention to the following +illustration of public opinion in another New England State. + +In 1834 an academy was built by subscription in CANAAN, New Hampshire, +and a charter granted by the legislature; and at a meeting of the +proprietors it was determined to receive all applicants having +"suitable moral and intellectual recommendations, without other +distinctions;" in other words, without reference to _complexion_. +When this determination was made known, a TOWN MEETING was forthwith +convened, and the following resolutions adopted, viz. + +"RESOLVED, That we view with _abhorrence_ the attempt of the +Abolitionists to establish in this town a school for the instruction +of the sable sons and daughters of Africa, in common with our sons +and daughters. + +"RESOLVED, That we will not associate with, nor in any way +countenance, any man or woman who shall hereafter persist in +attempting to establish a school in this town for the _exclusive_ +education of blacks, _or_ for their education in conjunction with +the whites." + +The frankness of this last resolve is commendable. The inhabitants +of Canaan, assembled in legal town meeting, determined, it seems, +that the blacks among them should in future have no education +whatever--they should not be instructed in company with the whites, +neither should they have schools exclusively for themselves. + +The proprietors of the academy supposing, in the simplicity of their +hearts, that in a free country they might use their property in any +manner not forbidden by law, proceeded to open their school, and in +the ensuing spring had twenty-eight white, and fourteen colored +scholars. The crisis had now arrived when the cause of prejudice +demanded the sacrifice of constitutional liberty and of private +property. Another town meeting was convoked, at which, without a +shadow of authority, and in utter contempt of law and decency, it +was ordered, that the academy should be forcibly removed, and a +committee was appointed to execute the abominable mandate. Due +preparations were made for the occasion, and on the 10th of August, +three hundred men, with about 200 oxen, assembled at the place, and +taking the edifice from off its foundation, dragged it to a distance, +and left it a ruin. No one of the actors in this high-handed outrage +was ever brought before a court of justice to answer for this +criminal and riotous destruction of the property of others. + +The transaction we have narrated, expresses in emphatic terms the +deep and settled hostility felt in the free States to the education +of the blacks. The prejudices of the community render that hostility +generally effective without the aid of legal enactments. Indeed, +some remaining regard to decency and the opinion of the world, has +restrained the Legislatures of the free States, with _one exception_, +from consigning these unhappy people to ignorance by "decreeing +unrighteous decrees," and "framing mischief by a law." Our readers, +no doubt, feel that the exception must of course be OHIO. + +We have seen with what deference Ohio legislators profess to regard +their _constitutional_ obligations; and we are now to contemplate +another instance of their shameless violation of them. The +Constitution which these men have sworn to obey declares, "NO LAW +SHALL BE PASSED to prevent the poor of the several townships and +counties in this State from an _equal_ participation in the schools, +academies, colleges, and universities in this State, which are +endowed in whole, or _in part_, from the revenue arising from +_donations_ made by the United States, for the support of _colleges +and schools_--and the door of said schools, academies, and +universities shall be open for the reception of scholars, students, +and teachers of every _grade_, without ANY DISTINCTION OR PREFERENCE +WHATEVER." + +Can language be more explicit or unequivocal? But have any donations +been made by the United States for the support of colleges and +schools in Ohio? Yes--by an act of Congress, the sixteenth section of +land in _each_ originally surveyed township in the State, was set +apart as a donation for the express purpose of endowing and +supporting common schools. And now, how have the scrupulous +legislators of Ohio, who refuse to acknowledge any other than +constitutional obligations to give ear to the cry of distress--how +have they obeyed this injunction of the Constitution respecting the +freedom of their schools? They enacted a law in 1831, declaring that, +"when any appropriation shall be made by the directors of any school +district, from the treasury thereof, for the payment of a teacher, +the school in such district shall be open"--to whom? "_to scholars, +students, and teachers of every grade, without distinction or +preference whatever_," as commanded by the Constitution? Oh no! +"Shall be open to all the WHITE children residing therein!!" Such is +the impotency of written constitutions, where a sense of moral +obligation is wanting to enforce them. + +We have now taken a review of the Ohio laws against free people of +color. Some of them are of old, and others of recent date. The +opinion entertained of all these laws, new and old, by the _present_ +legislators of Ohio, may be learned by a resolution adopted in +January last, (1839) by both houses of the legislature. "RESOLVED, +That in the opinion of this general assembly it is unwise, impolitic, +and inexpedient to repeal _any_ law now in force imposing +disabilities upon black or mulatto persons, thus placing them upon +an equality with the whites, so far as this legislature can do, and +indirectly inviting the black population of other States to emigrate +to this, to the manifest injury of the public interest." The best +comment on the _spirit_ which dictated this resolve is an enactment +by the _same_ legislature, abrogating the supreme law which requires +us to "Do unto others as we would they should do unto us," and +prohibiting every citizen of Ohio from _harboring or concealing_ a +fugitive slave, under the penalty of fine or imprisonment. General +obedience to this vile statute is alone wanting to fill to the brim +the cup of Ohio's iniquity and degradation. She hath done what she +could to oppress and crush the free negroes within her borders. She +is now seeking to rechain the slave who has escaped from his fetters. + + +7. IMPEDIMENTS TO RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION. + +It is unnecessary to dwell here on the laws of the slave States +prohibiting the free people of color from learning to read the Bible, +and in many instances, from assembling at discretion to worship their +Creator. These laws, we are assured, are indispensable to the +perpetuity of that "peculiar institution," which many masters in +Israel are now teaching, enjoys the sanction of HIM who "will have +all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth," and +who has left to his disciples the injunction, "search the Scriptures." +We turn to the free States, in which no institution requires, that +the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should be prevented from +shining on any portion of the population, and inquire how far +prejudice here supplies the place of southern statutes. + +The impediments to education already mentioned, necessarily render +the acquisition of religious knowledge difficult, and in many +instances impracticable. In the northern cities, the blacks have +frequently churches of their own, but in the country they are too few, +and too poor to build churches and maintain ministers. Of course they +must remain destitute of public worship and religious instruction, +unless they can enjoy these blessings in company with the whites. +Now there is hardly a church in the United States, not exclusively +appropriated to the blacks, in which one of their number owns a pew, +or has a voice in the choice of a minister. There are usually, indeed, +a few seats in a remote part of the church, set apart for their use, +and in which no white person is ever seen. It is surely not +surprising, under all the circumstances of the case, that these +seats are rarely crowded. + +Colored ministers are occasionally ordained in the different +denominations, but they are kept at a distance by their white +brethren in the ministry, and are very rarely permitted to enter +their pulpits; and still more rarely, to sit at their tables, +although acknowledged to be ambassadors of Christ. The distinction +of _caste_ is not forgotten, even in the celebration of the Lord's +Supper, and seldom are colored disciples permitted to eat and drink +of the memorials of the Redeemer's passion till after every white +communicant has been served. + + +8. IMPEDIMENTS TO HONEST INDUSTRY. + +In this country ignorance and poverty are almost inseparable +companions; and it is surely not strange that those should be poor +whom we compel to be ignorant. The liberal professions are virtually +sealed against the blacks, if we except the church, and even in that +admission is rendered difficult by the obstacles placed in their way +in acquiring the requisite literary qualifications;[102] and when once +admitted, their administrations are confined to their own color. +Many of our most wealthy and influential citizens have commenced +life as ignorant and as pennyless as any negro who loiters in our +streets. Had their complexion been dark, notwithstanding their +talents, industry, enterprize and probity, they would have continued +ignorant and pennyless, because the paths to learning and to wealth, +would then have been closed against them. There is a conspiracy, +embracing all the departments of society, to keep the black man +ignorant and poor. As a general rule, admitting few if any exceptions, +the schools of literature and of science reject him--the counting +house refuses to receive him as a bookkeeper, much more as a +partner--no store admits him as a clerk--no shop as an apprentice. +Here and there a black man may be found keeping a few trifles on a +shelf for sale; and a few acquire, as if by stealth, the knowledge +of some handicraft; but almost universally these people, both in +town and country, are prevented by the customs of society from +maintaining themselves and their families by any other than menial +occupations. + +[Footnote 102: Of the truth of this remark, the trustees of the +Episcopal Theological Seminary at New-York, lately (June, 1839) +afforded a striking illustration. A young man, regularly +acknowledged by the Bishop as a candidate for orders, and in +consequence of such acknowledgment entitled, by an _express statute_ +of the seminary, to admission to its privileges, presented himself +as a pupil. But God had given him a dark complexion, and _therefore_ +the trustees, regardless of the statute, barred the doors against him, +by a formal and deliberate vote. As a compromise between conscience +and prejudice, the professors offered to give him _private_ +instruction--to do in secret what they were ashamed to do openly--to +confer as a favor, what he was entitled to demand as a right. The +offer was rejected. + +It is worthy of remark, that of the trustees who took an _active_ +part against the _colored_ candidate, one is the PRESIDENT _of the +New York Colonization Society_; another a MANAGER, and a third, one +of its public champions; and that the Bishop of the diocese, who +wished to exclude his candidate from the theological school of which +he is both a trustee and a professor, lately headed a recommendation +in the newspapers for the purchase of a packet ship for Liberia, as +likely to "render far more efficient than heretofore, the enterprize +of colonization."] + +In 1836, a black man of irreproachable character, and who by his +industry and frugality had accumulated several thousand dollars, made +application in the City of New York for a carman's license, and was +refused solely and avowedly on account of his complexion! We have +already seen the effort of the Ohio legislature, to consign the +negroes to starvation, by deterring others from employing them. +Ignorance, idleness, and vice, are at once the punishments we +inflict upon these unfortunate people for their complexion; and the +crimes with which we are constantly reproaching them. + + +9. LIABILITY TO BE SEIZED, AND TREATED AS SLAVES. + +An able-bodied colored man sells in the southern market for from +eight hundred to a thousand dollars; of course he is worth stealing. +Colonizationists and slaveholders, and many northern divines, +solemnly affirm, that the situation of a slave is far preferable to +that of a free negro; hence it would seem an act of humanity to +convert the latter into the former. Kidnapping being both a +lucrative and a benevolent business, it is not strange it should be +extensively practised. In many of the States this business is +regulated by law, and there are various ways in which the +transmutation is legally effected. Thus, in South Carolina, if a +free negro "entertains" a runaway slave, it may be his own wife or +child, he himself is turned into a slave. In 1827, a _free woman +and her three children_ underwent this benevolent process, for +_entertaining_ two fugitive children of six and nine years old. In +Virginia all emancipated slaves remaining twelve months in the State, +are kindly restored to their former condition. In Maryland a free +negro who marries a white woman, thereby acquires all the privileges +of a slave--and generally, throughout the slave region, including +the District of Columbia, every negro not known to be free, is +mercifully considered as a slave, and if his master cannot be +ascertained, he is thrown into a dungeon, and there kept, till by a +public sale a master can be provided for him. But often the law +grants to colored men, _known to be free_, all the advantages of +slavery. Thus, in Georgia, every _free_ colored man coming into the +State, and unable to pay a fine of one hundred dollars, becomes a +slave for life; in Florida, insolvent debtors, if _black_, are SOLD +for the benefit of their creditors; and in the District of Columbia +a free colored man, thrown into jail on suspicion of being a slave +and proving his freedom, is required by law to be sold as a slave, +if too poor to pay his jail fees. Let it not be supposed that these +laws are all obsolete and inoperative. They catch many a northern +negro, who, in pursuit of his own business, or on being decoyed +by others ventures to enter the slave region; and who, of course, +helps to augment the wealth of our southern brethren. On the 6th +of March, 1839, a report by a Committee was made to the House of +Representatives of the Massachusetts Legislature, in which are given +the _names_ of seventeen free colored men who had been enslaved at +the south. It also states an instance in which twenty-five colored +citizens, belonging to Massachusetts, were confined at one time in a +southern jail, and another instance in which 75 free colored persons +from different free States were confined, all preparatory to their +sale as slaves according to law. + +The facts disclosed in this report induced the Massachusetts +Legislature to pass a resolution protesting against the kidnapping +laws of the slave States, "as invading the sacred rights of citizens +of this commonwealth, as contrary to the Constitution of the United +States, and in utter derogation of that great principle of the +common law which presumes every person to be innocent until proved +to be guilty;" and ordered the protest to be forwarded to the +Governors of the several States. + +But it is not at the south alone that freemen may be converted into +slaves "according to law." The Act of Congress respecting the +recovery of fugitive slaves, affords most extraordinary facilities +for this process, through official corruption and individual perjury. +By this Act, the claimant is permitted to _select_ a justice of the +peace, before whom he may bring or send his alleged slave, and even +to prove his property by _affidavit_. Indeed, in almost every State +in the Union, a slaveholder may recover at law a human being as his +beast of burden with far less ceremony than he could his pig from +the possession of his neighbor. In only three States is a man, +claimed as a slave, entitled to a trial by jury. At the last session +of the New York Legislature a bill allowing a jury trial in such +cases was passed by the lower House, but rejected by a _democratic_ +vote in the Senate, democracy in that State, being avowedly only +_skin_ deep, all its principles of liberty, equality, and human rights +depending on complexion. + +Considering the wonderful ease and expedition with which fugitives +may be recovered by law, it would be very strange if mistakes did not +sometimes occur. _How_ often they occur cannot, of course, be known, +and it is only when a claim is _defeated_, that we are made sensible +of the exceedingly precarious tenure