SLAVERY:
i
SHOWING THAT
SI A VElf
:• -
IS
NEITHER A MORAL, POLITICAL, NOR SOCIAL EVIL.
PENFIELD, GA.
PRINTED BY BENJ. BRANTLY.
1844.
EMORY UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
SLAVERY.
SHOWING
THAT SLAVERY
IS NEITHER A MORAL, POLITICAL, NOR SOCIAL
mviti
PENEIELtJ, GA.
PRINTED BY BKN1. BRANTLY.
1844.
INTRODUCTION.
Tor the last fifteen years, or more, the system of domestic servitude at the
South has been assailed with the most bitter and systematic denunciation by
the Abolitionists of this country and England. Influenced by sectional pre¬
judices, and countenanced by the British Government, which has officially
declared it to be its intention to seek the abolition of slavery throughout the
world, and which has never let slip an opportunity of fomenting jealousies
arhong us, the Northern Abolitionists have openly avowed their determina¬
tion to abolish slavery at the South. Claiming that it is unauthorized by the
laws of God, and opposed to every principle of natural right, they demand
that the negroes be freed instantly, and unconditionally—and some declare
that even the dissolution of the Union, and the indiscriminate massacre of the
white race at the South, shall not bd a barrier in the way of the accomplish¬
ment of their object. The freedom of the negro, and his elevation to the
same civil and political privileges with his master, on the soil which he
now tills, are the objects which they jjoldly and unblushingly avow.
For the furtherance of this, they have not scruplpd in the use of means.
Either doubting the force of their arguments, or considering us too mercena¬
ry to be moved by them, they have made no ap| pais to our rpason or sense
of justice. All their agitation in this country has bper, confined to those
States of the Union where negro slavery has no existence. Thinking that
by bringing the moral power of these to bear upon us we would be awed in¬
to submission to their demands, they have not ceased in their endeavors to
array public opinion there against us. Presses have been established devoted
to this object—-pulpits have been subsidized—lecturers have traversed the
length and breadth of the land, and penetrated into every town and hamlet
■—argument has been used where it wobld avail anything—denunciation and
invective have been dealt out with unsparing hand—the most exciting ap¬
peals have been addressed to men's prejudices and passions—slavery has
been exhibited in its most revolting features, and all the resources oI refined
and depraved imaginations have been uhed to invent atrocities to ascribe to
it—sqcieties have been formed and conventions held—Congress has been de¬
luged with petitions so framed as to insure their rejection, that an unnatural
alliance might be Formed between abolition and 4* the sacred right of peti¬
tion,"—in short, every thing that can influence men's judgments or pas¬
sions, has been used with a zeal and energy worthy of a better cause.
Nor have they confined themselves to operating upon public sentiment.
Societies have been formed and money contributed, with the avowed object
of aiding fugitive slaves to escape from their masters, and they boastingly
proclaim that thousands have thus made their escape to Canada. So bitter,
indeed, is their hostility to that Article in the Constitution which requires the
delivery of such to their rightful owners, and so frequently have they shown
their determination to resist it with mob force, that it is only with the great¬
est personal risk that masters can claim their constitutional right. Nay,
even judges, overawed by the mob, or operated upon by the silent influence
of public opinion, have disregarded their oath of office, to the defrauding the
master of his property, and whole States, in defiance of the obligations of the
Constitution, and forgetful of those feelings of kindness and mutual forbear¬
ance without which this confederacy of States cannot long exist in union,
have, in effect, declared that they will protect any of their citizens who may
feloniously enter our territory and deco\ our servants awas.
h
Not content with destroying our reputation with our lellow-cltizens ol the
®ion-slaveholding States, and arraying our brethren against us, they have
formed an alliance with a foreign people—a people that have never forgiven
us the assertion of our independence, and that would be gratified at nothing
so much as our ruin. They receive emissaries from England—listen to
their exciting and treasonable harangues, and send delegates over the Atlan¬
tic to sit with Englishmen in "The World's Anti-Slavery Convention," the
greater part of whese sessions arespent in abusing our Institutions, and form¬
ing plans for their subversion : and so far has the excitement advanced in
England, (the native land of Anti-American prejudice,) that a slaveholding
traveller, whatever his character and however unexceptionable his manners,
is liable to be denied the common courtesies of life, and treated as a ruffian
•or a felon. Nay more ; one of their most respectable Reviews considers
that a war with the United States would be a public blessing, as it would af¬
ford England an opportunity of landing upon our Southern shores her army
of20,000 blacks from the West Indies, Who could unite with the slaves in
exterminating their miscreant masters.
