Produced by Chuck Greif and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This book was
produced from scanned images of public domain material
from the Google Print project.)
Liberty or Slavery; the Great National Question.
THREE PRIZE ESSAYS
ON
AMERICAN SLAVERY.
"THE TRUTH IN LOVE."
BOSTON:
CONGREGATIONAL BOARD OF PUBLICATION.
1857.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1857, by
SEWALL HARDING,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of
Massachusetts.
CAMBRIDGE:
ALLEN AND FARNHAM, STEREOTYPERS AND PRINTERS.
PREMIUM OFFERED.
A benevolent individual, who has numerous friends and acquaintances both
North and South, and who has had peculiar opportunities for learning the
state and condition of all sections of the nation, perceiving the danger
of our national Institutions, and deeply impressed with a sense of the
importance, in this time of peril, of harmonizing Christian men through
the country, by kind yet faithful exhibitions of truth on the subject
now agitating the whole community, offered a premium of $100 for the
best Essay on the subject of Slavery, fitted to influence the great body
of Christians through the land.
The call was soon responded to by nearly fifty writers, whose
manuscripts were examined by the distinguished committee appointed by
the Donor, whose award has been made, as their certificate, here
annexed, will show.
PREMIUM AWARDED.
The undersigned, appointed a Committee to award a premium of one hundred
dollars, offered by a benevolent individual, for the best Essay on the
subject of Slavery, "adapted to receive the approbation of Evangelical
Christians generally," have had under examination more than forty
competing manuscripts, a large number of them written with much ability.
They have decided to award the prize to the author of the Essay
entitled, "_The Error and the Duty in regard to Slavery_," whom they
find, on opening the accompanying envelope, to be the Rev. R. B.
THURSTON, of Chicopee Falls, Mass.
They would also commend to the attention of the public, two of the
remaining tracts, selected by the individual who offered the prize, and
for which he and others interested have given a prize of one hundred
dollars each. One of these is entitled, "_Friendly Letters to a
Christian Slave-holder_," by Rev. A. C. BALDWIN, of Durham, Conn.; the
other, "_Is American Slavery an Institution which Christianity sanctions
and will perpetuate?_" by Rev. TIMOTHY WILLISTON, of Strongsville, Ohio.
ASA D. SMITH,
MARK HOPKINS,
THEODORE FRELINGHUYSEN.
_May, 1857._
CONTENTS.
PAGE
I. THE ERROR AND THE DUTY IN REGARD TO SLAVERY, 1
II. FRIENDLY LETTERS TO A CHRISTIAN SLAVE-HOLDER, 39
III. IS AMERICAN SLAVERY AN INSTITUTION WHICH CHRISTIANITY
SANCTIONS AND WILL PERPETUATE, 99
FOOTNOTES
THE ERROR AND THE DUTY
IN
REGARD TO SLAVERY.
BY
REV. R. B. THURSTON.
The great and agitating question of our country is that concerning
slavery. Beneath the whole subject there lies of course some simple
truth, for all fundamental truth is simple, which will be readily
accepted by patriotic and Christian minds, when it is clearly perceived
and discreetly applied. It is the design of these pages to exhibit this
truth, and to show that it is a foundation for a union of sentiment and
action on the part of good men, by which, under the divine blessing, our
threatening controversies, North and South, may be happily terminated.
To avoid misapprehension, let it be noticed that we shall examine the
central claim of slavery, first, as a legal institution; afterwards,
the moral relations of individuals connected with it will be
considered. In that examination the term _property, as possessed in
men_, will be used in the specific sense which is given to it by the
slave laws and the practical operation of the system. No other sense is
relevant to the discussion. The property of the father in the services
of the son, of the master in the labor of the apprentice, of the State
in the forced toil of the convict, is not in question. None of these
relations creates slavery as such; and they should not be allowed, as
has sometimes been done, to obscure the argument.
The limits of a brief tract on a great subject compel us to pass
unnoticed many questions which will occur to a thoughtful mind. It is
believed that they all find their solution in our fundamental positions;
and that all passages of the Bible relating to the general subject, when
faithfully interpreted in their real harmony, sustain these positions.
It is admitted that the following argument is unsound if it does not
provide for every logical and practical exigency.
The primary truth which is now to be established may be thus stated:
_All men are invested by the Creator with a common right to hold
property in inferior things; but they have no such right to hold
property in men._
Christians agree that God as the Creator is the original proprietor of
all things, and that he has absolute right to dispose of all things
according to his pleasure. This right he never relinquishes, but asserts
in his word and exercises in his providence. The Bible speaks thus: "The
earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof, the world and they that
dwell therein, for he hath founded it. We are his people and the sheep
of his pasture"--ourselves, therefore, subject to his possession and
disposal as the feeble flock to us. Even irreligious men often testify
to this truth, confessing the hand of providence in natural events that
despoil them of their wealth.