by which a poor friendless +negro at the north holds his personal liberty. A few years since, a +girl of the name of Mary Gilmore was arrested in Philadelphia, as a +fugitive slave from Maryland. Testimony was not wanting in support +of the claim; yet it was most conclusively proved that she was the +daughter of poor _Irish_ parents--having not a drop of negro blood +in her veins--that the father had absconded, and that the mother had +died a drunkard in the Philadelphia hospital, and that the infant +had been kindly received and _brought up in a colored family_. Hence +the attempt to make a slave of her. In the spring of 1839, a colored +man was arrested in Philadelphia, on a charge of having absconded +from his owner _twenty-three_ years before. This man had a wife and +family depending upon him, and a home where he enjoyed their society; +and yet, unless he could find witnesses who could prove his freedom +for more than this number of years, he was to be torn from his wife, +his children, his home, and doomed for the remainder of his days to +toil under the lash. _Four_ witnesses for the claimant swore to his +identity, although they had not seen him before for twenty-three years! +By a most extraordinary coincidence, a New England Captain, with +whom this negro had sailed _twenty-nine_ years before, in a sloop +from Nantucket, happened at this very time to be confined for debt +in the same prison with the alleged slave, and the Captain's +testimony, together with that of some other witnesses, who had +known the man previous to his pretended elopement, so fully +established his freedom, that the Court discharged him. + +Another mode of legal kidnapping still remains to be described. By +the Federal Constitution, fugitives from _justice_ are to be +delivered up, and under this constitutional provision, a free negro +may be converted into a slave without troubling even a Justice of +the Peace to hear the evidence of the captor's claim. A fugitive +slave is, of course, a felon--he not only steals himself, but also +the rags on his back which belong to his master. It is understood he +has taken refuge in New York, and his master naturally wishes to +recover him with as little noise, trouble, and delay as possible. +The way is simple and easy. Let the Grand Jury indict A.B. for +stealing wearing apparel, and let the indictment, with an affidavit +of the criminal's flight, be forwarded by the Governor of the State, +to his Excellency of New York, with a requisition for the delivery +of A.B., to the agent appointed to receive him. A warrant is, of +course, issued to "any Constable of the State of New York," to +arrest A.B. For what purpose?--to bring him before a magistrate +where his identity may be established?--no, but to deliver him up to +the foreign agent. Hence, the Constable may pick up the first likely +negro he finds in the street, and ship him to the south; and should +it be found, on his arrival on the plantation, that the wrong man +has come, it will also probably be found that the mistake is of no +consequence to the planter. A few years since, the Governor of New +York signed a warrant for the apprehension of 17 Virginia negroes, +as fugitives from justice.[103] Under this warrant, a man who had +lived in the neighborhood for three years, and had a wife and +children, and who claimed to be free, was seized, on a Sunday evening, +in the public highway, in West Chester County, N.Y., and without +being permitted to take leave of his family, was instantly +hand-cuffed, thrown into a carriage, and hurried to New York, and +the next morning was on his voyage to Virginia. + +[Footnote 103: There is no evidence that he knew they were negroes; +or that he acted otherwise than in perfect good faith. The alleged +crime was stealing a boat. The _real_ crime, it is said, was +stealing themselves and escaping in a boat. The most horrible abuses +of these warrants can only be prevented by requiring proof of +identity before delivery.] + +Free colored men are converted into slaves not only by law, but also +contrary to law. It is, of course, difficult to estimate the extent +to which illegal kidnapping is carried, since a large number of +cases must escape detection. In a work published by Judge Stroud, of +Philadelphia, in 1827, he states, that it had been _ascertained_ +that more than _thirty_ free colored persons, mostly children, had +been kidnapped in that city within the last two years.[104] + +[Footnote 104: Stroud's Sketch of the Slave Laws, p. 94.] + + + +10. SUBJECTION TO INSULT AND OUTRAGE. + +The feeling of the community towards these people, and the contempt +with which they are treated, are indicated by the following notice, +lately published by the proprietors of a menagerie, in New York. +"The proprietors wish it to be understood, that people of color are +not permitted to enter, _except when in attendance upon children and +families_." For two shillings, any white scavenger would be freely +admitted, and so would negroes, provided they came in a capacity +that marked their dependence--their presence is offensive, _only_ +when they come as independent spectators, gratifying a laudable +curiosity. + +Even death, the great leveller, is not permitted to obliterate, among +Christians, the distinction of caste, or to rescue the lifeless form +of the colored man from the insults of his white brethren. In the +porch of a Presbyterian Church, in Philadelphia, in 1837, was +suspended a card, containing the form of a deed, to be given to +purchasers of lots in a certain burial ground, and to enhance the +value of the property, and to entice buyers, the following clause was +inserted, "No person of _color_, nor any one who has been the +subject of _execution_, shall be interred in said lot." + +Our colored fellow-citizens, like others, are occasionally called to +pass from one place to another; and in doing so are compelled to +submit to innumerable hardships and indignities. They are frequently +denied seats in our stage coaches; and although admitted upon the +_decks_ of our steam boats, are almost universally excluded from +the cabins. Even women have been forced, in cold weather, to pass +the night upon deck, and in one instance the wife of a colored +clergyman lost her life in consequence of such an exposure. + +The contempt poured upon these people by our laws, our churches, our +seminaries, our professions, naturally invokes upon their heads the +fierce wrath of vulgar malignity. In order to exhibit the actual +condition of this portion of our population, we will here insert +some _samples_ of the outrages to which they are subjected, taken +from the ordinary public journals. + +In an account of the New York riots of 1834, the _Commercial +Advertiser_ says--"About twenty poor African (native American) +families, have had their all destroyed, and have neither bed, +clothing, nor food remaining. Their houses are completely eviscerated, +their furniture a wreck, and the ruined and disconsolate tenants of +the devoted houses are reduced to the necessity of applying to the +corporation for bread." + +The example set in New York was zealously followed in Philadelphia. +"Some arrangement, it appears, existed between the mob and the white +inhabitants, as the dwelling houses of the latter, contiguous to the +residences of the blacks, were illuminated and left undisturbed, +while the huts of the negroes were singled out with unerring +certainty. The furniture found in these houses was generally broken +up and destroyed--beds ripped open and their contents scattered in +the streets.... The number of houses assailed was not less than +twenty. In one house there was a _corpse, which was thrown from the +coffin, and in another a dead infant was taken out of the bed, and +cast on the floor, the mother being at the same time barbarously +treated_."--_Philadelphia Gazette_. + +"No case is reported of an attack having been _invited_ or _provoked_ +by the residents of the dwellings assailed or destroyed. The extent +of the depredations committed on the _three_ evenings of riot and +outrage can only be judged of by the number of houses damaged or +destroyed. So far as ascertained, this amounts to FORTY-FIVE. One of +the houses assaulted was occupied by an unfortunate cripple--who, +unable to fly from the fury of the mob, was so beaten by some of the +ruffians, that he has since died in consequence of the bruises and +wounds inflicted ... For the last two days the Jersey steam boats +have been loaded with numbers of the colored population, who, +fearful their lives were not safe in this, determined to seek refuge +in another State. On the Jersey side, tents were erected, and the +negroes have taken up a temporary residence, until a prospect shall +be offered for their perpetual location in some place of security +and liberty."--_National Gazette_. + +The facts we have now exhibited, abundantly prove the extreme +cruelty and sinfulness of that prejudice against color which we are +impiously told is an ORDINATION OF PROVIDENCE. Colonizationists, +assuming the prejudice to be natural and invincible, propose to +remove its victims beyond its influence. Abolitionists, on the +contrary, remembering with the Psalmist, that "It is HE that hath +made us, and not we ourselves," believe that the benevolent Father +of us all requires us to treat with justice and kindness every +portion of the human family, notwithstanding any particular +organization he has been pleased to impress upon them. Instead, +therefore, of gratifying and fostering this prejudice, by +continually banishing from our country those against whom it is +directed, Abolitionists are anxious to destroy the prejudice itself; +feeling, to use the language of another, that--"It is time to +recognize in the humblest portions of society, partakers of our +nature with all its high prerogatives and awful destinies--time to +remember that our distinctions are _exterior_ and evanescent, our +resemblance real and permanent--that all is transient but what is +moral and spiritual--that the only graces we can carry with us into +another world, are graces of divine implantation, and that amid the +rude incrustations of poverty and ignorance there lurks an +imperishable jewel--a SOUL, susceptible of the highest spiritual +beauty, destined, perhaps, to adorn the celestial abodes, and to +shine for ever in the mediatorial diadem of the Son of God--_Take +heed that ye despise not one of these little ones_." + + + + +No. 13. + +THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. + + * * * * * +CAN ABOLITIONISTS VOTE OR TAKE OFFICE UNDER +THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? + +"The preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of slavery +is the vital and animating spirit of the National Government." + +NEW YORK: +AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, +142 NASSAU STREET + +1815. + + + + + +INTRODUCTION. + +The American Anti-Slavery Society, at its Annual Meeting in May, 1844, +adopted the following Resolution: + +_Resolved_, That secession from the present United States +government is the duty of every abolitionist; since no one can take +office, or throw a vote for another to hold office, under the United +States Constitution, without violating his anti-slavery principles, +and rendering himself an abettor of the slaveholder in his sin. + +The passage of this Resolution has caused two charges to be brought +against the Society: _First_, that it is a _no-government_ body, +and that the whole doctrine of non-resistance is endorsed by this +vote:--and _secondly_, that the Society transcended its proper +sphere and constitutional powers by taking such a step. + +The logic which infers that because a man thinks the Federal +Government bad, he must necessarily think _all_ government so, has +at least, the merit and the charm of novelty. There is a spice of +arrogance just perceptible, in the conclusion that the Constitution +of these United States is so perfect, that one who dislikes it could +never be satisfied with any form of government whatever! + +Were O'Connell and his fellow Catholics non-resistants, because for +two hundred years they submitted to exclusion from the House of +Lords and the House of Commons, rather than qualify themselves for a +seat by an oath abjuring the Pope? Were the _non-juring_ Bishops of +England non-resistants, when they went down to the grave without +taking their seats in the House of Lords, rather than take an oath +denying the Stuarts and to support the House of Hanover? Both might +have purchased power at the price of one annual falsehood. There are +some in this country who do not seem to think that price at all +unreasonable. It were a rare compliment indeed to the non-resistants, +if every exhibition of rigid principle on the part of an individual +is to make the world suspect him of leaning towards their faith. + +The Society is not opposed to government, but only to _this_ +Government based upon and acting for slavery. + +With regard to the second charge, of exceeding its proper limits and +trespassing on the rights of the minority, it is enough to say, that +the object of the American Anti-Slavery Society is the "entire +abolition of slavery in the United States." Of course it is its duty +to find out all the sources of pro-slavery influence in the land. It +is its right, it is its duty to try every institution in the land, +no matter how venerable, or sacred, by the touchstone of +anti-slavery principle; and if it finds any one false, to proclaim +that fact to the world, with more or less of energy, according to +its importance in society. It has tried the Constitution, and +pronounced it unsound. + +No member's conscience need be injured--The qualification for +membership remains the same, "the belief that slave-holding is a +heinous crime"--No new test has been set up--But the majority of the +Society, for the time being, faithful to its duty of trying every +institution by the light of the present day--of uttering its opinion +on every passing event that touches the slave's welfare, has seen it +to be duty to sound forth its warning, + + +NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS. + +No one who did not vote for the Resolution is responsible for it. No +one is asked to quit our platform. We, the majority, only ask him to +extend to our opinions the same toleration that we extend to him, +and agreeing to differ on this point, work together where we can. We +proscribe no man for difference of opinion. + +It is said, that having refused in 1840, to say that a man _ought to +vote_, on the ground that such a resolution would be tyrannical and +intolerant, the Society is manifestly inconsistent now in taking +upon itself to say that no abolitionist _can_ consistently vote. But +the inconsistency is only apparent and not real. + +There may he a thousand reasons why a particular individual ought +not to do an act, though the act be innocent in itself. It would be +tyranny therefore in a society which can properly take notice of but +one subject, slavery, to promulgate the doctrine that all its +members ought to do any particular act, as for instance, to vote, to +give money, to lecture, to petition, or the like. The particular +circumstances and opinions of each one must regulate his actions. +All we have a right to ask is, that he do for the slave's cause as +much as he does for any other of equal importance. But when an act +is wrong, it is no intolerance to say to the whole world that it +ought _not to be done_. After the abolitionist has granted that +slavery is wrong, we have the right to judge him by his own +principles, and arraign him for inconsistency that, so believing, he +helps the slaveholder by his oath. + +The following pages have been hastily thrown together in explanation +of the vote above recited. They make no pretension to a full +argument of the topic. I hope that in a short time I shall get +leisure sufficient to present to our opponents, unless some one does +it for me, a full statement of the reasons which have led us to this +step. + +I am aware that we non-voters are rather singular. But history, from +the earliest Christians downwards, is full of instances of men who +refused all connection with government, and all the influence which +office could bestow, rather than deny their principles, or aid in +doing wrong. Yet I never heard them called either idiots or +over-scrupulous. Sir Thomas More need never have mounted the scaffold, +had he only consented to take the oath of supremacy. He had only to +tell a lie with solemnity, as we are asked to do, and he might not +only have saved his life, but, as the trimmers of his day would have +told him, doubled his influence. Pitt resigned his place as Prime +Minister of England, rather than break faith with the Catholics of +Ireland. Should I not resign a petty ballot rather than break faith +with the slave? But I was