Dr. Channing’s second proposition is: “Man has sacred rights, the gifts
of God, and inseparable from human nature, of which slavery is the
infraction;” in proof of which he says, vol. ii. p. 23—“Man’s rights
belong to him as a moral being, as capable of perceiving moral
distinctions, a subject of moral obligation. As soon as he becomes
_conscious_ of a duty, a kindred _consciousness_ springs up, that he has
a _right_ to do what the sense of duty enjoins, and that no foreign will
or power can obstruct his moral action without crime.”
Suppose man has rights as described; suppose he feels _conscious_, as he
says; does that give him a right to do wrong, because his sense of duty
enjoins him to do so? And may he not be prevented from so doing? Was it
indeed a crime in God to turn the counsels of Ahithophel into
foolishness?
Page 33. “That some inward principle which teaches a man what he is
bound to do to others, teaches equally, and at the same instant, what
others are bound to do to him!” Suppose a few Africans, on an excursion
to capture slaves, find that this “inward principle” teaches them that
they are bound to make a slave of Dr. Channing, if they can; does he
mean that, therefore, he is bound to make slaves of them?
_Idem_, p. 33. “The sense of duty is the fountain of human rights. In
other words, the same inward principle which teaches the former, bears
witness to the latter.”
If the African’s sense of duty gives the right to make Dr. Channing a
slave, we do not see why he should complain; since, by his own rule, the
African’s sense of duty proves him to possess the right which his sense
of duty covets.
Page 34. “Having shown the foundation of human rights in human nature,
it may be asked, what they are. * * * They may all be comprised in the
right, which belongs to every rational being, to exercise his powers for
the promotion of his own and others’ happiness and virtue. * * * His
ability for this work is a sacred trust from God, the greatest of all
trusts. He must answer for the waste or abuse of it. He consequently
suffers an unspeakable wrong when stripped of it by others, or forbidden
to employ it for the ends for which it is given.”
We regret to say that we feel an objection to Channing’s argument and
mode of reasoning, for its want of definiteness and precision. If what
he says on the subject of slavery were merely intended as eloquent
declamations, addressed to the sympathies and impulses of his party, we
should not have been disposed to have named such an objection. But his
works are urged on the world as sound logic, and of sufficient force to
open the eyes of every slaveholder to the wickedness of the act, and to
force him, through the medium of his “moral sense,” to set the slaves
instantly free.
A moral action must not only be the voluntary offspring of the actor,
but must also be performed, to be judged by laws which shall determine
it to be good or bad. These laws, man being the moral agent, we say, are
the laws of God; by them man is to measure his conduct.
Locke says, “Moral good and evil are the conformity or disagreement of
our voluntary actions to some law, whereby good or evil is drawn upon us
from the will or power of the lawmaker.”
But the doctrine of Dr. Channing seems to be that this law is each man’s
_conscience, moral sense, sense of duty_, or the _inward principle_. If
the proposition of Mr. Locke be sound logic, what becomes of these
harangues of Dr. Channing?
We say, that the law, rule, or power that decides good or evil, must be
from a source far above ourselves; for, if otherwise, the contradictory
and confused notions of men must necessarily banish all idea of good and
evil from the earth. In fact, the denial of the elevated, the Divine
source of such law, is also a denial that God governs; for government
without law is a contradiction.
If the conscience, as Dr. Channing thinks, is the guide between right
and wrong according to the law of God; then the law of God must be quite
changeable, because the minds of men differ. Each makes his own
deduction; therefore, in that case, the law of God must be what each one
may severally think it to be; which is only other language to say there
is no law at all. “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes.” _Prov._
xxi. 2. But, “The statutes of the Lord are right.” _Ps._ xix. 8. The
laws of God touching the subject of slavery are spread through every
part of the Scriptures. Human reason may do battle, but the only result
will be the manifestation of its weakness. The institution of slavery
must, of necessity, continue in some form, so long as sin shall have a
tendency to lead to death; so long as Jehovah shall rule, and exercise
the attributes of mercy to fallen, degraded man.
But let us for a moment view the facts accompanying the slavery of the
African race, and compare them with the assertion, p. 35, that every
slave “suffers a grievous wrong;” and, p. 49, that every slave-owner is
a “robber,” however unconscious he may be of the fact.
So far as history gives us any knowledge of the African tribes, for the
last 4000 years, their condition has been stationary; at least they have
given no evidence of advancement in morals or civilization beyond what
has been the immediate effect of the exchange of their slaves for the
commodities of other parts of the world. So far as this trade had
influence, it effected almost a total abolition of cannibalism among
them. That the cessation of cannibalism was the result of an exchange of
their slaves as property for the merchandise of the Christian nations,
is proved by the fact that they have returned to their former habits in
that respect upon those nations discontinuing the slave-trade with them.