Now, under his own supreme control, God has given to all men equally a
dependent and limited right of property. _Given_ is the word repeatedly
chosen by inspiration in this connection. "The heavens are the Lord's,
but the earth hath he _given_ to the children of men." In Eden he
blessed the first human pair, and said to them, in behalf of the race,
"Replenish the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that
moveth upon the earth. Behold, I have _given_ you every herb bearing
seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in the
which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed." This, then, is the
original and permanent ground of man's title to property; and the
important fact to be observed is the _specific divine grant_. The right
of all men equally to own property is the positive institution of the
Creator. We all alike hold our possessions by his authentic warrant, his
deed of conveyance.
Let us be understood here. We are not educing from the Bible a doctrine
which would level society, by giving to all men equal shares of
property; but a doctrine which extends equal divine protection over the
right of every man to hold that amount of property which he earns by his
own faculties, in consistency with all divine statutes.
This right is indeed argued from nature; and justly; for God's
revelations in nature and in his word coincide. It is, however, a right
of so much consequence to the world, that, where nature leaves it, he
incorporates it, and gives it the force of a law; so that in the sequel
we can with propriety speak of it as a law, as well as an institution.
To the believer in the Bible, this law is the end of argument.
It will have weight with some minds to state that this position is
supported by the highest legal authority. In his Commentaries on the
Laws of England, Blackstone quotes the primeval grant of God, and then
remarks, "This is the only true and solid foundation of man's dominion
over external things, whatever airy metaphysical notions may have been
started by fanciful writers upon this subject. The earth, therefore, and
all things therein, are the general property of all mankind, exclusive
of other beings, from the immediate gift of the Creator."[A]
It will enhance the force of this argument to remember that this
universal right of property is one of what may be called a sacred
trinity of paradisaical institutions. These institutions are the
Sabbath, appointed in regard for our relations to God as moral beings;
marriage, ordained for our welfare as members of a successive race; and
the right of property, conferred to meet our necessities as dwellers on
this material globe. These three are the world's inheritance from lost
Eden. They were received by the first father in behalf of all his
posterity. They were designed for all men as men. It is demonstrable
that they are indispensable, that the world may become Paradise
Regained. "Property, marriage, and religion have been called the pillars
of society;" and the first is of equal importance with the other two;
for all progress in domestic felicity and in religious culture depends
on property, and also on the equitable distribution or possession of
property, as one of its essential conditions. Property lies in the
foundation of every happy home, however humble; and property gilds the
pinnacle of every consecrated temple. The wise and impartial Disposer,
therefore, makes the endowments of his creatures equal with their
responsibilities: to all those on whom he lays the obligations of
religion and of the family state, he gives the right of holding the
property on which the dwelling and the sanctuary must be founded. It is
a sacred right, a divine investiture, bearing the date of the creation
and the seal of the Creator.
The blessing of this institution, like that of the Sabbath and of the
family, has indeed been shattered by the fall of man; but when God said
to Noah and his sons, concerning the inferior creatures, "Into your hand
are they delivered; even as the green herb have I given you all things,"
it was reëstablished and consecrated anew. The Psalmist repeated the
assurance to the world when he wrote, "Thou madest him to have dominion
over the works of thy hand; thou hast put all things under his feet."
We now advance to the second part of our proposition. Men have no such
right to hold property in men. Since the right is from God, it follows
immediately that they can hold in ownership, by a divine title, only
what he has given. But he has not given to men, as men, a right of
ownership in men. No one will contend for a moment that the universal
grant above considered confers upon them mutual dominion, or rightful
property in their species. The idea is not in the terms; it is nowhere
in the Bible; it is not in nature; it is repugnant to common sense; it
would resolve the race into the absurd and terrific relation of
antagonists, struggling, each one for the mastery of his own estate in
another,--I, for the possession of my right in you; and you, for yours
in me. Nay, the very act of entitling all men to hold property proves
the exemption of all, by the divine will, from the condition of
property. The idea that a man can be an article of property and an owner
of property by the same supreme warrant is contradictory and absurd.
We now have sure ground for objecting to the system of American slavery,
as such. It is directly opposed to the original, authoritative
institution of Jehovah. He gives men the right to hold property. Slavery
strips them of the divine investiture. He gives men dominion over
inferior creatures. Slavery makes them share the subjection of the
brute. That slavery does this, the laws of the States in which it exists
abundantly declare. Slaves are "chattels," "estate personal."