specially glad to find a distinct +recognition of the principle upon which we have acted, applied to a +different point, in the life of that Patriarch of the Anti-Slavery +enterprise, Granville Sharpe. It is in a late number of the +Edinburgh Review. While an underclerk in the War Office, he +sympathized with our fathers in their struggle for independence. +"Orders reached his office to ship munitions of war to the revolted +colonies. If his hand had entered the account of such a cargo, it +would have contracted in his eyes the stain of innocent blood. To +avoid this pollution, he resigned his place and his means of +subsistence at a period of life when be could no longer hope to find +any other lucrative employment." As the thoughtful clerk of the War +Office takes his hat down from the peg where it has used to hang for +twenty years, methinks I hear one of our opponents cry out, +"Friend Sharpe, you are absurdly scrupulous." "You may innocently +aid Government in doing wrong," adds another. While Liberty Party +yelps at his heels, "My dear Sir, you are quite losing your influence!" +And indeed it is melancholy to reflect how, from that moment the +mighty underclerk of the War Office(!) dwindled into the mere +Granville Sharpe of history! the man of whom Mansfield and Hargrave +were content to learn law, and Wilberforce, philanthropy. + +One friend proposes to vote for men who shall be pledged not to take +office unless the oath to the Constitution is dispensed with, and +who shall then go on to perform in their offices only such duties as +we, their constituents, approve. He cites, in support of his view, +the election of O'Connell to the House of Commons, in 1828, I believe, +just one year before the "Oath of Supremacy," which was the +objectionable one to the Catholics, was dispensed with. Now, if we +stood in the same circumstances as the Catholics did in 1828, the +example would be in point. When the public mind is thoroughly +revolutionized, and ready for the change, when the billow has +reached its height and begins to crest into foam, then such a +measure may bring matters to a crisis. But let us first go through, +in patience, as O'Connell did, our twenty years of agitation. +Waiving all other objections, this plan seems to me mere playing at +politics, and an entire waste of effort. + +It loses our high position as moral reformers; it subjects us to all +that malignant opposition and suspicion of motives which attend the +array of parties; and while thus closing up our access to the +national conscience, it wastes in fruitless caucussing and party +tactics, the time and the effort which should have been directed to +efficient agitation. + +The history of our Union is lesson enough, for every candid mind, of +the fatal effects of every, the least, compromise with evil. The +experience of the fifty years passed under it, shows us the slaves +trebling in numbers;--slaveholders monopolizing the offices and +dictating the policy of the Government;--prostituting the strength +and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and +elsewhere;--trampling on the rights of the free States, and making +the courts of the country their tools. To continue this disastrous +alliance longer is madness. The trial of fifty years only proves +that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, +without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the +sin of slavery. Why prolong the experiment? Let every honest man +join in the outcry of the American Anti-Slavery Society, + + +NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS. + +WENDELL PHILLIPS. + +_Boston, Jan_. 15, 1845. + + + + +THE NO-VOTING THEORY. + + +"God never made a CITIZEN, and no one will escape as a man, from the +sins which he commits as a citizen." + + +Can an abolitionist consistently take office, or vote, under the +Constitution of the United States? + +1st. What is an abolitionist? + +One who thinks slaveholding a sin in all circumstances, and desires +its abolition. Of course such an one cannot consistently aid another +in holding his slave;--in other words, I cannot innocently aid a man +in doing that which I think wrong. No amount of fancied good will +justify me in joining another in doing wrong, unless I adopt the +principle "of doing evil that good may come." + +2d. What do taking office and voting under the Constitution imply? + +The President swears "to execute the office of president," and +"to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United +States." The judges "to discharge the duties incumbent upon them +agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States." + +All executive, legislative, and judicial officers, both of the +several States and of the General Government, before entering on the +performance of their official duties, are bound to take an oath or +affirmation, "_to support the Constitution of the United States_." +This is what every office-holder expressly _promises in so many +words_. It is a contract between him and the _whole nation_. The +voter, who, by voting, sends his fellow citizen into office as his +representative, knowing beforehand that the taking of this oath is +the first duty his agent will have to perform, does by his vote, +request and authorize him to take it. He therefore, by voting, +impliedly engages to support the Constitution. What one does by his +agent he does himself. Of course no honest man will authorize and +request another to do an act which he thinks it wrong to do himself! +Every voter, therefore, is bound to see, _before voting_, whether he +could himself honestly swear to _support_ the constitution. Now what +does this oath of office-holders relate to and imply? "It applies," +says Chief Justice Marshall, "in an especial manner, to their conduct +in their official character." Judge Story, in his Commentaries on the +Constitution, speaks of it as "a solemn obligation to the due +execution of the trusts reposed in them, and to support the +Constitution." It is universally considered throughout the country, +by common men and by the courts, as a promise to do what the +Constitution bids, and to avoid what it forbids. It was in the +spirit of this oath, under which he spake, that Daniel Webster said +in New York, "The Constitution gave it (slavery) SOLEMN GUARANTIES. +To the full extent of these guaranties we are all bound by the +Constitution. All the stipulations contained in the Constitution in +favor of the slaveholding States ought to be fulfilled; and so far +as depends on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fulness of their spirit +and to the exactness of their letter." + +It is more than an oath of allegiance; more than a mere promise that +we will not resist the laws. For it is an engagement to "support them"; +as an _officer_ of government, to carry them into effect. Without +such a promise on the part of its functionaries, how could +government exist? It is more than the expression of that obligation +which rests on all peaceable citizens to _submit_ to laws, even +though they will not actively _support_ them. For it is the promise +which the judge makes, that he will actually _do_ the business of +the courts; which the sheriff assumes, that he will actually _execute_ +the laws. + +Let it be remarked, that it is an oath to support _the_ +Constitution--that is, _the whole of it_; there are no exceptions. +And let it be remembered, that by it each _one_ makes a contract +with the _whole_ nation, that he will do certain acts. + +3d. What is the Constitution which each voter thus engages to support? + +It contains the following clauses: + +Art. 1, Sect. 2. Representatives and direct taxes shall be +apportioned among the several States, which may be included within +this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be +determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including +those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians +not taxed, _three fifths of all other persons_. + +Art. 1, Sect. 8. Congress shall have power ... to suppress +insurrections. + +Art. 4, Sec. 2. 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. + +Art. 4, Sect. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in +this Union a republican form of government; and shall protect each +of them against invasion; and, on application of the legislature, or +of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened) _against +domestic violence_. + +The first of these clauses, relating to representation, gives to +10,000 inhabitants of Carolina equal weight in the government with +40,000 inhabitants of Massachusetts, provided they are rich enough +to hold 50,000 slaves:--and accordingly confers on a slaveholding +community additional political power for every slave held among them, +thus tempting them to continue to uphold the system. + +Its result has been, in the language of John Quincy Adams, "to make +the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of slavery the vital +and animating spirit of the National Government;" and again, to +enable "a knot of slaveholders to give the law and prescribe the +policy of the country." So that "since 1830 slavery, slaveholding, +slavebreeding, and slavetrading have formed the whole foundation of +the policy of the Federal Government." The second and the last +articles relating to insurrection and domestic violence, perfectly +innocent in themselves--yet being made with the fact directly in +view that slavery exists among us, do deliberately pledge the whole +national force against the unhappy slave if he imitate our fathers +and resist oppression--thus making us partners in the guilt of +sustaining slavery: the third is a promise, on the part of the whole +North, to return fugitive slaves to their masters; a deed which +God's law expressly condemns, and which every noble feeling of our +nature repudiates with loathing and contempt. + +These are the clauses which the abolitionist, by voting or taking +office, engages to uphold. While he considers slaveholding to be sin, +he still rewards the master with additional political power for +every additional slave that he can purchase. Thinking slaveholding +to be sin, he pledges to the master the aid of the whole army and +navy of the nation to reduce his slave again to chains, should he at +any time succeed a moment in throwing them off. Thinking +slaveholding to be sin, he goes on, year after year, appointing by +his vote judges and marshals to aid in hunting up the fugitives, and +seeing that they are delivered back to those who claim them! How +beautifully consistent are his _principles_ and his _promises_! + + + +OBJECTIONS. + + +OBJECTION I. + +Allowing that the clause relating to representation and that relating +to insurrections are immoral, it is contended that the article which +orders the return of fugitive slaves was not meant to apply to slaves, +but has been misconstrued and misapplied! + +ANSWER. The meaning of the other two clauses, settled as it has been +by the unbroken practice and cheerful acquiescence of the Government +and people, no one has attempted to deny. This also has the same +length of practice, and the same acquiescence, to show that it +relates to slaves. No one denies that the Government and Courts have +so construed it, and that the great body of the people have freely +concurred in and supported this construction. And further, "The +Madison Papers" (containing the debates of those who framed the +Constitution, at the time it was made) settle beyond all doubt what +meaning the framers intended to convey. + +Look at the following extracts from those Papers: + + _Tuesday, August 28th_, 1787. + + Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney moved to require "fugitive slaves and + servants to be delivered up like criminals." + + Mr. Wilson. This would oblige the Executive of the State to do it, + at the public expense. + + Mr. Sherman saw no more propriety in the public seizing and + surrendering a slave or servant, than a horse. + + Mr. Butler withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular + provision might be made, apart from this article. + + Article 15, as amended, was then agreed to, _nem. con._--Madison + papers, pp. 1447-8. + + _Wednesday, August_ 29, 1787. + + Mr. Butler moved to insert after Article 15, "If any person bound to + service or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into + another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service + or labor, in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State + to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly + claiming their service or labor,"--which was agreed to, _nem. + con._--p. 1456. + +And again, after the wording of the above article had been slightly +changed, and the clause newly numbered, as in the present +Constitution, we find another statement most clearly showing to what +subject the whole was intended to refer: + + _Saturday, September_ 15, 1787. + + Article 4, Section 2, (the third paragraph,) the term "legally" was + struck out; and the words, "under the laws thereof," inserted after + the word "State," in compliance with the wish of some who thought + the term legal equivocal, and favoring the idea that SLAVERY was + _legal_ in a moral view.--p. 1589. + +Is it not hence evident that SLAVERY was the subject referred to by +the whole article? + +The debates of the Convention held in the several States to ratify +the Constitution, at the same time show clearly what meaning it was +thought the framers had conveyed:--In Virginia Mr. Madison said, + + Another clause secures to us that property which we now possess. At + present, if any slave elopes to any of those States where slaves are + free, he becomes emancipated by their laws. For the laws of the + States are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this + Constitution, "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." This clause was expressly inserted to + enable owners of slaves to reclaim them. This is a better security + than any that now exists. + +Patrick Henry, in reply observed, + + The clause which had been adduced by the gentleman was no more than + this--that a runaway negro could be taken up in Maryland or New + York. + +Governor Randolph said, + + But another clause of the Constitution proves the absurdity of the + supposition. The words of the clause are, "No person held to service + or labor in one State," &c. Every one knows that slaves are held to + service and labor. If a citizen of this State, in consequence of + this clause, can take his runaway slave in Maryland, &c. + +General Pinckney in South Carolina Convention observed, + + "We have obtained a right to recover our slaves, in whatever part of + America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before." + +In North Carolina, Mr. Iredell + + Begged leave to explain the reason of this clause. In some of the + Northern States, they have emancipated all their slaves. If any of + our slaves, said he, go there and remain there a certain time, they + would, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, so that + their masters could not get them again. This would be extremely + prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States, and to + prevent it, this clause is inserted in the Constitution. Though the + word _slave_ be not mentioned, this is the meaning of it. The + Northern delegates, owing to their particular scruples on the + subject of slavery, did not choose the word _slave_ to be mentioned. + +But even if TWO clauses are immoral that is enough for our purpose, +and shews that no honest man should engage to uphold them. Who has +the right to construe and expound the laws? Of course the Courts of +the Nation. The Constitution provides (Article 3, Section 2,) that +the Supreme Court shall be the final and only interpreter of its +meaning. What says the Supreme Court? That this clause does relate +to slaves, and order their return. All the other courts concur in +this opinion. But, say some, the courts are corrupt on this question. +Let us appeal to the people. Nine hundred and ninety-nine out of +every thousand answer, that the courts have construed it rightly, +and almost as many cheerfully support it. If the unanimous, +concurrent, unbroken practice of every department of the Government, +judicial, legislative, and executive, and the acquiescence of the +people for fifty years, do not prove which is the true construction, +then how and where can such a question ever be settled? If the +people and the courts of the land do not know what they themselves +mean, who has authority to settle their meaning for them? + +If the Constitution is not what history, unbroken practice, and the +courts prove that our fathers intended to make it, and what too, +their descendants, this nation say they did make it, and agree to +uphold,--who shall decide what the Constitution is? + +This is the sense then in which the