“Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in
law to be _chattels personal_, in the hands of their owners and
possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns,
to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever.”[4]
And a careful writer, Judge Stroud, in a work of juridical as well as
philanthropic merit, thus sums up the law:--
“The cardinal principle of Slavery, that the slave is not to
be ranked among _sentient beings_, but among _things_, is an
article of property, a chattel personal, obtains as undoubted
law in all of these [Slave] States.”[5]
Sir, this is enough. As out of its small egg crawls forth the slimy,
scaly, reptile crocodile, so out of this simple definition crawls
forth the whole slimy, scaly, reptile monstrosity by which a man is
changed into a chattel, a person is converted into a thing, a soul
is transmuted into merchandise. According to this very definition,
the slave is held simply for the good of his master, to whose behest
his life, liberty, and happiness are devoted, and by whom he may be
bartered, leased, mortgaged, bequeathed, invoiced, shipped as cargo,
stored as goods, sold on execution, knocked off at public auction, and
even staked at the gaming-table on the hazard of a card or die. The
slave may seem to have a wife; but he has not, for his wife belongs to
his master. He may seem to have a child; but he has not, for his child
is owned by his master. He may be filled with desire of knowledge,
opening to him the gates of joy on earth and in heaven; but the master
may impiously close all these gates. Thus is he robbed, not merely of
privileges, but of himself,--not merely of money and labor, but of
wife and children,--not merely of time and opportunity, but of every
assurance of happiness,--not merely of earthly hope, but of all those
divine aspirations that spring from the Fountain of Light. He is not
merely restricted in liberty, but totally deprived of it,--not merely
curtailed in rights, but absolutely stripped of them,--not merely
loaded with burdens, but changed into a beast of burden,--not merely
bent in countenance to the earth, but sunk in law to the level of a
quadruped,--not merely exposed to personal cruelty, but deprived of
his character as a person,--not merely compelled to involuntary labor,
but degraded to a rude thing,--not merely shut out from knowledge, but
wrested from his place in the human family. _And all this, Sir, is
according to the simple Law of Slavery._
And even this is not all. The law, by cumulative provisions,
positively forbids that a slave shall be taught to read. Hear this,
fellow-citizens, and confess that no barbarity of despotism, no
extravagance of tyranny, no excess of impiety can be more blasphemous
or deadly. “Train up a child in the way he should go” is the
lesson of Divine Wisdom; but the Law of Slavery boldly prohibits
any such training, and dooms the child to hopeless ignorance and
degradation. “Let there be light” was the Divine behest at the dawn
of Creation,--and this commandment, travelling with the ages and the
hours, still speaks with the voice of God; yet the Law of Slavery says,
“Let there be darkness.”
But it is earnestly averred that slave-masters are humane, and slaves
are treated with kindness. These averments, however, I properly
put aside, precisely as I have already put aside the multitudinous
illustrations from the cruelty of Slavery. On the simple _letter of the
law_ I take my stand, and do not go beyond what is there nominated.
The masses of men are not better than their laws, and, whatever may be
the eminence of individual virtue, it is not reasonable to infer that
the body of slave-masters is better than the Law of Slavery. And since
this law submits the slave to their irresponsible control, with power
to bind and to scourge, to shut the soul from knowledge, to separate
families, to unclasp the infant from a mother’s breast, and the wife
from a husband’s arms, it is natural to conclude that such enormities
are sanctioned by them, while the supplementary denial of instruction
gives conclusive evidence of their full complicity. And this conclusion
must exist unquestioned, just so long as the law exists unrepealed.
Cease, then, to blazon the humanity of slave-masters. Tell me not
of the lenity with which this cruel law is tempered to its unhappy
subjects. Tell me not of the sympathy which overflows from the mansion
of the master to the cabin of the slave. In vain you assert these
instances. In vain you show that there are individuals who do not exert
the wickedness of the law. The law still endures. Slavery, which it
defines and upholds, continues to outrage Public Opinion, and, within
the limits of our Republic, more than three millions of human beings,
guilty only of a skin not colored like your own, are left the victims
of its unrighteous, irresponsible power.
Power divorced from right is devilish; power without the check
of responsibility is tyrannical; and I need not go back to the
authority of Plato, when I assert that the most complete injustice
is that erected into the form of law. But all these things concur in
Slavery. It is, then, on the testimony of slave-masters, solemnly,
legislatively, judicially attested in the very law itself, that I now
arraign this institution as an outrage upon man and his Creator. And
herein is the necessity of the Antislavery Enterprise. A wrong so
transcendent, so loathsome, so direful, must be encountered, _wherever
it can be reached_; and the battle must be continued without truce or
compromise, until the field is entirely won. Freedom and Slavery can
hold no divided empire; nor can there be any true repose, until Freedom
is everywhere established.