The immediate, unconditional abolition of slavery is their object, and
these are some of the means used for its accomplishment,
In the meantime, while thus assailed by the combined forces of foreign
and domestic enemies, what mode of defence have we adopted 1 In effect,
none. With some few individual exceptions, we have either treated their
arguments and statements with silent contempt, or else strengthened their
hands by acknowledging it to be " an evil and a- dreadful calamity."—
[That many who make this admissiop believe it to be true, we are not per¬
mitted to doubt, but that the large majority who use it attach no definite idea
to the phraseology, is as little doubtful.]
The fact is, as it has been stated, tlpat, with few individual exceptions, we
have not attempted to refute their arguments.—-Why has this been, when
we claim that our side of the question is not destitute of the most weighty ar¬
guments? The answer is easy, anct satisfactory. We were unwilling to
admit the right of the northern people to erect themselves into a tribunal,
and drag us as culprits before their bar.
We have ever been disposed to treat with indulgence the vanity of our
northern brethren. Believing the delusion necessary to their happiness, we
have listened without remonstrance to the many claims to superiority set up
for themselves—have been willing to admit that they were the genuine de¬
scendants of those very "Pilgrim Fathers" that hung up the wicked Quakers
and Baptists by the dozens—nay, more, to leave them in undisturbed posses¬
sion of the self-complacent idea, that they were the repository of all the mo¬
rality and intelligence in the land, so long as it exhibited itself only in harm¬
less self-congratulations ; but when, upon this fancied superiority, or on any
•other foundation, they attempted to base the right to arraign us, before the
bar of public opinion, or any other tribunal, self-respect required that we
should refuse to plead to their indictments.
They had no jurisdiction over the subject, and we were unwilling, by noti¬
cing their statements, to seem to admit their right to touch it. Not only did
our press, for this reason, refuse to meet them with argument, bqt in Con¬
gress also the same motives seem to have influenced our members. Consid¬
ering the reception of an abolition petition, and its reference to a committee, as
tantamount to an acknowledgement that the northern abolitionist has the right
t6 meddle with slavery at the South,they have contented themselves with indig.
nantly demanding its rejection, and I know notthat any Southern man in Con¬
gress has, on such an occasion, presented an argument in defence ol slavery.
7
I am far lrom admitting that in this we have been wrong; but still if is ta
be regretted,, in view of'the consequences, that the agitation did not assume a
different aspect in the beginning. Upon us at the South, it has had the un¬
happy effect to interrupt those kindly feelings towards the North which it is
the mutual interest of both sections to reciprocate, and to cause many of us
so to distrust all northern men, as to refuse to co-operate with them in the
cause of missions. It has gone far to dry up the sources of our benevolence,,
and to make many good men anti-missionaries, who cannot see but that our
contributions must of necessity flow through a northern channel.
But the most serious consequences have fallen upon that region which' ori¬
ginated this crusade and now sustains it. For the last ten years, New En¬
gland has been the scene of the most intense excitement on this subject. The
Abolitionists, construing our silence into an acknowledgement that we were
unable to meet their arguments, and our " sensitiveness" into an exhibition
of conscious weakness, very soon settled it as an axiom, in their own mindsr
that slavery is (not " an evil and a dreadful Calamity" but) an awful crime,,
committed against God and man, and it required but little additional induce¬
ment to make them believe, that its advocates are ruffians unworthy the
countenance of God or man.
Meeting with no opposition from u^, and claiming it to be a conceded point
that slavery is an evil; operating, moreover, upon a people unhappily predis¬
posed to believe any statements to oujr discredit, but possessing kind hearts
and overflowing sympathies, it is not wonderful that all other subjects have
become subordinate to this, and that it rules all classes and professions with
a rod of iron.