Nation understand that the +promise is made to them. The Nation _understand_ that the judge +pledges himself to return fugitive slaves. The judge knows this when +he takes the oath. And Paley expresses the opinion of all writers on +morals, as well as the conviction of all honest men, when he says, +"that a promise is binding in that sense in which the promiser +thought at the time that the other party understood it." + + +OBJECTION II. + +A promise to do an immoral act is not binding: therefore an oath to +support the Constitution of the United States, does not bind one to +support any provisions of that instrument which are repugnant to his +ideas of right. And an abolitionist, thinking it wrong to return +slaves, may as an office-holder, innocently and properly take an +oath to support a Constitution which commands such return. + +ANSWER. Observe that this objection allows the Constitution to be +pro-slavery, and admits that there are clauses in it which no +abolitionist ought to carry out or support. + +And observe, further, that we all agree, that a bad promise is +better broken than kept--that every abolitionist, who has before now +taken the oath to the Constitution, is bound to break it, and +disobey the pro-slavery clauses of that instrument. So far there is +no difference between us. But the point in dispute now is, whether a +man, having found out that certain requirements of the Constitution +are wrong, can, after that, innocently swear to support and obey them, +_all the while meaning not to do so_. + +Now I contend that such loose construction of our promises is +contrary alike to honor, to fair dealing, and to truthfulness--that +it tends to destroy utterly that confidence between man and man +which binds society together, and leads, in matters of government, +to absolute tyranny. + +The Constitution is a series of contracts made by each individual +with every other of the fourteen millions. A man's oath is evidence +of his assent to this contract. If I offer a man the copy of an +agreement, and he, after reading, swears to perform it, have I not a +right to infer from his oath that he assents to the _rightfulness_ +of the articles of that paper? What more solemn form of expressing +his assent could he select? A man's oath expresses his conviction of +the rightfulness of the actions he promises to do, as well as his +determination to do them. If this be not so, I can have no trust in +any man's word. He may take my money, promise to do what I wish in +return, and yet, keeping my money, tell me, on the morrow, that he +shall not keep his promise, and never meant to, because the act, his +conscience tells him, is wrong. Who would trust property to such men, +or such maxims in the common affairs of life? Shall we not be as +honest in the Senate House as on 'Change? The North makes a contract +with the South by which she receives certain benefits, and agrees to +render certain services. The benefits she carefully keeps--but the +services she refuses to render, because immoral contracts are not +binding! Is this fair dealing? It is the rule alike of law and +common sense, that if we are not able, from _any cause_, to furnish +the article we have agreed to, we ought to return the pay we have +received. If power is put into our hands on certain conditions, and +we find ourselves unable to comply with those conditions, we ought +to surrender the power back to those who gave it. + +Immoral laws are doubtless void, and should not be obeyed. But the +question is here, whether one knowing a law to be immoral, may +innocently promise to obey it in order to get into office? The +people have settled the conditions on which one may take office. The +first is, that he assent to their Constitution. Is it honest to +accept power with the intention at the time of not keeping the +conditions?--The rightfulness of those conditions is not here the +question. + + +OBJECTION III. + +I swear to support the Constitution, _as I understand it_. Certain +parts of it, in my opinion, contradict others and are therefore void. + +ANSWER. Will any one take the title deed of his house and carry it +to the man he bought of, and let him keep the covenants of that +paper as he says "he understands them?" Do we not all recognize the +justice of having some third, disinterested party to judge between +two disputants about the meaning of contracts? Who ever heard of a +contract of which each party was at liberty to keep as much as he +thought proper? + +As in all other contracts, so in that of the Constitution, there is +a power provided to affix the proper construction to the instrument, +and that construction both parties are bound to abide by, or +repudiate the _whole_ contract. That power is the Supreme Court of +the United States. + +Do we seek the common sense, practical view of this question? Go to +the Exchange and ask any broker how many dollars he will trust any +man with, who avows his right to make promises with the design, at +the time, of breaking some parts, and not feeling called upon to +state which those parts will be? + +Do you seek the moral view of the point, which philosophers have +taken? Paley says, "A promise is binding in that sense in which the +promiser thought at the time of making that the other party +understood it." Is there any doubt what meaning the great body of +the American people attach to the Constitution and the official oath? +They are that party to whom the promise is made. + +But, say some, our lives are notice to the whole people what meaning +we attach to the oath, and we will protest when we swear, that we do +not include in our oath the pro-slavery clauses. You may as well +utter the protest now, as when you are swearing--or at home, equally +as well as within the State House. For no such protest can be of any +avail. The Chief Justice stands up to administer to me the oath of +some office, no matter which. "Sir," say I, "I must take that oath +with a qualification, excluding certain clauses." His reply will be, +"Sir, I have no discretion in this matter. I am here merely to +administer a prescribed form of oath. If you assent to it, you are +qualified for your station. If you do not, you cannot enter. I have +no authority given me to listen to exceptions. I am a servant--the +people are my masters--here is what they require that you support, +not this or that part of the Constitution, but '_the Constitution_,' +that is, the _whole_." + +Baffled here, I turn to the people. I publish my opinions in +newspapers. I proclaim them at conventions, I spread them through +the country on the wings of a thousand presses. Does this avail me? +Yes, says Liberty party, if after this, men choose to vote for you, +it is evident they mean you shall take the oath as you have given +notice that you understand it. + +Well, the voters in Boston, with this understanding, elect me to +Congress, and I proceed to Washington. But here arises a +difficulty,--my constituents at home have assented--but when I get +to Congress, I find I am not the representative of Boston only, but +of the whole country. The interests of Carolina are committed to my +hands as well as those of Massachusetts; I find that the contract I +made by my oath was not with Boston, but with the whole nation. It +is the _nation_ that gives me the power to declare war and make +peace--to lay taxes on cotton, and control the commerce of New +Orleans. The nation prescribed the conditions in 1789, when the +Constitution was settled, and though Boston may be willing to accept +me on other terms, Carolina is not willing. Boston has accepted my +protest, and says, "Take office." Carolina says, "The oath you swear +is sworn to me, as well as to the rest--I demand the whole bond." +In other words, when I have made my protest, what evidence is there +that _the nation_, the other party to the contract, assents to it? +There can be none until that nation amends its Constitution. +Massachusetts when she accepted that Constitution, bound herself to +send only such men as could swear to return slaves. If by an underhand +compromise with some of her citizens, she sends persons of other +sentiments, she is perjured, and any one who goes on such an errand +is a partner in the perjury. Massachusetts has no right to assent to +my protest--she has no right to send representatives, except on +certain conditions. She cannot vary those conditions, without +leave from those whose interests are to be affected by the change, +that is, the whole nation. Those conditions are written down in the +Constitution. Do she and South Carolina differ, as to the meaning? +The Court will decide for them. + +But, says the objector, do you mean to say that I swear to support +the Constitution, not as I understand it, but as some judge +understands it? Yes, I do--otherwise there is no such thing as law. +This right of private judgment, for which he contends, exists in +religion--but not in Government. Law is a rule _prescribed_. The +party prescribing must have the right to construe his own rule, +otherwise there would be as many laws as there are individual +consciences. Statutes would be but recommendations if every man was +at liberty to understand and obey them as he thought proper. But I +need not argue this. The absurdity of a Government that has no right +to govern--and of laws which have no fixed meaning--but which each +man construes to mean what he pleases and obeys accordingly--must be +evident to every one. + +What more power did the most despotic of the English Stuarts ask, +than the right, after having sworn to laws, to break such as their +consciences disapproved? It is the essence of tyranny. + +What is the Constitution of the United States? In good old fashioned +times we thought we knew, when we had read it and listened to the +court's exposition. But we have improved upon that. The Liberty +party man says, it is for him "what he understands it." John C. +Calhoun, of course, has the same right, and instead of "Liberty +regulated by law," we have liberty regulated by fourteen millions of +understandings! + +The Liberty party man takes office on conditions, which, he says, +are not binding upon him. He gives us notice that he shall use the +power as he thinks right, without any regard to these conditions of +his oath. Well, if this is law, it is good for all. John C. Calhoun +can of course take office with the same broad liberty, and swear to +support the Constitution "as _he_ understands it." He has told us +often what that "understanding" is--"to sustain Slavery." Of course +having made this public, if, after that, Carolina sends him, +according to Liberty party logic, it is evidence that Massachusetts +assents to his "understanding," and accepts his oath with that +meaning! Why I thought I had fathomed the pro-slavery depths of the +Constitution when I read over all its wicked clauses--but that is +skimming only the surface, if the Constitution allows every man, to +whom it commits power to use it, as he chooses to "understand" the +conditions, and not as the nation understands them. If with this +right, Abolitionists may take office and help Liberty, we must +remember that by the same rule, slaveholders may take office and +lawfully use all their power to help Slavery. If this be so, how +absurd to keep crying out of this and the other thing it is +"unconstitutional." + +Away with such logic! If we have a Constitution, let us remember +Jefferson's advice, and not make it "waste paper by construction." +The man who tampers thus with the sacred obligation of an +oath,--swears, and Jesuit like, keeps "reserved meanings" in his own +breast,--does more harm to society by loosening the foundations of +morals, than he would do good, did his one falsehood free every +slave from the Potomac to the Del Norte. + + +OBJECTION IV. + +"The oath does not mean that I will positively do what I swear to do, +but only that I will do it, _or submit_ to the penalty the law awards. +If my actions in office don't suit the nation, let them impeach me." + +ANSWER. That is, John Tyler may, without consulting Congress, plunge +us into war with Mexico--incur fifty millions of public debt--lose a +hundred thousand lives--and the _sufficient recompense_ to this +nation will be to impeach John Tyler, Esq., and send him home to his +slaves! These are the wise safeguards of Constitutional liberty! He +has faithfully kept it "as he understands it." What is a Russian +slave? One who holds life, property, and all, at the mercy of the +Czar's idea of right. Does not this description of the power every +officer has here, under our Constitution, reduce Americans to the +same condition? + +But, is it true that the bearing of the penalty is an excuse for +breach of our official oaths? + +The Judge who, in questions of divorce, has trifled with the +sanctity of the marriage tie--who, in matters of property has +decided unjustly, and taken bribes--in capital cases has so dealt +judgment as to send innocent men to the gallows--may cry out, +"If you don't like me, impeach me." But will impeachment restore the +dead to life, or the husband to his defamed wife? Would the community +consider his submission to impeachment as equivalent to the keeping +of his oath of office, and thenceforward view him as an honest, +truth-speaking, unperjured man? It is idle to suppose so. Yet the +interests committed to some of our officeholders' keeping, are more +important often than even those which a Judge controls. And we must +remember that men's ideas of right always differ. To admit such a +principle into the construction of oaths, if it enable one man to do +much good, will enable scoundrels who creep into office to do much +harm, "according to _their_ consciences." But yet the rule, if it be +admitted, must be universal. Liberty becomes, then, matter of +accident. + + +OBJECTION V. + +I shall resign whenever a case occurs that requires me to aid in +returning a fugitive slave. + +ANSWER. "The office-holder has promised active obedience to the +Constitution in every exigency which it has contemplated and sought +to provide for. If he promised, not meaning to perform in certain +cases, is he not doubly dishonest? Dishonest to his own conscience +in promising to do wrong, and to his fellow-citizens in purposing +from the first to break his oath, as he knew they understood it? If +he had sworn, not regarding anything as immoral which he bound +himself to do, and afterwards found in the oath something against +his conscience of which he was not at first aware, or if by change +of views he had come to deem sinful what before he thought right, +then doubtless, by promptly resigning, he might escape guilt. But is +not the case different, when among the acts promised are some known +at the time to be morally wrong? 