Slave-holders assembled in convention solemnly affirm in view of
northern agitation of the subject, that "masters have the same right to
their slaves which they have to any other property."
This asserted and exercised right is the vital principle and substance
of the institution. It is the central delusion and transgression; and
the evils of the system to white and black are its legitimate
consequences. The legal and the leading idea concerning slaves is that
they are property: of course, the idea that they are men, invested with
the rights of men, practically sinks; and, from the premise that they
are property, the conclusion is logical that they may be treated as
property. Why should _property_, contrary to the interests of the
proprietor, be exempt from sale, receive instruction, give testimony in
court, hold estate, preserve family ties, be loved as the owner loves
himself, in fine, enjoy all or any of the "inalienable rights" of _man_?
It is because they are held as property, that slaves are sold; because
they are property, families are torn asunder; because they are
property, instruction is denied them; because they are property, the
law, and the public sentiment that makes the law, crush them as men.
We do not here call in question the mitigations with which Christian
masters temper into mildness the hard working of an evil system. Those
mitigations do not, however, logically or morally defend slavery. Nay,
they condemn it; for they are practical tributes to the fact that the
laws of humanity, not of property, are binding in respect to the slaves.
Hence they really show the inherent inconsistency of the idea, and the
unrighteousness of the system which regards men as property.
Notwithstanding those mitigations, the system itself, like every wrong
system, produces characteristic evils, which can be prevented only by
removing their cause, the false doctrine that men can be rightfully held
in ownership. Fallen as man is, no prophet was needed to foretell at the
first the dreadful facts that have been recorded in the bitter history
of man's claim of property in man. Such a history must always be a
scroll written within and without with lamentations and mourning and
woe. Man is not a safe depositary of such power. A human institution
which subverts a divine institution, and which carries with it the
assumption of a divine prerogative in constituting a new species of
property, naturally saps the foundations of every other divine
institution and law which stands in its way. Hence, for example, the
fall of the domestic institution before that of slavery.
The inherent wrongfulness of American slavery as a legal and social
institution is therefore clearly demonstrated. It formally abolishes by
law and usage a divine institution. Hence, in its practical operation,
it sets aside other divine institutions and laws. Consequently it stands
in the same relations to the divine government with the abolition of the
Sabbath by infidel France, and with the perversion of the family
institution by the Mormon territory of Utah.
Here the fundamental argument from the Bible rests. But slavery
justifies itself by the Bible. It becomes essential, therefore, to
examine the validness of this justification.
There are but two possible ways of avoiding the conclusion that has been
reached. To vindicate slavery it must be proved, first, that God has
abolished the original institution, conferring on men universally the
right to hold property; or, secondly, it must be proved, that, while he
has by special enactments taken away from a portion of mankind the right
to hold property, he has given to other men the right to hold the
former as property. Further, to justify American slavery, it must be
shown that these special enactments include the African race and the
American States.
In regard to the first point we simply remark, it is morally impossible
that God should permanently and generally abolish the original
institution concerning property; because, as in the case of its coevals,
the Sabbath and marriage, the reason for it is permanent and
unchangeable, and "lex stat dum ratio manet," the law stands while the
reason remains. Moreover, there is not a word of such repeal in the
Bible. That institution, therefore, is still a charter of rights for the
children of men. Till it is assailed, more need not be said.
As to the second point, we believe that careful investigation will prove
conclusively, that no special enactments are now in force which arrest
or modify the institutions of Eden, in regard to any state or any
persons. It will, then, remain demonstrated, that the legal system of
slavery exists utterly without warrant of the Holy Scriptures, and in
defiance of the authority of the Creator. The word of God is throughout
consistent.
It is here freely admitted, that God can arrest the operation of general
laws by special statutes. He can take away from men the right to hold
property which he has given, and, if he please, constitute them the
property of other men. It is, in this respect, as it is with life. God
can take what he gives. If, then, he has given authority to individuals
or to nations to hold others as property, they may do so. Nay, more; if
their commission is imperative, they must do so. But such an act of God
creates an exception to his own fundamental law, and, like all
_exceptions_, conveys its own restrictions, and _proves the rule_. It
imposes no yoke, save upon those appointed to subjugation. It confers no
authority, save upon those specifically invested with it. They are bound
to keep absolutely within the prescribed terms, and no others can
innocently seize their delegated dominion. Outside of the excepted
parties the universal law has sway unimpaired. It is in this instance as
it is in regard to marriage. God permitted the patriarchs to multiply
their wives; but monogamy is now a sacred institution for the world. So
the supreme Disposer can make a slave, or a nation of slaves; and the
world shall be even the more solemnly bound by the original institutes
concerning property. It follows, without a chasm in the argument, or a
doubtful step, that, when persons or States reduce men to the condition
of chattels, _without divine authorization_, they are guilty of
subverting a divine institution; and, since it is the prerogative of God
to determine what shall be property, they are chargeable with a
presumptuous usurpation of divine prerogative, in making property, so
far as human force and law can do it, of those whom Jehovah has created
in his own image, and invested with all the original rights of men.