Which is the greatest wrong to a slave, to be continued in servitude, or
to be butchered for food, because his labour is not wanted by his owner?
No very accurate statistics can be given of African affairs; but their
population has been estimated at 50,000,000, and to have been about the
same for many centuries; of which population, even including the wildest
tribes, far over four-fifths have ever been slaves among themselves. The
earliest and the most recent travellers among them agree as to the
facts, that they are cannibals; that they are idolaters, or that they
have no trace of religion whatever; that marriage with them is but
promiscuous intercourse; that there is but little or no affection
between husband and wife, parent and children, old or young; that in
mental or moral capacity, they are but a grade above the brute creation;
that the slaves and women alone do any labour, and they often not enough
to keep them from want; that their highest views are to take slaves, or
to kill a neighbouring tribe; that they evince no desire for
improvement, or to ameliorate their condition. In short, that they are,
and ever have been, from the earliest knowledge of them, savages of the
most debased character. We have, in a previous study, quoted authority
in proof of these facts, to which we refer.
Will any one hesitate to acknowledge, that, to them, slavery, regulated
by law, among civilized nations is a state of moral, mental, and
physical elevation? A proof of this is found in the fact that the
descendants of such slaves are found to be, in all things, their
superiors. If their descendants were found to deteriorate from the
condition of the parents, we should hesitate to say that slavery was to
them a blessing. Which would man consider the most like an act of mercy
in Jehovah, to continue them in their state of slavery to their African
master, brother, and owner, or to order them into that condition of
slavery in which we find them in these States? Which state of slavery
would a man prefer, to a savage, or to a civilized master?
The Hebrews, Medes, Persians, Chaldeans, Syrians, Greeks, and Romans
have, on the borders of Africa, to some extent, amalgamated with them,
from time immemorial. But such amalgamation has never been known to
attain to the position, either physically, mentally, or morally, of
their foreign progenitors; perhaps superior to the interior tribes, yet
often they scarcely exhibit a mental or moral trace of their foreign
extraction. The thoughtless, those of slovenly morals, or those of none
at all, from among the descendants of Japheth, have commingled with them
in the new world; but the amalgamation never exhibits a corresponding
elevation in the direction of the white progenitor. The connection may
degrade the parent, but never elevate the offspring. The great mass look
upon the connection with abhorrence and loathing; and pity or contempt
always attends the footsteps of the aggressor. These feelings are not
confined to any particular country or age of the world. Are not these
things proof that the descendants of Ham are a deteriorated race? Will
the declarations of a few distempered minds, as to their religion,
feeling, and taste, weigh in contradiction? What was the judgment of
Isaac and Rebecca on this subject? See _Gen._ xxvi. 35; xxvii. 46; also
xxviii. 1.
Since the days of Noah, where are their monuments of art, religion,
science, and civilization? Is it not a fact that the highest moral and
intellectual attainment which the descendants of Ham ever displayed is
now, at this time, manifested among those in servile pupilage? The very
fact of their being property gives them protection. What, he their
“robber,” who watches over their welfare with more effect and integrity
than all their ancestry together since the days of Noah! By the
contrivance of making them _property_, has God alone given them the
protection which 4000 years of sinking degradation demand, in an upward
movement towards their physical, mental, and moral improvement, their
rational happiness on earth, and their hopes of heaven. What, God’s
agent in this matter a _robber_ of them!
Let us assure the disciples of Dr. Channing that there are thousands of
slaves too acute observers of truth to come to such a conclusion; who,
although from human frailty they may sometimes seem to suffer an
occasional or grievous wrong, can yet give good reason in proof that
slavery is their only safety. Let us cast the mind back to a period of
five hundred years ago. A Christian ship, intent on new discoveries,
lands on the African coast. The petty chieftain there, is and about to
sacrifice a number of his slaves, either to appease the manes of his
ancestor, to propitiate his gods, or to gratify his appetite by
feasting. Presents have been made to the natives; it is thought their
friendship is secured; the Christians are invited to the _fête_, the
participants are collected, the victims brought forward, and the club
uplifted for the blow. The Christians, struck with surprise, or excited
by horror, remonstrate with the chief; to which he sullenly replies:
“Yonder _my_ goats, _my_ village, all around _my_ domain; _these are my
slaves!_” meaning that, by the morals and laws that have from time
immemorial prevailed there, his rights are absolute; that he feels it as
harmless to kill a slave as a goat, or dwell in his village. But the
clothing of the Christian is presented, the viands of art are offered,
the food of civilization is tasted, the cupidity of the savage is
tempted, and the _fête_ celebrated through a novel and more valuable
offering. What, these Christians, who have bought these slaves,
_robbers_!