'It is a sin to swear unto sin,' +says the poet, although it be, as he truly adds, 'a greater sin to +keep the sinful oath.'" + +The captain has no right to put to sea, and resign when the storm +comes. Besides what supports a wicked government more than good men +taking office under it, even though they secretly determine not to +carry out all its provisions? The slave balancing in his lonely +hovel the chance of escape, knows nothing of your secret reservations, +your future intentions. He sees only the swarming millions at the +North ostensibly sworn to restore him to his master, if he escape a +little way. Perchance it is your false oath, which you don't mean to +keep, that makes him turn from the attempt in despair. He knows you +only--the world knows only by your _actions_, not your _intentions_, +and those side with his master. The prayer which he lifts to Heaven, +in his despair, numbers you rightly among his oppressors. + + +OBJECTION VI. + +I shall only take such an office as brings me into no connection +with slavery. + +ANSWER. Government is a whole; unless each in his circle aids his +next neighbor, the machine will stand still. The Senator does not +himself return the fugitive slave, but he appoints the Marshal, +whose duty it is to do so. The State representative does not himself +appoint the Judge who signs the warrant for the slave's recapture, +but he chooses the United States Senator who does appoint that Judge. +The elector does not himself order out the militia to resist +"domestic violence," but he elects the President, whose duty requires, +that a case occurring, he should do so. + +To suppose that each of these may do that part of his duty that +suits him, and leave the rest undone, is _practical anarchy_. It is +bringing ourselves precisely to that state which the Hebrew describes. +"In those days there was no king in Israel, but each man did what +was right in his own eyes." This is all consistent in us, who hold +that man is to do right, even if anarchy follows. How absurd to set +up such a scheme, and miscall it a _government_,--where nobody +governs, but everybody does as he pleases. + + +OBJECTION VII. + +As men and all their works are imperfect, we may innocently +"support a Government which, along with many blessings, assists in +the perpetration of some wrong." + +ANSWER. As nobody disputes that we may rightly assist the worst +Government in doing good, provided we can do so without at the same +time aiding it in the wrong it perpetrates, this must mean, of course, +that it is right to aid and obey a Government _in doing wrong_, if +we think that, on the whole, the Government effects more good than +harm. Otherwise the whole argument is irrelevant, for this is the +point in dispute; since every office of any consequence under the +United States Constitution has some immediate connection with Slavery. +Let us see to what lengths this principle will carry one. Herod's +servants, then, were right in slaying every child in Bethlehem, from +two years old and under, provided they thought Herod's Government, +on the whole, more a blessing than a curse to Judea! The soldiers of +Charles II. were justified in shooting the Covenanters on the muirs +of Scotland, if they thought his rule was better, on the whole, for +England, than anarchy! According to this theory, the moment the +magic wand of Government touches our vices, they start up into +virtues! But has Government any peculiar character or privilege in +this respect? Oh, no--Government is only an association of +individuals, and the same rules of morality which govern my conduct +in relation to a thousand men, ought to regulate my conduct to any +one. Therefore, I may innocently aid a man in doing wrong, if I +think that, on the whole, he has more virtues than vices. If he +gives bread to the hungry six days in the week, I may rightly help +him, on the seventh, in forging bank notes, or murdering his father! +The principle goes this length, and every length, or it cannot be +proved to exist at all. It ends at last, practically, in the old +maxim, that the subject and the soldier have no right to keep any +conscience, but have only to obey the rulers they serve: for there +are few, if any, Governments this side of Satan's, which could not, +in some sense, be said to do more good than harm. Now I candidly +confess, that I had rather be covered all over with inconsistencies, +in the struggle to keep my hands clean, than settle quietly down on +such a principle as this. It is supposing that we may-- + + "To do a great right, do a little wrong;" + +a rule, which the master poet of human nature has rebuked. It is +doing evil that good may come--a doctrine, of which an Apostle has +pronounced the condemnation. + +And let it be remembered that in dealing with the question of slavery, +we are not dealing with extreme cases. Slavery is no minute evil +which lynx-eyed suspicion has ferreted out. Every sixth man is a +slave. The ermine of justice is stained. The national banner clings +to the flag-staff heavy with blood. "The preservation of slavery," +says our oldest and ablest statesman, "is the vital and animating +_spirit_ of the National Government." + +Surely IF it be true that a man may justifiably stand connected with +a government in which he sees some slight evils--still it is also +true, even then, that governments _may_ sin so atrociously, so +enormously, may make evil so much the _purpose_ of their being, as +to render it the duty of honest men to wash their hands of them. + +I may give money to a friend whose life has some things in it which +I do not fully approve--but when his nights are passed in the brothel, +and his days in drunkenness, when he uses his talents to seduce +others, and his gold to pave their road to ruin, surely the case is +changed. + +I may perhaps sacrifice health by staying awhile in a room rather +overheated, but I shall certainly see it to be my duty to rush out, +when the whole house is in full blaze. + + +OBJECTION VIII. + +God intended that society and governments should exist. We therefore +are bound to support them. He has conferred upon us the rights of +citizenship in this country, and we cannot escape from the +responsibility of exercising them. God made us _citizens_. + +ANSWER. This reminds me of an old story I have heard. When the +Legislature were asked to set off a portion of the town of +Dorchester and call it South Boston, the old minister of the town is +said to have objected, saying, "God made it Dorchester, and +Dorchester it ought to be." + +God made us social beings, it is true, but _society_ is not +necessarily the Constitution of the United States! Because God meant +some form of government should exist, does not at all prove that we +are justified in supporting a wicked one. Man confers the rights and +regulates the duties of citizenship. God never made a _citizen_, and +no one will escape, as a man, from the sins he commits as a citizen. +This is the first time that it has ever been held an excuse for sin +that we "went with the multitude to do evil!" + +Certainly we can be under no _such_ responsibility to become and +remain _citizens_, as will excuse us from the sinful acts which as +such citizens we are called to commit. Does God make obligatory on +his creature the support of institutions which require him to do +acts in themselves wrong? To suppose so, were to confound all the +rules of God's moral kingdom. + +President Wayland has lately been illustrating, and giving his +testimony to the principle, that a combination of men cannot change +the moral character of an act, which is in itself sinful--that the +law of morals is binding the same on communities, corporations, &c. +as on individuals. + +After describing slavery, and saying that to hold a man in such a +state is wrong--he goes on: + + "I will offer but one more supposition. Suppose that any number, for + instance one half of the families in our neighborhood, should by law + enact that the weaker half should be slaves, that we would exercise + over them the authority of masters, prohibit by law their + instruction, and concert among ourselves means for holding them + permanently in their present situation. In what manner would this + alter the moral aspect of the case?" + + A law in this case is merely a determination of one party, in which + all unite, to hold the other party in bondage; and a compact by + which the whole party bind themselves to assist every individual of + themselves to subdue all resistance from the other party, and + guaranteeing to each other that exercise of this power over the + weaker party which they now possess. + + Now I cannot see that this in any respect changes the nature of the + parties. They remain, as before, human beings, possessing the same + intellectual and moral nature, holding the same relations to each + other and to God, and still under the same unchangeable law, Thou + shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. By the act of holding a man in + bondage, this law is violated. Wrong is done, moral evil is + committed. In the former case it was done by the individual; now it + is done by the individual and the society. Before, the individual + was responsible only for his own wrong; now he is responsible both + for his own, and also, as a member of the society, for all the wrong + which the society binds itself to uphold and render perpetual. + + The scriptures frequently allude to the fact, that wrong done by + law, that is by society, is amenable to the same retribution as + wrong done by the individual. Thus, Psalm 94:20-23. 'Shall the + throne of iniquity have fellowship with them which frame mischief by + a law, and gather themselves together against the soul of the + righteous, and condemn the innocent blood? But the Lord is my + defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge. And he shall bring + upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own + wickedness; yea, the Lord our God shall cut them off' So also + Isaiah 10:1-4. 'Wo unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and + that write grievousness which they have prescribed.' &c. Besides, + persecution for the sake of religious opinion is always perpetrated + by law; but this in no manner affects its moral character. + + There is, however, one point of difference, which arises from the + fact that this wrong has been established by law. It becomes a + social wrong. The individual, or those who preceded him, may have + surrendered their individual right over it to the society. In this + case it may happen that the individual cannot act as he might act, + if the law had not been made. In this case the evil can only be + eradicated by changing the opinions of the society, and inducing + them to abolish the law. It will however be apparent that this, as I + said before, does not change the relation of the parties either to + each other or to God. The wrong exists as before. The individual act + is wrong. The law which protects it is wrong. The whole society, in + putting the law into execution, is wrong. Before only the + individual, now, the whole society, becomes the wrong doer, and + for that wrong, both the individuals and the society are held + responsible in the sight of God." + +If such "individual act is wrong," the man who knowingly does it is +surely a sinner. Does God, through society, require men to sin? + + +OBJECTION IX. + +If not being non-resistants, we concede to mankind the right to +frame Governments, which must, from the very nature of man, be more +or less evil, the right or duty to support them, when framed, +necessarily follows. + +ANSWER. I do not think it follows at all. Mankind, that is, any +number of them, have a right to set up such forms of worship as they +see fit, but when they have done so, does it necessarily follow that +I am in duty bound to support any one of them, whether I approve it +or not? Government is precisely like any other voluntary association +of individuals--a temperance or anti-slavery society, a bank or +railroad corporation. I join it, or not, as duty dictates. If a +temperance society exists in the village where I am, that love for +my race which bids me seek its highest good, commands me to join it. +So if a Government is formed in the land where I live, the same +feeling bids me to support it, if I innocently can. This is the +whole length of my duty to Government. From the necessity of the case, +and that constitution of things which God has ordained, it follows +that in any specified district, the majority must rule--hence +results the duty of the minority to submit. But we must carefully +preserve the distinction between _submission_ and _obedience_ +--between _submission_ and _support_. If the majority set up an +immoral Government, I obey those laws which seem to me good, because +they are good--and I submit to all the penalties which my +disobedience of the rest brings on me. This is alike the dictate of +common sense, and the command of Christianity. And it must be the +true doctrine, since any other obliges me to obey the majority if +they command me to commit murder, a rule which even the Tory +Blackstone has denied. Of course for me to do anything I deem wrong, +is the same, in quality, as to commit murder. + + +OBJECTION X. + +But it is said, your theory results in good men leaving government +to the dishonest and wicked. + +ANSWER. Well, if to sustain government we must sacrifice honesty, +government could not be in a more appropriate place, than in the +hands of dishonest men. + +But it by no means follows, that if I go out of government, I leave +nothing but dishonest men behind. An act may be sin to me, which +another may sincerely think right--and if so, let him do it, till he +changes his mind. I leave government in the hands of those whom I do +not think as clear-sighted as myself, but not necessarily in the +hands of the dishonest. Whether it be so in this country now, is not, +at present, the question, but whether it would be so necessarily, in +all cases. The real question is, what is the duty of those who +presume to think that God has given them clearer views of duty than +the bulk of those among whom they live? + +Don't think us conceited in supposing ourselves a little more +enlightened than our neighbors. It is no great thing after all to be a +little better than a lynching--mobocratic--slaveholding--debt +repudiating community. + +What then is the duty of such men? Doubtless to do all they can to +extend to others the light they enjoy. + +Will they best do so by compromising their principles? by letting +their political life give the lie to their life of reform? Who will +have the most influence, he whose life is consistent, or he who says +one thing to-day, and swears another thing to-morrow--who looks one +way and rows another? My object is to let men _understand me_, and I +submit that the body of the Roman people understood better, and felt +more earnestly, the struggle between the people and the princes, +when the little band of democrats _left the city_ and encamped on +_Mons Sacer, outside_, than while they remained mixed up and +voting with their masters, shoulder to shoulder. _Dissolution_ is +our _Mons Sacer_--God grant that it may become equally famous in the +world's history as the spot where the right triumphed. + +It is foolish to suppose that the position of such men, divested of +the glare of official distinction, has no weight with the people. If +it were so, I am still bound to remember that I was not sent into +the world _to have influence_, but to do my duty according to my own +conscience. But it is not so. People do know an honest man when they +see him. (I allow that this is so rare an event now-a-days, as +almost to justify one in supposing they might have forgotten how he +looked.) They will give a man credit, when his life is one manly +testimony to the truthfulness of his lips. Even Liberty party, blind +as she is, has light enough to see that "Consistency is the jewel, +the everything of such a cause as ours." The position of a non-voter, +in a land where the ballot is so much idolized, kindles in every +beholder's bosom something of the warm sympathy which waits on the +persecuted, carries with it all the weight of a disinterested +testimony to truth, and pricks each voter's conscience with an +uneasy doubt, whether after all voting _is_ right. There is +constantly a Mordecai in the gate. + +I admit that we should strive to have a _political_ influence--for +with politics is bound up much of the welfare of the people. But +this objection supposes that the ballot box is the _only_ means of +political influence. Now it is a good thing that every man should +have the right to vote. But it is by no means necessary that every +man should actually vote, in order to influence his times. We by no +means necessarily desert our social duty when we refuse to take +office, or to confer it. Lafayette did better service to the cause +of French liberty when he retired to Lagrange and refused to +acknowledge Napoleon, than he could have done had he stood, for years, +at the tyrant's right hand. From the silence of that chamber there +went forth a voice--from the darkness of that retreat there burst +forth a light; feeble indeed at first, like the struggling beams of +the morning, but destined like them to brighten into perfect day. + +This objection, that we non-voters shall lose all our influence, +confounds the broad distinction between _influence_ and _power_. +_Influence_ every honest man must and will have, in exact +proportion to his honesty and ability. God always annexes influence +to worth. The world, however unwilling, can never get free from the +influence of such a man. This influence the possession of office +cannot give, nor the want of it take away. For the exercise of such +influence as this, man is responsible. _Power_ we buy of our fellow +men at a certain price. Before making the bargain it is our duty to +see that we do not pay "too dear for our whistle." He who buys it at +the price of truth and honor, buys only weakness--and sins beside. + +Of those who go to the utmost verge of honesty in order to reach the +seats of worldly power, and barter a pure conscience for a weighty +name, it may be well said with old Fuller, "They need to have steady +heads who can dive into these gulfs of policy, and come out with a +safe conscience." + + +OBJECTION XI. + +This withdrawing from government is pharisaical--"Shall we, 'weak, +sinful men,'" one says, "perhaps even more sinful than the +slaveholder, cry out, No Union with Slaveholders?" Such a course is +wanting in brotherly kindness. + +ANSWER. Because we refuse to aid a wrong-doer in his sin, we by no +means proclaim, or assume, that we think our _whole character_ +better than his. It is neither pharisaical to have opinions, nor +presumptuous to guide our lives by them. If I have joined with +others in doing wrong, is it either presumptuous or unkind, when my +eyes are opened, to refuse to go any further with them in their +career of