Politicians bow to it, or use it as a hobby on which to ride into office. Pas¬
tors settle themselves firmly in the affections of their people by its advocacy,
and the pulpits of tnore than one thousand Baptist Churches are more en¬
gaged in denouncing " the sin of slavery" thaii in preaching *' Christ and
him crucified." Slavery is the theme of very fast-day sermon, and is made
the fruitful cause of all the calamitfes that have befallen our country, even
to thq bursting of the cannon on board the Princeton.—Churches show their
zeal, as they suppose, for the cause of religion by hurling their anathemas
against the system and its advocates. 411 affection is lost for those whom-
they once called their Southern brethreny and to such a pitch of holy phren-
zy have a large portion of their churches arrived, as to formally exclude all
slaveholders from their communion and their pulpits. [This last can hardly
be considered as a consequence that bears heavily upon the South ; for 1 do
not know that the usefulness of our ministry depends upon admission to their
pulpits, and we are happy to know that their churches do not constitute ex¬
clusively the kingdom of heaven. Their " railing accusations" against us
have served to show to us, at once, their exktence, and their hatred ofu&—
the latter we disregard and forgive, and the former we expeet very soor Co
forget. The consequences fall with unhappy severity upon themselves ; for,
however convenient their wrath and anathemas may be as a means of show¬
ing their holiness, it is far from neing the most successful way to increase
it.] Benevolent Societies, formed as the means of extending the Redeemer'?!
Kingdom, have been rendered comparatively useless, in their efforts to wresty
them into engines to be turned against the Southern slaveholder, and our
hitherto happy and cherished union itself, cemented as it is by the blood of
their Fathers and ours, and the dearest legacy left by thorn to us, has be¬
come so offensive that they desire anil even petition Congress for its dissolu¬
tion.
Nor are these all the eonsequi rices to them. United, as they are, in their
a
opposition to slavery, they are, nevertheless, divided among themselves, even
to open warfare, in the means they would use for its eradication. The wea¬
pons forged for us are turned against themselves. The English language,
copious as it is, is exhausted for bitter epithets to apply to each other; and if
you would believe their statements, conveniently situated as they are to
form a correct opinion of each other, you would be constrained to think that
they are none of them any better than they ought to be. Churches are
distracted, communities and families divided, all the charities and decencies
of life are trampled under foot, and all about a subject over which they have
as much control as over the movements of the man in the moon.
Verily our compassion should be excited in behalf of our northern breth¬
ren who are possessed with this evil spirit, and, for one, I should be willing
to contribute liberally to sending a missionary among them, who might place
slavery before them upon the ground on which it stands in scripture, and
thus expel their unhappy delusions.
The abolitionists would probably smile at this; for they believe—at least
the Baptist portion of them—that we are afraid to think on this subject, and,
therefore, they profess to believe that the "full and free discussion of the
subject at the late Triennial Convention, and the unwelcome truths that the
slaveholding delegates were compelled to listen to, have advanced the cause
of abolitionism a quarter of a century," and therefore it is that they are so
well pleased with the reference of the questions pertaining to the Home Mis¬
sion Society back to the churches, because thus, incidentally, the subject of
abolition will engage the attention of southern christians; and tbey have no
doubt but such reflection will tend to the advancement of abolition sen¬
timent.
Not so fast, gentlemen. Our delegates, who told you that slavery is an
evil, did not represent our sentiments. We are not afraid to think on this
subject, and, what is nnore, are prepared to meet you, or any one else, and
maintain that slavery is neither a moral, political, nor social evil.
PART t
Slit?noN 1.
Slav eri, is wot a Moiial" fivii*
lo piovc tliat slavery Is not a moral evil, we lay down, and' shall fendea'
Vor to sustain, the two following propositions:—
1, it is not an immorality itself.