* * * * *
To the _necessity_ of the Antislavery Enterprise there are two, and
only two, main objections,--one founded on the alleged distinction of
race, and the other on the alleged sanction of Christianity. All other
objections are of inferior character, or are directed logically at its
_practicability_. Of these two main objections let me briefly speak.
* * * * *
1. I begin with the alleged _distinction of race_. This objection
assumes two different forms,--one founded on a prophetic malediction in
the Old Testament, and the other on professed observations of recent
science. Its importance is apparent in the obvious fact, that, unless
such distinction be clearly and unmistakably established, every
argument by which our own freedom is vindicated, every applause awarded
to the successful rebellion of our fathers, every indignant word ever
hurled against the enslavement of white fellow-citizens by Algerine
corsairs, must plead trumpet-tongued against the deep damnation of
Slavery, black as well as white.
It is said that Africans are the posterity of Ham, son of Noah, through
Canaan cursed by Noah, to be the servant of his brethren, and that
this malediction has fallen upon all his descendants, including the
unhappy Africans,--who are accordingly devoted by God, through unending
generations, to unending bondage. Such is the favorite argument at
the South, and more than once directly addressed to myself. Here, for
instance, is a passage from a letter recently received. “You need not
persist,” says the writer, “in confounding Japheth’s children with
Ham’s, and making both races one, and arguing on their rights as those
of man broadly.” And I have been seriously assured, that, until this
objection is answered, it will be vain to press my views upon Congress
or the country. Listen now to the texts of the Old Testament which are
so strangely employed.
“And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants
shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord
God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge
Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan
shall be his servant.”[6]
That is all; and I need only read these words in order to expose the
whole--transpicuous humbug. I am tempted to add, that, to justify
this objection, it is necessary to maintain at least five different
propositions, as essential links in the chain of the African slave:
_first_, that by this malediction Canaan himself was actually changed
into a _chattel_,--whereas he is simply made the servant of his
brethren; _secondly_, that not merely Canaan, but all his posterity,
to the remotest generation, was so changed,--whereas the language has
no such extent; _thirdly_, that the African actually belongs to the
posterity of Canaan,--an ethnographical assumption absurdly difficult
to establish; _fourthly_, that each descendant of Shem and Japheth has
a right to hold an African fellow-man as chattel,--a proposition which
finds no semblance of support; and, _fifthly_, that every slave-master
is truly descended from Shem or Japheth,--a pedigree which no anxiety
or assurance can prove. This plain analysis, which may fitly excite
a smile, shows the fivefold absurdity of an attempt to found this
revolting wrong on any
“successive title, long and dark,
Drawn from the mouldy rolls of Noah’s ark.”[7]
The small bigotry which finds comfort in these texts has been
exalted lately by the voice of Science, undertaking to suggest that
the different races of men are not derived from a single pair, but
from several distinct stocks, according to their several distinct
characteristics; and it is haughtily argued, that the African is so far
inferior as to lose all title to that liberty which is the birthright
of the lordly white. Now I have neither time nor disposition, on
this occasion, to discuss the question of the unity of races; nor
is it necessary to my present purpose. It may be that the different
races of men proceeded from different stocks; but there is but _one_
great Human Family, in which Caucasian and African, Chinese and
Indian, are all brothers, children of _one_ Father, and heirs to
_one_ happiness,--alike on earth and in heaven. “Star-eyed Science”
cannot shake this everlasting truth. It may exhibit peculiarities in
the African, by which he is distinguishable from the Caucasian. In
his physical form and intellectual character it may presume to find
the stamp of permanent inferiority. But by no reach of learning, no
torture of fact, no effrontery of dogma, can any science show that he
is not _a man_. And as a man he stands before you an unquestionable
member of the Human Family, entitled to _all the rights of man_. You
can claim nothing for yourself, _as man_, which you must not accord to
him. _Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness_, which you proudly
declare to be your own inalienable, God-given rights, and to the
support of which your fathers pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred
honor, are his by the same immortal title that they are yours.
* * * * *
2. From the objection founded on alleged distinction of race, I pass to
that other founded on alleged _sanction of Slavery by Christianity_.
Striving to be brief, I shall not undertake to reconcile texts often
quoted from the Old Testament, which, whatever their import, are
all absorbed in the New; nor shall I stop to consider the precise
interpretation of the familiar phrase, _Servants, obey your masters_,
nor seek to weigh any such imperfect injunction in the scales against
those grand commandments on which hang all the Law and the Prophets.