guilt? Does love to the thief require me to help him in +stealing? Yet this is all we refuse to do. We will extend to the +slaveholder all the courtesy he will allow. If he is hungry, we will +feed him; if he is in want, both hands shall be stretched out for +his aid. We will give him full credit for all the good that he does, +and our deep sympathy in all the temptations under whose strength he +falls. But to help him in his sin, to remain partners with him in +the slave-trade, is more than he has a right to ask. He would be a +strange preacher who should set out to reform his circle by joining +in all their sins! It is a principle similar to that which the tipsy +Duke of Norfolk acted on, when seeing a drunken friend in the gutter, +he cried out, "My dear fellow, I can't help you out, but I'll do +better, I'll lie down by your side." + + +OBJECTION XII. + +But consider, the abstaining from all share in Government will leave +bad men to have everything their own way--admit Texas--extend +slavery, &c. &c. + +ANSWER. That is no matter of mine. God, the great conservative power +of the Universe, when he established the right, saw to it that it +should always be the safest and best. He never laid upon a poor +finite worm the staggering load of following out into infinity the +complex results of his actions. We may rest on the bosom of +Infinite Wisdom, confident that it is enough for us to do justice, +he will see to it that happiness results. + + +OBJECTION XIII. + +But the same conscientious objection against promising your support +to government, ought to lead you to avoid actually giving your +support to it by paying taxes or sueing in the courts. + +ANSWER. This is what logicians call a _reductio ad absurdum_: an +attempt to prove our principle unsound by showing that, fairly +carried out, it leads to an absurdity. But granting all it asks, it +does not saddle us with any absurdity at all. It is perfectly +possible to live without petitioning, sueing, or holding stocks. +Thousands in this country have lived, died, and been buried, without +doing either. And does it load us with any absurdity to prove that +we shall be obliged to do from principle, what the majority of our +fellow-citizens do from choice? We lawyers may think it is an +absurdity to say a man can't sue, for, like the Apostle at Ephesus, +it touches our "craft," but that don't go far to prove it. Then, as +to taxes, doubtless many cases might be imagined, when every one +would allow it to be our duty to resist the slightest taxation, did +Christianity allow it, with "war to the hilt." If such cases may +ever arise, why may not this be one? + +Until I become an Irishman, no one will ever convince me that I +ought to vote, by proving that I ought not to pay taxes! Suppose +all these difficulties do really encompass us, it will not be +the first time that the doing of one moral duty has revealed a +dozen others which we never thought of. The child has climbed the +hill over his native village, which he thought the end of the world, +and lo! there are mountains beyond! He won't remedy the matter by +creeping back to his cradle and disbelieving in mountains! + +But then, is there any such inconsistency in non-voters sueing and +paying taxes? + +Look at it. A. and B. have agreed on certain laws, and appointed C. +to execute them. A. owes me, who am no party to the contract, a just +debt, which his laws oblige him to pay. Do I acknowledge the +rightfulness of his relation to B. and C. by asking C. to use the +power given him, in my behalf? It appears to me that I do not. I may +surely ask A. to pay me my debt--why not then ask the keeper, whom +he has appointed over himself, to make him do so? + +I am a prisoner among pirates. The mate is abusing me in some way +contrary to their laws. Do I recognize the rightfulness of the +Captain's authority, by asking him to use the power the mate has +consented to give him, to protect me? It seems to me that I do not +necessarily endorse the means by which a man has acquired money or +power, when I ask him to use either in my behalf. + +An alien does not recognize the rightfulness of a government by +living under it. It has always been held that an English subject may +swear allegiance to an usurper and yet not be guilty of treason to +the true king. Because he may innocently acknowledge the king +_de facto_ (the king _in deed_,) without assuming him to be king +_de jure_ (king by _right_.) The distinction itself is as old as +the time of Edward the First. The principle is equally applicable to +suits. It has been universally acted on and allowed. The Catholic, +who shrank from acknowledging the heretical Government of England, +always, I believe, sued in her courts. + +Who could convince a common man, that by sueing in Constantinople or +Timbuctoo, he does an act which makes him responsible for the +character of those governments? + +Then, as for taxes. It is only our voluntary acts for which we are +responsible. And when did government ever trust tax-paying to the +voluntary good will of its subjects? When it does so, I, for one, +will refuse to pay. + +When did any sane man conclude that our Saviour's voluntary payment +of a tax acknowledged the rightfulness of Rome's authority over Judea? + +"The States," says Chief Justice Marshall, "have only not to elect +Senators, and this government expires without a struggle." + +Every November, then, we _create_ the government anew. Now, what +"instinct" will tell a common-sense man, that the act of a +_sovereign_,--voting--which creates a wicked government, is, +_essentially_ the same as the submission of a + _subject_,--tax-paying,--an act done without our consent. It should +be remembered, that we vote as _sovereigns_,--we pay taxes as +_subjects_. Who supposes that the humble tax-payer of Austria, who +does not, perhaps, know in what name the charter of his bondage runs, +is responsible for the doings of Metternich? And what sane man likens +his position to that of the voting sovereign of the United States? +My innocent acts may, through others' malice, result in evil. In that +case, it will be for my best judgment to determine whether to continue +or cease them. They are not thereby rendered essentially sinful. For +instance, I walk out on Sabbath morning. The priest over the way will +exclaim, "Sabbath-breaker," and the infidel will delude his followers, +by telling them I have no regard for Christianity. Still, it will be +for me to settle which, in present circumstances, is best,--to +remain in, and not be misconstrued, or to go out and bear a +testimony against the superstitious keeping of the day. Different +circumstances will dictate different action on such a point. + +I may often be the _occasion_ of evil when I am not responsible for +it. Many innocent acts _occasion_ evil, and in such case all I am +bound to ask myself before doing such _innocent act_, is, "Shall I +occasion, on the whole, more harm or good." There are many cases +where doing a duty even, we shall occasion evil and sin in others. +To save a slaveholder from drowning, when we know he has made a will +freeing his slaves, would put off, perhaps forever, their +emancipation, but of course that is not my fault. This making a man +responsible for all the evil his acts, _incidentally_, without his +will, occasion, reminds me of that principle of Turkish law which +Dr. Clarke mentions, in his travels, and which they call "homicide +by an intermediate cause." The case he relates is this: A young man +in love poisoned himself, because the girl's father refused his +consent to the marriage. The Cadi sentenced the father to pay a fine +of $80, saying "if you had not had a daughter, this young man had +not loved; if he had not loved, he had never been disappointed; if +not disappointed, he would never have taken poison." It was the same +Cadi possibly, who sentenced the island of Samos to pay for the +wrecking of a vessel, on the principle that "if the island had not +been in the way, the vessel would never have been wrecked!" + +Then of taxes on imports. Buying and selling, and carrying from +country to country, is good and innocent. But government, if I trade +here, will take occasion to squeeze money out of me. Very well. I +shall deliberate whether I will cease trading, and deprive them of +the opportunity, or go on and use my wealth to reform them. 'Tis a +question of expediency, not of right, which my judgment, not my +conscience, must settle. An act of mine, innocent in itself, and +done from right motives, no after act of another's can make a sin. +To import, is rightful. After-taxation, against my consent, cannot +make it wrong. Neither am I obliged to smuggle, in order to avoid it. +I include in these remarks, all taxes, whether on property, or +imports, or railroads. + +A chemist, hundreds of years ago, finds out how to temper steel. The +art is useful for making knives, lancets, and machinery. But he +knows that the bad will abuse it by making swords and daggers. Is he +responsible? Certainly not. + +Similar to this is trading in America,--knowing government will thus +have an opportunity to increase its revenue. + +But suppose the chemist to see two men fighting, one has the other +down,--to the first our chemist presents a finely tempered dagger. + +Such is voting under the United States Constitution--appointing an +officer to help the oppressor. + +The difference between voting and tax-paying is simply this: I may do +an act right in itself, though I know some evil will result. Paul was +bound to preach the gospel to the Jews, though he knew some of them +would thereby be led to add to their sins by cursing and mobbing him. + +So I may locate property in Philadelphia, trade there, and ride on +its railroads, though I know government will, without my consent, +thereby enrich itself. Other things being equal, of course I shall +not allow it the opportunity. But the advantages and good results of +my doing so, _may be_ such as would make it my duty there to live +and trade, even subject to such an evil. + +But on the other hand, I may not do an act wrong in itself to secure +any amount of fancied good. + +Now, appointing a man by my vote to a pro-slavery office, (and such +is every one under the United States Constitution,) is wrong in +itself, and no other good deeds which such officer may do, will +justify an abolitionist in so appointing him. + +Let it not be said, that this reasoning will apply to voting--that +voting is the right of every human being, (which I grant only for +the sake of argument,) and innocent in itself. + +Voting _under our_ Constitution is appointing a man to swear to +protect, and actually to protect slavery. Now, appointing agents +generally is the right of every man, and innocent in itself, but +appointing an agent to commit a murder is sin. + +I trade, and government taxes me; do I authorize it? No. + +I vote, and the marshal whom my agent appoints, returns a slave to +South Carolina. Do I authorize it? _Yes_. I knew it would be his +_sworn duty_, when I voted; and I assented to it, by voting under +the Constitution which makes it his duty. If I trade, it is said, I +may foresee that government will be helped by the taxes I pay, +therefore I ought not to trade. But I do not trade _for the purpose_ +of paying taxes! And if I am to be charged with all the foreseen +results of my actions, then Garrison is responsible for the Boston +mob! + +The reason why I am responsible for the pro-slavery act of a United +States officer, for whom I have voted, is this: I must be supposed +to have _intended_ that which my agent is _bound_ by his contract +with me (that is, his oath of office) to do. + +Allow me to request our opposers to keep distinctly in view the +precise point in debate. This is not whether Massachusetts can +rightfully trade and make treaties with South Carolina, although she +knows that such a course will result in strengthening a wrongdoer. +Such are most of the cases which they consider parallel to ours, and +for permitting which they charge us with inconsistency. But the +question really is, whether Massachusetts can join hands and +strength with South Carolina, for the express and avowed purpose of +sustaining Slavery. This she does in the Constitution. For he who +swears to support an instrument of twelve clauses, swears to support +one as well as another,--and though one only be immoral,--still he +swears to do an immoral act. Now, my conviction is, "which fire will +not burn out of me," that to return fugitive slaves is sin--to +promise so to do, and not do it, is, if possible, baser still; and +that any conjunction of circumstances which makes either necessary, +is of the Devil, and not of God. + + +OBJECTION XIV. + +Duty requires of a non-voter to quit the country, and go where his +taxes will not help to build up slavery. + +ANSWER. God gave me my birth here. Because bad men about me +"play such tricks before high Heaven, as make the angels weep," does +it oblige me to quit? I have as good right here as they. If they +choose to leave, let them--I Shall remain. 'Twould be a pretty thing, +indeed, if, as often as I found myself next door to a bad man, who +would bring up his children to steal my apples and break my windows, +I were obliged to take the temptation away by cutting down all my +apple trees and moving my house further west, into the wilderness. +This would be, in good John Wesley's phrase, "giving up all the good +times to the devil," with a witness. + + +OBJECTION XV. + +"Society has the right to prescribe the terms, upon the expressed or +implied agreement to comply with which a person may reside within +its limits." + +ANSWER. This principle I utterly deny. All that Society has a right +to demand is peaceful submission to its exactions:--_consent_ they +have neither the power nor the right to exact or to imply. Twenty +men live on a lone island. Nineteen set up a government and say, +every man who lives there shall worship idols. The twentieth submits +to all their laws, but refuses to commit idolatry. Have they the +_right_ to say, "Do so, or quit;" or, to say, "If you stay, we +will consider you as impliedly worshipping idols?" Doubtless they +have the _power_, but the majority have no _rights_, except those +which justice sanctions. Will the objector show me the justice of +his principle? I was born here. I ask no man's permission to remain. +All that any man or body of men have a right to infer from my +staying here, is that, in doing this _innocent act_, I think, that on +the whole, I am effecting more good than harm. Lawyers say, I cannot +find this right laid down in the books. That will not trouble me. +Some old play has a character in it who never ties his neckcloth +without a warrant from Mr. Justice Overdo. I claim no relationship +to that very scrupulous individual. + + +OBJECTION XVI. + +These clauses, to which you refer, are inconsistent with the +Preamble of the Constitution, which describes it as made "to +establish justice" and "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves +and our posterity:" And as, when two clauses of the same instrument +are inconsistent, one must yield and be held void--we hold these +three clauses void. + +ANSWER. A _specific_ clause is not to be held void on account of +general terms, such as those of the preamble. It is rather to be +taken as an exception, allowed and admitted at the time, to those +general terms. + +Again. You say they are inconsistent. But the Courts and the People +do not think so. Now they, being the majority, settle the law. The +question then is, whether the law being settled,--and according to +your belief settled immorally,--you will _volunteer_ your services +to execute it and carry it into effect? This you do by becoming an +officeholder. It seems to me this question can receive but one +answer from honest men. + + +LAST OF ALL, THE OBJECTOR CRIES OUT, + +The Constitution may be _amended_, and I shall vote to have it +changed. + +ANSWER. But at present it is necessary to swear to support it +_as it is_. What the Constitution may become, a century hence, we +know not; we speak of it _as it is_, and repudiate it _as it is_. +How long may one promise to do evil, in hope some time or other to +get the power to do good? We will not brand the Constitution of the +United States as pro-slavery, after--it had ceased to be so! This +objection reminds me of Miss Martineau's story of the little boy, +who hurt himself, and sat crying on the sidewalk. "Don't cry!" said +a friend, "it won't hurt you tomorrow."