Let us look back to the days of the house of Saul, when, perhaps, David,
hiding himself from his face amid the villages of Ammon, chanced upon
the ancestors of Naamah, the mother of Rehoboam, a later king of Israel.
Finding them about to sacrifice a child upon the altar of Moloch, “Stay
thy hand!” says the son of Jesse; “I have a message to thee from the God
of Israel; deliver me the child for these thirty pieces of silver!” And,
according to the law of the God of his fathers, it becomes his “bond-man
for ever.” What, was David a robber in all this? Suppose the child to
have been sold, resold, and sold again, is the character of the owner
changed thereby?
But it is concerning the _rights_ of the descendants of these slaves
that we have now to inquire. See _Luke_ xvii. 7–10:
“7. But which of you having a servant (δοῦλος, _slave_) ploughing or
feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he has come from the
field, Go, and sit down to meat?
“8. And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup,
and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken and
afterwards thou shalt eat and drink?
“9. Doth he thank that servant (δουλον, _slave_) because he did the
things that were commanded him? I trow not.
“10. So likewise ye, when ye have done all those things which are
commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that
which was our duty to do.”
Suppose a proprietor, in any country or at any age, receives into his
employment an individual, who thereafter resides and has a family upon
his estate: upon the death of the individual, will his heirs accrue to
any of the rights of the proprietor, other than those granted, or those
consequent to their own or their ancestor’s condition, or those that may
accrue by operation of law? Where is the political enactment, the moral
precept, the Divine command, teaching an adverse doctrine?
Before we close our view of Dr. Channing’s second proposition, we design
to notice his use of the word “nature.” He says, that man has rights,
gifts of God, inseparable from human “nature.” We confess that we are
somewhat at a loss to determine the precise idea the doctor affixes to
this term. The phrase “human nature” is in most frequent use through
these volumes. But in vol. i. page 74, he says—“Great powers, even in
their perversion, attest a _glorious nature_.” Page 77: “The infinite
materials of illustration which nature and life afford.” Page 82: “To
regard despotism as a law of _nature_.” Page 84: “His superiority to
_nature_, as well as to human opposition.” Page 95: “We will inquire
into the nature and fitness of the measures.” Page 98: “The first object
in education _naturally_ was to fit him for the field.” Page 110: “From
the principles of our _nature_.” Page 111: “_Nature_ and the human will
were to bend to his power.” _Idem_: “He wanted the sentiment of a common
_nature_ with his fellow-beings.” Page 112: “With powers which might
have made him a glorious representative and minister of the beneficent
Divinity, and with _natural_ sensibilities.” Page 119: “Traces out the
general and all-comprehending laws of _nature_.” Page 143: “A power
which robs men of the free use of their _nature_,” &c. Page 146: “Its
efficiency resembles that of darkness and cold in the _natural_ world.”
Page 184: “Whose writings seem to be _natural_ breathings of the soul.”
Page 189: “Language like this has led men to very injurious modes of
regarding themselves, and their own _nature_.” _Idem_: “A man when told
perpetually to crucify _himself_, is apt to include under this word his
whole _nature_.” _Idem_: “Men err in nothing more than in disparaging
and wronging their own _nature_.” _Idem_: “If we first regard man’s
highest _nature_.” Page 190: “We believe that the human mind is akin to
that intellectual energy, which gave birth to _nature_.” _Idem_: “Taking
human _nature_ as consisting of a body as well as mind, as including
animal desire,” &c. _Idem_: “We believe that he in whom the physical
_nature_ is unfolded.” Page 191: “But excess is not essential to
self-regard, and this principle of our _nature_ is the last which could
be spared.” Page 192: “It is the great appointed trial of our moral
_nature_.” Page 193: “Our _nature_ has other elements or constituents,
and vastly higher ones.” _Idem_: “For truth, which is its object, is of
a universal, impartial _nature_.” Page 196: “Is the most signal proof of
a higher _nature_ which can be given.” _Idem_: “It is a sovereignty
worth more than that over outward _nature_.” _Idem_: “Its great end is
to give liberty and energy to our _nature_.” Page 198: “Our moral,
intellectual, immortal _nature_ we cannot remember too much.” Page 200:
“The moral _nature_ of religion.” Page 202: “We even think that our love
of _nature_.” _Idem_: “For the harmonies of _nature_ are only his wisdom
made visible.” Page 203: “That progress in truth is the path of
_nature_.” Page 211: “It has the liberality and munificence of _nature_,
which not only produces the necessary root and grain, but pours forth
fruits and flowers. It has the variety and bold contrasts of _nature_.”