The soundness of the principle contained in these remarks, both in law
and in biblical interpretation, will not be questioned. In the light of
it, let us examine briefly the justifications of slavery as derived from
the Bible. Happily the principle itself saves the labor of minute and
protracted criticism.
We first consider the curse pronounced upon Canaan by Noah. Admitting
all that is necessary to the support of slavery, namely, that that curse
constituted the descendants of _Canaan_ the property of some other tribe
or people, upon whom it conferred the right of holding them as property,
yet even so this passage does not justify but condemns American slavery;
for that curse does not touch the African race: _they are not
descendants of Canaan_;[B] and it gives no rights to American States.
In later times the Canaanites were devoted to destruction for their
sins. The Hebrews were the agents appointed by Jehovah to this work of
retribution. It was not, however, accomplished in their entire
extermination. In the case of the Gibeonites it was formally commuted to
servitude, and other nations occupying the promised land were made
tributary. Thus the curse upon Canaan was fulfilled by _authorized
executioners_ of divine justice.
What light does the whole history now throw upon slavery? It is plain
the curse was a judicial act of God concerning Canaan. It follows that
conquest with extermination or servitude was a judgment of God, which he
appointed his chosen people to execute. It follows further, that those,
who, without his commission, reduce to bondage men who are not
descendants of Canaan, do inflict a curse on those whom he has not
cursed; and thus virtually assume his most awful prerogative as the
Judge of guilty nations.
We then inquire whether the States of the South have received warrant
for enslaving any portion of mankind. Has God _given_ them the African
race as property? Where is the commission? The argument fails to justify
modern slavery for the same reason identically that it fails to justify
offensive war and conquest. God has not given the right--has neither
proclaimed the curse, nor commissioned the agent of the curse. Christian
States in America seize it, and lay it upon those whom he has not
cursed. The passage of his word which has been considered affords them
no sanction.
We proceed to another passage. It is supposed by many to be an
incontrovertible defence of modern slavery, that the Hebrews were
authorized to buy bondmen and bondmaids of the heathen round about them.
Let us candidly examine this defence.
Why were the Hebrews authorized by God in express terms to buy servants,
and possess them as their "money?" Evidently _because they did not
otherwise have this authority_. Human beings, as we have seen, were not
"given" in the grant of property. They do not, therefore, fall within
the scope of the general laws of property. If they had so fallen, the
special statutes, by which the Hebrews purchased them, would have been
as gratuitous as special enactments for buying animals, trees, and
minerals. _Of all nations they only have possessed this right; for they
only received it by special bestowment._ The rest of mankind have ever
been prohibited from assuming it by fundamental laws. If ever there was
a case in which the exception proves the rule, that case is before us;
and therefore a chasm yawns between the premise and the conclusion
defensive of slavery, which no exegesis and no logic can bridge over.
To illustrate the strength of this argument, let the fact be observed,
that, if it could be set aside, it would follow, by parity of reasoning,
that the clergy of our country, regardless of fundamental laws, have
right to take possession of a tenth part of the estates and incomes of
their fellow-citizens, because the Levites in this manner received their
inheritance among their brethren. It is plain, however, that, as in
regard to other interests no less important than liberty or slavery, so
also in regard to slavery itself, the special laws of the Old Testament
are no longer in force; whence it follows that the vital doctrine of the
system, "masters have the same right to their slaves which they have to
any other property," is totally erroneous. The institution which claims
solid foundation here is built on nothing.
We cannot forbear to adduce an instance of unexceptionable testimony to
the validity of this reasoning. In one or two famous articles on slavery
and abolitionism, the Princeton Repertory adopts it, with another
application, and says, "So far as polygamy and divorce were permitted
under the old dispensation they were lawful, and became so by that
permission; and they ceased to be lawful when that permission was
withdrawn, and a new law given. That Christ did give a new law is
abundantly evident." In the same manner, 'so far as' slavery 'was
permitted under the old dispensation it was lawful, and became so by
that permission; and it ceased to be lawful when that permission was
withdrawn, and a new law given.' It is true, however, only in a
qualified sense, that Christ gave "a new law" concerning polygamy and
divorce. His law restored the original institution of marriage, as in
Eden; and this was "new" to the Jews, because there had been departure
from it. In like manner the New Testament, if not the very words of
Christ, now gives a new law concerning slavery in the same sense; that
is, as will appear, in the sequel, the Christian precepts restore the
original institution concerning property as well as concerning marriage.