Surely, in the example and teachings of the Saviour, who lifted up
the down-trodden, who enjoined purity of life, and overflowed with
tenderness even to little children, human ingenuity can find no apology
for an institution which tramples on man, which defiles woman, and
sweeps little children beneath the hammer of the auctioneer. If to
any one these things seem to have the license of Christianity, it is
only because they have first secured a license in his own soul. Men are
prone in uncertain, disconnected texts to find confirmation of their
own personal prejudices or prepossessions. And I--who am no theologian,
but only a simple layman--make bold to say, that whoever finds in the
Gospel any sanction of Slavery finds there merely a reflection of
himself. On a matter so irresistibly clear authority is superfluous;
but an eminent character, who as poet makes us forget his high place
as philosopher, and as philosopher makes us forget his high place as
theologian, exposes the essential antagonism between Christianity
and Slavery in a few pregnant words, which, by recalling the spirit
of our Faith, are more satisfactory than whole volumes of ingenious
discussion. “By a principle essential to Christianity,” says Coleridge,
“a _person_ is eternally differenced from a _thing_; so that _the idea
of a Human Being necessarily excludes the idea of property in that
Being_.”[8]
With regret, though not with astonishment, I learn that a Boston divine
has sought to throw the seamless garment of Christ over this shocking
wrong. But I am patient, and see clearly how vain is his effort, when I
call to mind, that, within this very century, other divines in another
country sought to throw the same sacred vesture over the more shocking
slave-trade,--and that, among many publications, a little book was then
put forth by a reverend clergyman, with the title, “The African Trade
for Negro Slaves shewn to be consistent with Principles of Humanity and
with the Laws of Revealed Religion.”[9] Thinking of these things, I am
ready to say, with Shakespeare,--
“In religion,
What damnèd error, but some sober brow
Will bless it, and approve it with a text?”
In support of Slavery, it is the habit to pervert texts and to invent
authority. Even St. Paul is vouched for a wrong which his Christian
life rebukes. Much stress is now laid on his example, as it appears
in the Epistle to Philemon, written at Rome, and sent by Onesimus, a
servant. From the single chapter constituting the entire epistle I take
the following ten verses, most strangely invoked for Slavery.
“_I beseech thee for my son Onesimus_, whom I have begotten
in my bonds; which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but
now profitable to thee and to me; whom I have sent again.
Thou, therefore, receive him, that is, mine own bowels: whom I
would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have
ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel; but without thy
mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it
were of necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore
departed for a season that thou shouldest receive him forever;
_not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved_,
specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh
and in the Lord! _If thou count me, therefore, a partner,
receive him as myself._ If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee
aught, put that on mine account: I Paul have written it with
mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how
thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.”[10]
Out of this affectionate epistle, where St. Paul calls the converted
servant, Onesimus, his _son_, precisely as in another epistle he
calls Timothy his son, Slavery is elaborately vindicated, and the
great Apostle to the Gentiles made the very tutelary saint of the
Slave-Hunter. Now, without invoking his real judgment of Slavery from
his condemnation on another occasion of “men-stealers,” or what I
prefer to call _slave-hunters_, in company with “murderers of fathers
and murderers of mothers,” and without undertaking to show that the
present epistle, when truly interpreted, is a protest against Slavery
and a voice for Freedom,--all of which might be done,--I content myself
with calling attention to two things, apparent on its face, and in
themselves an all-sufficient response. _First_, while it appears that
Onesimus had been in some way the servant of Philemon, it does not
appear that he was ever held as _chattel_; and how gross and monstrous
is the effort to derive such a wrong out of words, whether in the
Constitution of our country or in the Bible, which do not explicitly,
unequivocally, and exclusively define this wrong! _Secondly_, in
charging Onesimus with this epistle to Philemon, the Apostle recommends
him as “not now a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved,”
and he enjoins upon his correspondent the hospitality due to a freeman,
saying expressly, “If thou count me, therefore, a partner, _receive
him as myself_”: ay, Sir, not as slave, not even as servant, but as
brother beloved, even as the Apostle himself. Thus, with apostolic pen,
wrote Paul to his disciple, Philemon. In these words of gentleness,
benediction, and equal rights, dropping with celestial, soul-awakening
power, there can be no justification for a conspiracy, which, beginning
with the treachery of Iscariot and the temptation of pieces of silver,
seeks, by fraud, brutality, and violence, through officers of the law
armed to the teeth, like pirates, and amidst soldiers who degrade
their uniform, to hurl a fellow-man back into the lash-resounding den
of American Slavery; and when any one thus perverts this beneficent
example, allow me to say that he gives too much occasion to doubt his
intelligence or his sincerity.
Certainly I am right in stripping from Slavery the apology of
Christianity, which it has tenaciously hugged; and here I leave the
first part of my subject, asserting, against every objection, the
Necessity of our Enterprise.