_Idem_: “The beautiful and the superficial seem to be _naturally_
conjoined.” Page 212: “And by a law of his _nature_.” Page 213: “These
gloomy and appalling features of our _nature_.” Page 215: “These
conflicts between the passions and the moral _nature_.”
* * * * *
We regret that so eminent and accurate a scholar, and so influential a
man, should have fallen into such an indefinite and confused use of any
portion of our language. If we mistake not, it will require more than
usual reflection for the mind to determine what idea is presented by its
use in the most of these instances. We know that some use this word so
vaguely, that if required to explain the idea they wished to convey by
it, they would be unable to do so. But there are those from whom we
expect a better use of language. Many English readers pass over such
sentences without stopping to think what are the distinct ideas of the
writer. There are, in our language, a few words used in our
conversational dialect, as if especially intended for the speaker’s aid
when he only had a confused idea, or perhaps none at all, of what he
designed to say; and we extremely regret that words, to us of so
important meaning, as _nature_ and _conscience_, should be found among
that class. The teacher of theology and morals should surely be careful
not to lead his pupils into error. Might not the unskilled inquirer
infer that _nature_ was a substantive existence, taking rank somewhere
between man and the Deity? And what would be his notion, derived from
such use of the term, of its offices, of its influence on, and man’s
relation with it? What is our notion as to the definite idea these
passages convey?
“_Man has rights, gifts of God, inseparable from human nature, of which
slavery is the infraction._” By “human nature,” as here used, we
understand _the condition or state of being a man_ in a general sense.
Our inference is, then, that God has given man rights, that is, all men
the same rights, which are inseparable from his state of being a man;
consequently, if by any means these rights are taken from him, then his
state of being a man is changed, or ceases to exist; and since slavery
breaks these rights, therefore a slave is not a man.
But the fact we find to be that the slave is, nevertheless, a man; and
hence it follows that these _rights_ were not inseparable from his state
of being a man, or that he had not the _rights_.
If slavery is sinful because it infringes the rights of man, then any
other thing is also sinful which infringes them. Will the disciples of
Dr. Channing deny that these rights are infringed by the constitution of
the civil government? The law gives parents the right to govern,
command, and restrain minor children; to inflict punishment for their
disobedience. Is parental authority a sin? Government, in every form, is
found to deprive females of a large proportion of the rights which men
possess. When married, their rights are wholly absorbed in the rights of
the husband. This must be very sinful!
Idiots have no rights. In reality, the very idea of rights vanishes away
with the power to exercise them. But in a state of civil government, it
is a mere question of expediency how personal rights shall be adjusted;
which is very manifest, if we look at the different constitutions of
government now in the world. In one, men who follow certain occupations
have certain rights as a consequence. Men who are found guilty of
certain breaches of the law lose a portion or all their rights. The
president of our senate loses the right to vote, except under condition;
and we agree that a mere majority shall rule. Thus forty-nine of the
hundred cease to find their rights available. They must submit. Man, as
a member of civil society, is only a small fraction of an unit, and has
no right to exercise a right unconformably to the expression of the
sense of the general good. Man has no right to live independent of his
fellow-man, like a plant or a tree; consequently, his rights must be
determined and bounded by the general welfare. Dr. Channing ceases to be
enlightened by moral science when he announces that, because a man is
“conscious of duty,” therefore, what he may think his right cannot be
affected by others “without crime.” So reverse may be the fact, that it
may be a crime in him to claim the right his conscious duty may suggest.
Man cannot be said to be in possession of all things that he, or such
theorists, may deem his rights only in a monocratic state. But how will
he retain them? For then, so far as he shall have intercourse with
others, every thing will come to be decided by the law of _might_; so
that, instead of gaining, he will lose all rights. But suppose him to
live without intercourse; what is a naked, abstract right, that yields
him nothing above the brute? God never made a man for such a state of
life; because it at once includes rebellion to his government; and,
therefore, its every movement will be to retrograde.
Will the disciples of Dr. Channing be surprised to find that the only
medicine God has prepared for such a loathsome moral disease as will
then be developed, is slavery to a higher order of men?
------------------