The laws which allowed polygamy and slavery, and therefore the right,
passed away together.
Here we leave the Old Testament. No other passages need examination; for
all consist with these positions. So far as that sacred volume gives
light, the world are bound by the laws and have equal right to the full
blessings of three divine institutions, whose foundations were laid in
Paradise, and whose complete and glorious proportions will encompass the
universal, millennial felicity.
The defence of slavery from the New Testament now demands brief notice.
We desire to allow it full force, while we ask the reader's candid
judgment of the conclusion.
Of course, the New Testament sanctions now what it sanctioned in the
days of its authors. That must have been _Roman, not Hebrew_, slavery;
for they lived and wrote to men under Roman law. Besides, there is
reason to believe, as Kitto states, that the Jews at that time held no
slaves. In point of historic truth, it appears that the Mosaic law,
finding slavery in existence, practically operated as a system of
gradual emancipation for its extinction. "There is no evidence that
Christ ever came in contact with slavery." This sufficiently explains
why he did not give a "new law" concerning it in specific terms. The
occasion did not arise, as it did arise in regard to polygamy and
divorce, with which he did come in contact. Furthermore, there was no
need of new law, other than was actually given.
The argument from the New Testament for the rightfulness of slavery is
twofold, being built on the instructions given to masters and servants.
It fails on both sides.
For, first, the precepts addressed to servants convey no authority to
national rulers or to private individuals to set aside the institution
of Jehovah by reducing men to the condition of slaves. These precepts
simply enjoin the conduct which Christianity required in their actual
situation. They do not vindicate the law and usage by which they were
held as property. This is abundantly evident in the texts themselves,
and more emphatically, when they are compared with the parallel cases.
Christ promulgated these rules. "I say unto you that ye resist not evil;
but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other
also. And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat,
let him have thy cloak also." Does this empower States to legalize fraud
and violence? Does it transmute all the _evil_ which Jesus' disciples
have endured into _righteousness_ of those who have inflicted the evil?
Does it wash the crimsoned hands of persecutors in innocency? Does it
justify the wilful smiter? All men know better. No one contends for such
exposition. Yet it is indispensable to the interpretation which finds a
justification of slavery in precepts which enjoin obedience on slaves.
That obedience is required on other grounds.
Another example. The New Testament explicitly commands citizens to
submit to the civil power. Does this sanctify the tyranny of a Nero or a
Nicholas? In the enjoined submission of subjects, has the despot, or the
state, full license for edicts and acts of oppression and iniquity? Yet
they are logically compelled to admit this, and thus, in theory at
least, banish freedom from the whole earth, who find in commands
addressed to servants power conferred on legislators and masters to make
them slaves; that is, to hold them as property. Instead of this, the
rights and obligations of rulers, and of those who claim to be owners of
their fellow men, are defined in a very different class of instructions.
Secondly, the instructions addressed to masters forbid the exercise of
the right which is assumed in slavery. To make this clear, we observe,
primarily, there is no passage in the New Testament which _institutes_
the relation of men held in ownership by men. There is no direct
reference to the civil laws which constituted this relation. They are
passed by silently, as are the laws that established idolatry, and
kindled the fires of persecution. Their existence is tacitly
acknowledged in the use of the terms which designate masters and
servants; and that is all. Hence those who find here an apology for
slavery are obliged to refer to secular history for the facts and
definitions on which their argument rests. Accordingly, no passage in
the New Testament would be void of meaning, though slavery should cease.
In this respect the Constitution of the United States resembles the
sacred books; for not one word of that instrument, interpreted on just
principles as the palladium of liberty, needs to be obliterated in the
abolition of slavery. Furthermore, and this covers our position, the New
Testament, disregarding the Roman law, refers masters exclusively to the
law of God as their rule for the treatment of servants. A single
citation, with which all passages agree, is sufficient to show this.
"Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing
that ye also have a Master in heaven." Now, as none can find in such
precepts a right to destroy God's primary institution concerning the
family, no more can they find in them a right to destroy his primary and
universal institution concerning property. Stronger than this, the
conclusion is inevitable, that the very precepts which are relied upon
to support American slavery do condemn and destroy it; for the law of
God, by which they bind masters, ordaining from Eden what is just and
equal between men, abolishes the fundamental and central law of the
system.[C]
It is argued, indeed, that slavery is right, because masters, as well as
fathers and rulers, may require obedience. The argument fails utterly;
for there is at the foundation no analogy in the cases. The family and
the State are divine institutions, having sanction in the Bible; but
slavery subverts a divine institution. Fathers and rulers, _as such_,
have duties and rights suitable to the relations they sustain by the
will of God. Masters, _as such_, have no _rights_; for their relation,
as holding property in men, is contrary to his will. Their duty, to
which they are bound by the solemn consideration that he is their
Master, is practically to restore to their servants the rights which he
confers upon all; for nothing less than this can be just and equal in
his sight.