--"Well then," said the child, +"I won't cry tomorrow." + +We come then, it seems to me, back to our original conclusion: that +the man who swears to support the Constitution, swears to support +the whole of it, pro-slavery clauses and all,--that he swears to +support it _as it is_, not as it hereafter may become,--that he +swears to support it in the sense given to it by the Courts and the +Nation, not as he chooses to understand it,--and that the Courts and +the Nation expect such an one in office to do his share toward the +suppression of slave, as well as other, insurrections, and to aid +the return of fugitive slaves. After an _abolitionist_ has taken +such an oath, or by his vote sent another to take it for him, I do +not see how he can look his own principles in the face. + +Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou lie? + +We who call upon the slaveholder to do right, no matter what the +consequences or the cost, are certainly bound to look well to our +own example. At least we can hardly expect to win the master to do +justice by _setting him an example of perjury_. It is almost an +insult in an abolitionist, while not willing to sacrifice even a +petty ballot for his principles, to demand of the slaveholder that +he give up wealth, home, old prejudices and social position at their +call. + + + +EXTRACTS FROM J.Q. ADAMS. + + +The benefits of the Constitution of the United States, were the +restoration of credit and reputation, to the country--the revival of +commerce, navigation, and ship building--the acquisition of the +means of discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection +and encouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the +country. All this, however, as is now well ascertained, was +insufficient to propitiate the rulers of the Southern States to +the adoption of the Constitution. What they specially wanted was +_protection_. Protection from the powerful and savage tribes of +Indians within their borders, and who were harassing them with the +most terrible of wars--and protection from their own +negroes--protection from their insurrections--protection from their +escape--protection even to the trade by which they were brought into +this country--protection, shall I not blush to say, protection to +the very bondage by which they were held. Yes! it cannot be +denied--the slaveholding lords of the South prescribed, as a +condition of their assent to the Constitution, three special +provisions to secure the perpetuity of their dominion over their +slaves. The first was the immunity for twenty years of preserving +the African slave-trade; the second was the stipulation to surrender +fugitive slaves--an engagement positively prohibited by the laws of +God, delivered from Sinai; and thirdly, the exaction, fatal to the +principles of popular representation, of a representation for +slaves--for articles of merchandise, under the name of persons. + +In outward show, it is a representation of persons in bondage; in +fact, it is a representation of their masters,--the oppressor +representing the oppressed.--Is it in the compass of human +imagination to devise a more perfect exemplification of the art of +committing the lamb to the tender custody of the wolf?--The +representative is thus constituted, not the friend, agent and trustee +of the person whom he represents, but the most inveterate of his foes. +To call government thus constituted a democracy, is to insult the +understanding of mankind. It is doubly tainted with the infection of +riches and of slavery. _There is no name in the language of national +jurisprudence that can define it_--no model in the records of +ancient history, or in the political theories of Aristotle, with +which it can be likened. Here is one class of men, consisting of not +more than one-fortieth part of the whole people, not more than +one-thirtieth part of the free population, exclusively devoted to +their personal interests identified with their own as slaveholders +of the same associated wealth, and wielding by their votes, upon +every question of government or of public policy, two-fifths of the +whole power of the House. In the Senate of the Union, the proportion +of the slaveholding power is yet greater. Its operation upon the +government of the nation is, to establish an artificial majority in +the slave representation over that of the free people, in the +American Congress, and thereby to make the PRESERVATION, PROPAGATION, +AND PERPETUATION OF SLAVERY THE VITAL AND ANIMATING SPIRIT OF THE +NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.--The result is seen in the fact that, at this +day, the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, +the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and five out of nine of +the Judges of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the United States, are +not only citizens of slaveholding States, but individual slaveholders +themselves. So are, and constantly have been, with scarcely an +exception, all the members of both Houses of Congress from the +slaveholding States; and so are, in immensely disproportionate +numbers, the commanding officers of the army and navy; the officers +of the customs; the registers and receivers of the land offices, and +the post-masters throughout the slaveholding States. + +Fellow-citizens,--with a body of men thus composed, for legislators +and executors of the laws, what will, what must be, what has been +your legislation? The numbers of freemen constituting your nation +are much greater than those of the slaveholding States, bond and free. +You have at least three-fifths of the whole population of the Union. +Your influence on the legislation and the administration of the +Government ought to be in the proportion of three to two. But how +stands the fact? Besides the legitimate portion of influence +exercised by the slaveholding States by the measure of their numbers, +here is an intrusive influence in every department, by a +representation, nominally of persons, but really of property, +ostensibly of slaves, but effectively of their masters, overbalancing +your superiority of numbers, adding two-fifths of supplementary +power to the two-fifths fairly secured to them by the compact, +CONTROLLING AND OVERRULING THE WHOLE ACTION OF YOUR GOVERNMENT AND +HOME AND ABROAD, and warping it to the sordid private interest and +oppressive policy of 300,000 owners of slaves. + +In the Articles of Confederation, there was no guaranty for the +property of the slaveholder--no double representation of him in the +Federal councils--no power of taxation--no stipulation for the +recovery of fugitive slaves. But when the powers of _government_ came +to be delegated to the Union, the South--that is, South Carolina and +Georgia--refused their subscription to the parchment, till it should +be saturated with the infection of slavery, which no fumigation +could purify, no quarantine could extinguish. The freemen of the +North gave way, and the deadly venom of slavery was infused into the +Constitution of freedom. Its first consequence has been to invert +the first principle of Democracy, that the will of the majority +shall rule the land. By means of the double representation, the +minority command the whole, and a KNOT OF SLAVEHOLDERS GIVE THE LAW +AND PRESCRIBE THE POLICY OF THE COUNTRY. + + + +THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. + + ADDRESS TO THE FRIENDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY, + ON THE VIOLATION BY THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES + OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION AT THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE + OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. + + +NEW YORK: +PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, +NO. 143 NASSAU STREET. + +1840. + +This No. contains 1 sheet.--Postage, under 100 miles, 1-1/2 ct. +over 100, 2-1/2 cts. Please Read and circulate. + + +ADDRESS. + + TO THE FRIENDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY:-- + +There was a time, fellow citizens, when the above address would have +included the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. But, alas! the freedom of +the press, freedom of speech, and the right of petition, are now +hated and dreaded by our Southern citizens, as hostile to the +perpetuity of human bondage; while, by their political influence in +the Federal Government, they have induced numbers at the North to +unite with them in their sacrilegious crusade against these +inestimable privileges. + +On the 28th January last, the House of Representatives, on motion of +Mr. Johnson, from Maryland, made it a standing RULE of the House +that "no petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper, praying the +abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any State or +Territory of the United States, in which it now exists, SHALL BE +RECEIVED BY THE HOUSE, OR ENTERTAINED IN ANY WAY WHATEVER." + +Thus has the RIGHT OF PETITION been immolated in the very Temple of +Liberty, and offered up, a propitiatory sacrifice to the demon of +slavery. Never before has an outrage so unblushingly profligate been +perpetrated upon the Federal Constitution. Yet, while we mourn the +degeneracy which this transaction evinces, we behold, in its +attending circumstances, joyful omens of the triumph which awaits +our struggle with the hateful power that now perverts the General +Government into an engine of cruelty and loathsome oppression. + +Before we congratulate you on these omens, let us recall to your +recollection the steps by which the enemies of human rights have +advanced to their present rash and insolent defiance of moral and +constitutional obligation. + +In 1831, a newspaper was established in Boston, for the purpose of +disseminating facts and arguments in favor of the duty and policy of +immediate emancipation. The Legislature of Georgia, with all the +recklessness of despotism, passed a law, offering a reward of $5000, +for the abduction of the Editor, and his delivery in Georgia. As +there was no law, by which a citizen of Massachusetts could be tried +in Georgia, for expressing his opinions in the capital of his own +State, this reward was intended as the price of BLOOD. Do you start +at the suggestion? Remember the several sums of $25,000, of $50,000, +and of $100,000, offered in Southern papers for kidnapping certain +abolitionists. Remember the horrible inflictions by Southern Lynch +clubs. Remember the declaration, in the United States Senate, by the +brazen-fronted Preston, that, should an abolitionist be caught in +Carolina, he would be HANGED. But, as the Slaveholders could not +destroy the lives of the Abolitionists, they determined to murder +their characters. Hence, the President of the United States was +induced, in his Message of 1835, to Congress, to charge them with +plotting the massacre of the Southern planters; and even to stultify +himself, by affirming that, for this purpose, they were engaged in +sending, by _mail_, inflammatory appeals to the _slaves_--sending +papers to men who could not read them, and by a conveyance through +which they could not receive them! He well knew that the papers +alluded to were appeals on the immorality of converting men, women, +and children, into beasts of burden, and were sent to the masters, +for _their_ consideration. The masters in Charleston, dreading the +moral influence of these appeals on the conscience of the +slaveholding community, forced the Post Office, and made a bonfire +of the papers. The Post Master General, with the sanction of the +President, also hastened to their relief, and, in violation of oaths, +and laws, and the constitution, established ten thousand censors of +the press, each one of whom was authorized to abstract from the mail +every paper which _he_ might think too favorable to the rights of man. + +For more than twenty years, petitions have been presented to Congress, +for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. The right +to present them, and the power of Congress to grant their prayer, +were, until recently, unquestioned. But the rapid multiplication of +these petitions alarmed the slaveholders, and, knowing that they +tended to keep alive at the North, an interest in the slave, they +deemed it good policy to discourage and, if possible, suppress all +such applications. Hence Mr. Pinckney's famous resolution, in 1836, +declaring, "that all petitions, or papers, relating _in any way, or +to any extent_ whatever to the _subject of slavery_, shall, without +being printed or referred, be laid on the table; and no further +action, whatever shall be had thereon!" + +The peculiar atrocity of this resolution was, that it not merely +trampled upon the rights of the petitioners, but took from each +member of the House his undoubted privilege, as a legislator of the +District, to introduce any proposition he might think proper, for the +protection of the slaves. In every Slave State there are laws +affording, at least, some nominal protection to these unhappy beings; +but, according to this resolution, slaves might be flayed alive in +the streets of Washington, and no representative of the people could +offer even a resolution for inquiry. And this vile outrage upon +constitutional liberty was avowedly perpetrated "to repress agitation, +to allay excitement, and re-establish harmony and tranquillity among +the various sections of the Union!!" + +But this strange opiate did not produce the stupefying effects +anticipated from it. In 1836, the petitioners were only 37,000--the +next session they numbered 110,000. Mr. Hawes, of Ky., now essayed +to restore tranquillity, by gagging the uneasy multitude; but, alas! +at the next Congress, more than 300,000 petitioners carried new +terror to the hearts of the slaveholders. The next anodyne was +prescribed by Mr. Patton, of Va., but its effect was to rouse from +their stupor some of the Northern Legislatures, and to induce them +to denounce his remedy as "a usurpation of power, a violation of the +Constitution, subversive of the fundamental principles of the +government, and at war with the prerogatives of the people."[105] It +was now supposed that the people most be drugged by a _northern_ man, +and _Atherton_ was found a fit instrument for this vile purpose; but +the dose proved only the more nauseous and exciting from the foul +hands by which it was administered. + +[Footnote 105: Resolutions of Massachusetts and Connecticut, April and +May, 1838.] + + +In these various outrages, although all action on the petitions was +prohibited, the papers themselves were received and laid on the table, +and _therefore_ it was contended, that the right of petition had +been preserved inviolate. But the slaveholders, maddened by the +failure of all their devices, and fearing the influence which the +mere sight of thousands and tens of thousands of petitions in behalf +of liberty, would exert, and, taking advantage of the approaching +presidential election to operate upon the selfishness of some +northern members, have succeeded in crushing the right of petition +itself. + +That you may be the more sensible, fellow citizens, of the exceeding +profligacy of the late RULE and of its palpable violation of both the +spirit and the letter of the Constitution, which those who voted for +it had sworn to support, suffer us to recall to your recollection a +few historical facts. + +The framers of the Federal Constitution supposed the right of +petition too firmly established in the habits and affections of the +people, to need a constitutional guarantee. Their omission to notice +it, roused the jealousy of some of the State conventions, called to +pass upon the constitution. The _Virginia_ convention proposed, +as an amendment, "that every _freeman_ has a right to petition, +or apply to the Legislature, for a redress of grievances." And this +amendment, with others, was ordered to be forwarded to the different +States, for their consideration. The Conventions of North Carolina, +New York, and Rhode Island, were held subsequently, and, of course, +had before them the Virginia amendment. The North Carolina Convention +adopted a declaration of rights, embracing the very words of the +proposed amendment; and this declaration was ordered to be submitted +to Congress, before that State would enter the Union. The Conventions +of New York and of Rhode Island incorporated in their _certificates +of ratification_, the assertion that "Every _person_ has a right to +petition or apply to the legislature for a redress of +grievances"--using the Virginia phraseology, merely substituting the +word _person_ for _freeman_, thus claiming the right of petition even +for slaves; while Virginia and North Carolina confined it to freemen. + +The first Congress, assembled under the Constitution, gave effect to +the wishes thus emphatically expressed, by proposing, as an amendment, +that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of +religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or _abridging_ +the freedom of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to +assemble, and _to petition Government_ for a redress of grievances." +This amendment was duly ratified by the States, and when members of +Congress swear to support the Constitution of the United States, +they are as much bound by their oath to refrain from abridging the +right of petition, as they are to fulfil any other constitutional +obligation. And will the slaveholders and their abettors, dare to +maintain that they have not foresworn themselves, because they have +abridged the right of the people to petition for a redress of +grievances, by a RULE of the House, and not by a _law_? If so, they +may by a RULE require every member, on taking his seat, to subscribe +the creed of a particular church, and then call their Maker to +witness that they are guiltless of making a _law_ "respecting an +establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." + +The right to petition is one thing, and the disposition of a petition +after it is received, is another. But the new rule makes no +disposition of the petitions; it PROHIBITS THEIR RECEPTION; they may +not be brought into the legislative chamber. Hundreds of thousands +of the people are debarred all access to their representatives, for +the purpose of offering them a prayer. + +It is said that the manifold abominations perpetrated in the District +are no grievances to the petitioners, and _therefore_ they have no +right to ask for their removal. But the right guaranteed by the +Constitution, is a right to ask for the redress of _grievances_, +whether personal, social, or moral. And who, except a slaveholder, +will dare to contend that it is no grievance that our agents, our +representatives, our servants, in our name and by our authority, +enact laws erecting and licensing markets in the Capital of the +Republic, for the sale of human beings, and converting free men into +slaves, for no other crime, than that of being too poor to pay +United States' officers the JAIL FEES accruing from an iniquitous +imprisonment? + +Again, it is pretended that the objects prayed for, are palpably +unconstitutional, and that _therefore_ the petitions ought not to be +received. And by what authority are the people deprived of their +right to petition for any object which a majority of either +House of Congress, for the time being, may please to regard as +unconstitutional? If this usurpation be submitted to, it will not be +confined to abolition petitions. It is well known that most of the +slaveholders _now_ insist, that all protecting duties are +unconstitutional, and that on account of the tariff the Union was +nearly rent by the very men who are now horrified by the danger to +which it is exposed by these _petitions_! Should our Northern +Manufacturers again presume to ask Congress to protect them from +foreign competition, the Southern members will find a precedent, +sanctioned by Northern votes, for a rule that "no petition, memorial, +resolution, or other paper, praying for the IMPOSITION OF DUTIES FOR +THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF MANUFACTURES, shall be received by the House, +or entertained in any way whatever." + +It does indeed, require Southern arrogance, to maintain that, +although Congress is invested by the Constitution with "exclusive +jurisdiction, in all cases whatsoever," over the District of Columbia, +yet that it would be so palpably unconstitutional to abolish the +slave-trade, and to emancipate the slaves in the District, that +petitions for these objects ought not to be received. Yet this is +asserted in that very House, on whose minutes is recorded a +resolution, in 1816, appointing a committee, with power to send for +persons and papers, "to inquire into the existence of an inhuman and +illegal traffic in slaves, carried on, in and through the District +of Columbia, and report whether any, and what means are necessary +for putting a stop to the same:" and another, in 1829, instructing +the Committee on the District of Columbia to inquire into the +expediency of providing by law, "for the gradual abolition of +slavery in the District." + +In the very first Congress assembled under the Federal Constitution, +petitions were presented, asking its interposition for the +mitigation of the evils, and final abolition of the African +slave-trade, and also praying it, as far as it possessed the power, +to take measures for the abolition of slavery. These petitions +excited the wrath and indignation of many of the slave-holding +members, yet no one thought of refusing to receive them. They were +referred to a select committee, at the instance of Mr. Madison, +himself, who "entered into a critical review of the circumstances +respecting the adoption of the Constitution, and the ideas upon the +limitation of the powers of Congress to interfere in the regulation +of the commerce of slaves, and showed that they undoubtedly were not +precluded from interposing in their importation; and generally to +regulate the mode in which every species of business shall be +transacted. He adverted to the western country, and the Cession of +Georgia, in which Congress have certainly the power to _regulate the +subject of slavery_; which shows that gentlemen are mistaken in +supposing, that Congress cannot constitutionally interfere in the +business, in any degree, whatever. He was in favor of committing the +petition, and justified the measure by repeated precedents in the +proceedings of the House."--_U.S. Gazette, 17th Feb._, 1790. + +Here we find one of the earliest and ablest expounders of the +Constitution, maintaining the power of Congress to "regulate the +subject of slavery" in the national territories, and urging the +reference of abolition petitions to a special committee. + +The committee made a report; for which, after a long debate, was +substituted a declaration, by the House, that Congress could not +abolish the slave trade prior to the year 1808, but had a right so +to regulate it as to provide for the humane treatment of the slaves +on the passage; and that Congress could not interfere in the +emancipation or treatment of slaves in the _States_. + +This declaration gave entire satisfaction, and no farther abolition +petitions were presented, till after the District of Columbia had +been placed under the "exclusive jurisdiction" of the General +Government. + +You all remember, fellow citizens, the wide-spread excitement which +a few years since prevailed on the subject of SUNDAY MAILS. Instead +of attempting to quiet the agitation, by outraging the rights of the +petitioners, Congress referred the petitions to a committee, and +made no attempt to stifle discussion. + +Why, then, we ask, with such authorities and precedents before them, +do the slaveholders in Congress, regardless of their oaths, strive to +gag the friends of freedom, under _pretence_ of allaying agitation? +Because conscience does make cowards of them all--because they know +the accursed system they are upholding will not bear the +light--because they fear, if these petitions are discussed, the +abominations of the American slave trade, the secrets of the +prison-houses in Washington and Alexandria, and the horrors of the +human shambles licensed by the authority of Congress, will be +exposed to the score and indignation of the civilized world. + +Unquestionably the late RULE surpasses, in its profligate contempt of +constitutional obligation, any act in the annals of the Federal +Government. As such it might well strike every patriot with dismay, +were it not that attending circumstances teach us that it is the +expiring effort of desperation. When we reflect on the past +subserviency of our northern representatives to the mandates of the +slaveholders, we may well raise, on the present occasion, the shout +of triumph, and hail the vote on the recent RULE as the pledge of a +glorious victory. Suffer us to recall to your recollection the +majorities by which the successive attempts to crush the right of +petition and the freedom of debate have been carried. + + +Pinckney's Gag was passed May, 1836, by a majority of 51 +Hawes's Jan. 1837, 58 +Patton's Dec. 1837, 48 +Atherton's Dec. 1838, 48 +JOHNSON's Jan. 1840, 6 + + +Surely, when we find the majority against us reduced from 58 to +6, we need no new incentive to perseverance. + +Another circumstance which marks the progress of constitutional +liberty, is the gradual diminution in the number of our northern +_serviles_. The votes from the free States in favor of the several +gags were as follows:-- + + +For Pinckney's 62 +For Hawes's 70 +For Patton's 52 +For Atherton's 49 +For JOHNSON's 28 + + +There is also another cheering fact connected with the passage of +the RULE which deserves to be noticed. Heretofore the slaveholders +have uniformly, by enforcing the previous question, imposed their +several gags by a silent vote. On the present occasion they were +twice baffled in their efforts to stifle debate, and were, for days +together, compelled to listen to speeches on a subject which they +have so often declared should not be discussed. + +A base strife for southern votes has hitherto, to no small extent, +enlisted both the political parties at the north in the service of +the slaveholders. The late unwonted independence of northern +politicians, and the deference paid by them to the wishes of their +own constituents, in preference to those of their southern colleagues, +indicates the advance of public opinion. No less than 49 northern +members of the administration party voted for the Atherton gag, +while only 27 dared to record their names in favor of Johnson's; and +of the representation of SIX States, _every vote_ was given _against_ +the rule, without distinction of party. The tone in which opposite +political journals denounce the late outrage may warn the +slaveholders that they will not much longer hold the north in bonds. +The leading administration paper in the city of New York regards the +RULE with "utter abhorrence;" while the official paper of the +opposition, edited by the state printer, trusts that the names of +the recreant northerners who voted for it may be "handed down to +eternal infamy and execration." + +The advocates of abolition are no longer consigned to unmitigated +contempt and obloquy. Passing by the various living illustrations of +our remark, we appeal for our proofs to the dead. The late WILLIAM +LEGGETT, the editor of a Democratic Journal in the city of New York, +was denounced, in 1835, by the "Democratic Republican General +Committee," for his abolition doctrines. Far from faltering in his +course, on account of the censure of his own party, he exclaimed, +with a presentiment almost amounting to prophecy, "The stream of +public opinion now sets against us, but it is about to turn, and the +regurgitation will be tremendous. Proud in that day may well be the +man who can float in triumph on the first refluent wave, swept +onward by the deluge which he himself, in advance of his fellows, +had largely shared in occasioning. Such be my fate; and, living or +dying, it will in some measure be mine. I have written my name in +ineffaceable letters on the abolition record." And he did live to +behold the first swelling of the refluent wave. The denounced +abolitionist was honored by a democratic President with a diplomatic +mission; and since his death, the resolution condemning him has been +EXPUNGED from the minutes of the democratic committee. + +Of the many victims of the recent awful calamity in our waters, what +name has been most frequently uttered by the pulpit and the press in +the accents of lamentation and panegyric? On whose tomb have freedom, +philanthropy, and letters been invoked to strew their funeral wreaths? +All who have heard of the loss of the Lexington are familiar with +the name of CHARLES FOLLEN. And who was he? One of the men +officially denounced by President Jackson as a gang of miscreants, +plotting insurrection and murder--and, recently, a member of the +Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society. + +Let us then, fellow citizens, in view of all these things, thank God +and take courage. We are now contending, not merely for the +emancipation of our unhappy fellow men, kept in bondage under the +authority of our own representatives--not merely for the overthrow +of the human shambles erected by Congress on the national +domain--but also for the preservation of those great constitutional +rights which were acquired by our fathers, and are now assailed by +the slaveholders and their northern auxiliaries. That you may +remember these auxiliaries and avoid giving them new opportunities +of betraying your rights, we annex a list of their dishonored names. + +The following twenty-eight members from the Free States voted in the +affirmative on the recent GAG RULE. + + + MAINE. + + Virgil D. Parris + Albert Smith + + NEW HAMPSHIRE. + + Charles G. Atherton + Edmund Burke + Ira A. Eastman + Tristram Shaw + + NEW YORK. + + Nehemiah H. Earle + John Fine + Nathaniel Jones + Governeur Kemble + James de la Montayne + John H. Prentiss + Theron R. Strong + + PENNSYLVANIA. + + John Davis + Joseph Fornance + James Gerry + George M'Cullough + David Petriken + William S. Ramsey + + OHIO. + + D.P. Leadbetter + William Medill + Isaac Parrish + George Sweeney + Jonathan Taylor + John B. Weller + + INDIANA. + + John Davis + George H. Proffit + + ILLINOIS. + + John Reynolds. + + +Let us turn to our more immediate representatives, and we trust more +faithful servants. Our State Legislatures will not refuse to hear +our prayers. Let us petition them immediately to rebuke the treason +by which the Constitution has been surrendered into the hands of the +slaveholders--let us implore them to demand from Congress, in the +name of the free States, that they shall neither destroy nor abridge +the right of petition--a right without which our government would be +converted into a despotism. + +We call on you, fellow citizens of every religious faith and party +name, to unite with us in guarding the citadel of our country's +freedom. If there are any who will not co-operate with us in +laboring for the emancipation of the slave, surely there are none +who will stand aloof from us while contending for the liberty of +themselves, their children, and their children's children. + +To the rescue, then, fellow citizens! and, trusting in HIM without +whom all human effort is weakness, let us not doubt that our faithful +endeavors to preserve the rights HE has given us will, through HIS +blessing, be crowned with success. + + + ARTHUR TAPPAN, + JAMES G. BIRNEY, + JOSHUA LEAVITT, + LEWIS TAPPAN, + SAMUEL E. CORNISH, + SIMEON S. JOCELYN, + LA ROY SUNDERLAND, + THEODORE S. WRIGHT, + DUNCAN DUNBAR, + JAMES S. GIBBONS, + HENRY B. STANTON + + _Executive Committee + of the + American + Anti-Slavery Society_. + + + + +_New York, February_ 13, 1840. + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Part 4 of 4 +by American Anti-Slavery Society + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER, PART 4 OF 4 *** + +***** This file should be named 11274.txt or 11274.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/1/2/7/11274/ + +Produced by Stan Goodman, Amy Overmyer, Robert Prince and PG Distributed +Proofreaders + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +Each eBook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the eBook's +eBook number, often in several formats including plain vanilla ASCII, +compressed (zipped), HTML and others. + +Corrected EDITIONS of our eBooks replace the old file and take over +the old filename and etext number. The replaced older file is renamed. +VERSIONS based on separate sources are treated as new eBooks receiving +new filenames and etext numbers. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + +EBooks posted prior to November 2003, with eBook numbers BELOW #10000, +are filed in directories based on their release date. If you want to +download any of these eBooks directly, rather than using the regular +search system you may utilize the following addresses and just +download by the etext year. + + https://www.gutenberg.org/etext06 + + (Or /etext 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 00, 99, + 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90) + +EBooks posted since November 2003, with etext numbers OVER #10000, are +filed in a different way. The year of a release date is no longer part +of the directory path. The path is based on the etext number (which is +identical to the filename). The path to the file is made up of single +digits corresponding to all but the last digit in the filename. For +example an eBook of filename 10234 would be found at: + + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/0/2/3/10234 + +or filename 24689 would be found at: + https://www.gutenberg.org/2/4/6/8/24689 + +An alternative method of locating eBooks: + https://www.gutenberg.org/GUTINDEX.ALL + + diff --git a/old/11274.zip b/old/11274.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..26ddbc1 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/11274.zip |