This view discloses the harmony of the whole Bible concerning slavery;
and, in the light of the two Testaments, the institution stands as a
legalized violation of the positive will of Jehovah.
We now condense the whole argument into its briefest form, in the
following syllogisms.
The entire right of men to hold property is given by the Creator. He
gives to American States and citizens no right to hold property in men.
Therefore they have no such right.
Again. An institution is sinful, which, without divine warrant, holds
property in men, thus assuming a divine prerogative, and subverting a
divine institution. American slavery does this. Therefore it is a sinful
institution.
The purpose of this tract now introduces a new series of topics. The
argument demands its application; and the exigencies of the times
present momentous questions, which it must answer.
Hitherto we have spoken of the system of slavery. We come now to persons
connected with it. Because the system is sinful, the question
immediately occurs, who are chargeable with the sin; for there is no sin
without sinners. The answer is obvious. They are chargeable who founded
it, and all who wilfully implicate themselves with it. Practically, they
are always chargeable who adopt it as their own in theory and practice,
who support it in the State, consecrate it in the Church, and labor for
its extension. They are chargeable, for they bring heresy into creeds,
unrighteousness into legislation, and crime into popular usage. If they
are masters, they stand in the same moral relations with persecutors and
tyrannical rulers, guilty for all personal injuries they inflict under
color of unjust laws; and, whether masters or not, they are guilty for
exerting their influence to sustain laws which set aside the authority
of God, and withhold the rights he has given. Such men are accountable
to God and to society for deliberate, organised, aggressive iniquity.
The "organic sin" of the State is their sin, the sin of each in his own
measure; for they are the individuals who determine the acts and the
character of the slave-holding State as such.
But are there no exceptions among slave-holders? We trust there are
many. There is a plain distinction between wicked laws and the personal
acts of men who live under those laws. Some may approve them, and use or
abuse them to the injury of their fellow men. Others may disapprove
them, and refuse, by means of them, to do or justify a wrong. Christians
may become in a legal sense owners of slaves, while they heartily
deprecate the system of oppression, while they are ready to unite with
good men in feasible and wise measures for its removal, and while they
obey the Christian precepts towards their servants, rendering unto them
what is just and equal to men and brethren in Christ. Such Christians
and such men do not hold slaves in the sense which God forbids; and they
cannot be charged with the wickedness of laws by which they, as well as
the slaves, are oppressed. On their estates a higher law than that of
slavery has sway. To them their slaves, though legally property, are
morally and actually men. The Bible sustains their position. They are
the Philemons to whom Paul gives fellowship, and Onesimus returns, not
as a slave, but a brother beloved. In the trials of their situation they
should receive the cordial sympathy of Christians everywhere. It is,
indeed, to their sound convictions and their political influence the
world must look, in part at least, for the ultimate, peaceful extinction
of American slavery. Without them, what would the South become? With the
Scriptures in our hand we earnestly say to them, "Throw the weight of
your influence against unrighteous laws, fulfil to servants the law of
God, and you shall have the sympathy and confidence of good men
everywhere. Nay, more; you, with their help, and they with your help,
will confine the spreading curse, till, with God's blessing, it shall
cease; and Christian and civilized man shall have no more communion with
it."
These discriminations answer certain ecclesiastical questions, which
have occasioned much perplexity and discord. When properly applied, they
take away whatever support a wicked institution has found by leaning
upon the Church; at the same time they award to consistent Christians
what is due to them by the religion of Jesus. If it shall be said, there
will be practical difficulty in applying these discriminations, it is
sufficient to answer, it will be less than the difficulty of
disregarding them.
The question now arises, what can be done for the restriction and
ultimate extinction of slavery as it is; for, since it is sinful,
Christianity and patriotism declare it should be restrained and
abolished.
First. The extension of slavery can and should be prevented by the
Federal Government. The Scriptures have shown us, that the people in
their sovereignty have not the right to create a slave State or a slave.
Of course, the legislators and presidents; who receive in trust the
power which emanates from the people, have no such right. If the
Constitution assumed to confer this power, it would be the first
national duly to amend that instrument in this particular. There is no
power on earth competent to set aside either of the Creator's original
institutions for man. But, according to the sound and established
principle of strict construction, the Constitution as it is does not
create slavery, or even acknowledge its existence, except by inference.
Hence there is no legal objection to the measure which religion herself
ordains. The religious and the political obligations of all citizens and
all legislators coincide to protect, under the jurisdiction of Congress,
the right of every man to be exempt from the condition of property, and
to enjoy the property which he honestly earns. Thus the question
concerning slavery and the territories is morally settled by divine
authority; and to this no real objection can be made, except by that
great interest, whose existence is inherently unrighteous and
irreligious.
Secondly. In the slave States, legislation should restore to the
enslaved population the primitive rights which God has given to all men,
establishing for them, on humane and Christian principles, such
relations as are suitable to their condition of poverty, ignorance, and
dependence, and are adapted to secure at once their improvement and the
general welfare.
This is the logical conclusion to be derived from the premises. As the
central wrong of slavery consists in making men articles of property by
law, the rectification is to lift from them by law the curse of the
false and irreligious doctrine, that they can be rightfully held as
property. Thus the axe is laid to the root of the tree.
This is also the conclusion to which we are forced by other moral
principles bearing on the case. For men to receive services of men is
right. Accordingly, the New Testament allows masters to receive services
of those who are slaves in the sense of human law; but at the same time
the sacred book requires masters, with all who employ labor, to make the
recompenses which are just and equal towards men; for slavery is not
right; and legislators, on their responsibility to the Ruler of nations,
are bound to adjust the laws in harmony with the first principles of
individual and moral obligation.
Furthermore, this is the only practical conclusion. By inevitable
necessity, the slaves, as a body, must remain on the soil of their
bondage. Only exceptional cases of removal can occur. They are the
laborers of the South; and no State will, or can, or is bound, to remove
its laborers. It is simply bound to protect and treat them with
Christian equity and kindness. Banishment of them would be injustice and
cruelty, violating perhaps no less than restoring divine rights.
Moreover, no practicable means of removing them have ever been seriously
proposed; and, till they shall be, the point needs no discussion.
But the question may be raised, "Are the slaves to endure their present
wrongs until the laws shall be thus renewed, or perhaps forever?" We
reply, in showing how slave-holders can cease from guilty connection
with slavery; we have also shown how the situation of the slaves becomes
one of practical righteousness, before the laws can be readjusted; and
for this great obligation of the body politic, sufficient time most be
allowed. Moral principles do not exact natural impossibilities. The
elevation of oppressed millions can be accomplished only in harmony with
great natural and social, as well as ethical laws, which the wisdom of
God has ordained.
It remains therefore, that, for a period of which no man can see the
end, the slaves must, in most cases, dwell within the present
boundaries; but it is incumbent on the citizens and legislators of the
South to institute _immediate_ measures for restoring to them the
inviolable rights of men. So long as they continue, by the _necessities_
of the case, in the relation of servants and laborers, masters should
deal with them according to the rules of humane and Christian equity,
paying to them in suitable ways their just earnings, holding sacred
their family ties, and securing to them the privileges of education and
religion. Meanwhile, the legislatures of the several States, by wise
enactments, should coöperate with masters in training their servile
population for the position which the Creator designed for men.
When these things shall come to pass, a consideration, in which many
good men have sought relief in regard to slavery, will have multiplied
force. The providential wisdom of God, in bringing millions of the
children of Africa from a land of pagan darkness and violence to a land
of freedom and Christianity, will shine with new lustre, when they shall
receive from American hands, together with true religion, every divine
right, and shall thus be qualified and enabled to convey to the dark
habitations of their fathers the infinite blessings of enlightened
liberty and of the gospel of eternal salvation.
These things are practicable. So long as "righteousness exalteth a
nation," a great, free, and Christian people can do what they should do;
and thus only can they secure, under the divine blessing, their own
highest prosperity and glory. To prove this would be simply to repeat
the familiar facts which exhibit the legitimate effects of slavery on
general intelligence, enterprise, and virtue.
But what shall produce the true and wide spread public sentiment, which
is indispensable to usher in so radical a change in the laws and
institutions of proud and powerful States? Truth must accomplish this
great work--THE TRUTH that our Creator does not place those who bear his
image in bondage to their fellow men as property, but invests them with
a common and inviolable right of dominion over inferior things. The
vivid light which this truth sheds on the social relations of men has
been extinguished at the South; and it has been dimmed at the North. In
every right way and in every place, therefore, it should be made to
shine again unobscured. Expounders should bring it forth from the Holy
Oracles; for Jehovah has hallowed it there, and made it equal in
authority with the Sabbath. The press should publish it; for it is the
function of the press to convey unceasingly to the public mind whatever
will establish and crown the public integrity and welfare. All men
should seal it in their hearts; for it is the divine rule and bond of
brotherhood in the universal dominion. It surrounds them with protected
families, and builds their safe firesides and their altars of worship.
The question arises here, can general agreement be expected in regard to
this primary truth, and measures which legitimately proceed from it? It
is to be supposed there are men in whose hearts there is no fear of God
or love of their fellow beings. With such men these views may be
powerless; but for men of Christian principle, we are confident they
show a common foundation for united sentiments and efforts.
There is now a general, practical, vital consent that government and
society should respect the divine institutions of the family and the
Sabbath. Beneath all superficial strifes and irrelevant issues, there is
the same sure ground for a living and earnest agreement, that government
and society should respect the equal and coeval institution of the right
of property.
Christian and conservative men can unite in the proposed measures and
the truth which appoints them; for they desire to preserve only what is
right. Christian and progressive men can unite in them; for they desire
to abolish only what is wrong. Politics can approve them; for they are
constitutional and patriotic. Philanthropy can be satisfied with them;
for they promise all that in the nature of the case can be promised for
the early relief of the slaves. Religion sanctions them; for they
restore her own institutions. Good men of the South can unite in them
with those of the North; for they have equal authority North and South.
They proffer only that moral aid which great communities, sharing common
interests and responsibilities, should render and receive with intimate
and cordial confidence. They honor the sovereignty of proud and jealous
States; for each of them, exercising the power which springs from its
own people in its own way, will discharge its political obligations to
all within its boundaries.
A few years or even months of combined efforts will suffice to convey
this truth with vital energy to millions of minds and hearts. In due
time it will manifest its efficacy in the public sentiment and public
policy. We trust in its power. It is invincible; it will be victorious;
for it is from God. Its absence from the popular and legislative mind
well explains many of the evils that have been precipitated upon the
nation. Its future prevalence, under divine mercy, will arrest the
progress of events which would be, as we judge, not remedy, but
retributive destruction, on account of slavery.
This leads us to the final question. Are the principles and measures
advocated in this tract or their equivalents, with the contemplated
result, essential to the welfare of our country? We are compelled to
believe so.
We present, for the consideration of citizens and statesmen, this fact.
In harmony with that law of fitness which pervades the Creator's works,
all men are constituted with a nature corresponding with the dominion
they have received. They feel that they have a right to hold property,
and should not be held as property. Slaves feel this. Masters often show
that they feel it. They who make laws for slavery, North and South, show
that they feel it. The little property which slaves are often allowed to
possess, so far from furnishing apology for slavery, is an unwitting
tribute to the living principle that destroys the system. Here is a
philosophical demonstration that slavery cannot stand in perpetuity.
This vital element in human nature, to which a divine institution itself
is but an index, is subterranean fire beneath the pyramid of oppression.
Though long crushed and silent, it will not always sleep. Do men expect
to control forever, by law and force, that sense of rights which burns
inextinguishable in every human breast, which God himself kindled in
Eden? As well pile rocks on volcanoes to suppress earthquakes.
"Vital in every part,
It can but by annihilating die."
In this light, it is no prediction to say, if slavery survives to
consummate its own results it will destroy our country.
The great political and religious problem of the slave-holding States,
on which their welfare really depends, is not, how shall we extend
slavery? but, how shall we lay legal foundation for the rights of our
servile population as men? Unless it shall be anticipated and prevented,
by restoring to them the dominion which the Creator bestowed, a day is
as sure to come on natural principles as the sun to rise, when the
masses of human property will assert for themselves the indestructible
rights of their being. Generations may not see it; but woe betides the
States implicated in this oppression, when that day shall dawn; and the
longer it tarries the greater the woe.
To our mind, the statesmen are infatuated who do not in their policy
regard this universal sense of rights. It is this which is now making so
bitter conflict on the prairies of Kansas. It will always make conflict,
till slavery expires.
In connection with the general welfare, there is another consideration,
which we solemnly urge upon every man who respects the Bible. It is the
displeasure of God for slavery. He gave the rights which it denies; and
he will assuredly vindicate his own institutions. It would contradict
his word and history, which is but the story of his providence, to
suppose that he will perpetually allow myriads of men, in this land of
light, to hold as property other myriads and even millions of their
fellow men and fellow Christians, whom he has endowed, as bearing his
own image, with equal rights. With Jefferson we have reason to tremble
for our country, when we behold her support of slavery and remember that
God is just. France abolished the Sabbath; and thrones have gone down in
blood. America may abolish another divine institution; and for this her
proud States may be convulsed. The previous topic shows, indeed, that
God has so constituted the social elements of this world, that a great
wrong, like slavery, ultimately provides for its own retribution. The
oppressor himself treasures up the vials of wrath for Him who taketh
vengeance.