2. It has not an immoral tendency*
Fir$t.—~It may be welh in the first place, to define the idea we have of a
moral evil, Morals, from the Latin word, mores, signifies manners. A mo¬
ral law is a law of manners, regulating intelligent beings, such as are capa
bleof distinguishing between right and wrong, in their feelings and actions
towards other intelligences created and uncreated. An immorality, then, it
is scarcely necessary to say, is something wtych, in any way, violates such
law. The law, regulating our manners towards God and Our fellow crea¬
tures, qo one could CnSct but God, and He has made no other revelation of
it than such as is contained in the Scripture? of the Old and New Testament.
I believe it is conceded, by all moral philosophers of thechristian school, that
God's Will is the only fule of moral action. Any thing which conflicts with
His revelation, or runs in advance of it, is a spurious morality, and nothing
which accords with it can, in any manner, be an immorality.—We define a
moral evil, then, to be that which, either in its nature, or its tendencies, is
opposed to the Scriptures of Divine Truth.
^1 know that in tfiis agd Of " free inquiry" and excitement—and, I may
say, of mawkish sentimentality-i-evert the Bible is beginning to be considered
too low a standard of morals. Its precepts, it is thought, many of them*
were suited only to a riide and uncultivated age, and designed for suchalonef
but the present refined artd intellectual age should take a position even in ad*
vUnce of it. J,ikC the NeologistS of Germany, who apply the knife to the
sacred scriptures, with a freedom lirpited qnly hy their inclinations, our reft-
pcd moralists, in effect, take upon them to say, what precepts liave become
obsolete, and what should be engrafted upon the remainder 10 supply the de¬
ficiencies of bihle moralily.
I recognise no code of morals but that contained in the sacred Scriptures,
and this is the t|est to which I ani willing and design tC apply this subject.
fSecond.<—It is essential t<? our argument that wC snow, in advance, the
nature of the two systems of slavery as they pxiste^ severally under the Old
anil New Tesfampnt dispensations. Abolitionists acknowledge, as, indeed*
they are compelled to, that such an institution was in existence during the
whole time that God employed in making successive revelations of his will 5
but maintain that then? is no analogy—not the slightest resemblance-—-be*
I ween even the wor.tt forms of it, and that now in existence in our midst.
Let us see,
I Among tne Hebrews there were two kinds of slaves—foreigners and
Hebrews. The former were obtained, 1. By purchase, Gen. 17: 12—
jLov. t'3 44r4.». B} capture; as in the case of the Gibeonites and pth
er, ft. They were bom in the house from bond-parents, Gen. 14: 14
\s tothmr condition 1. Thtj weie considered as property, (Ex.21
which thi ma ler had the right to dispose of as he pleased. They
i until he bought and "old—tri mfeired from one person to another by gift,
till ft 141 tula ilunM,(Ii'i, » 44,4- )orm nnv ufln i ua\ in which
10
property could pass from one person to another 2 Their bondage ivm
perpetual, (Lev. 25 i 46,) to cease only with their lives. 3 Their muster
could punish them with stripes, and even with death, without public process
(Ex. 21: 20, 21.) From this brief statement, it will be seen that the
" bond-service" of the old testament times differed from our own only in the
fact that it was more rigorous•
Hebrews became slaves in various ways. 1. Parents could sell their child-
Ten—Ex. 21: 7. 2. A poor man could sell nimself—Lev, 25: 39. 3.
Insolvent debtors were sold to their creditors—2 Kings, 4: 1, 4. Thieves,
who could not make restitution, could be sold for the benefit of the sufferers
—Ex. 22 : 3.
As to their condition: it was much more ameliorated than that of the
"bond-servants," and, in many respects, thfeir servitude was milder than
that endured by our negroes.—It was provided that they should go out free
on the Sabbatical or seventh year, with their wives ai^d children, provided
their wives came into servitude with them ; but if their masters had given
them wives, they, and their issue, were to remain in slavery. If, however,
the slave so " loved his mdbter, his wife and his children," as to prefer re
maining with them, his ear was bored through with an awl and he became
a servant forever.
2nd. With regard to the slavery that existed in the time of our Saviour,
and His Apostles : it is hardly necessary to remark that it was as unmitiga¬
ted us it could well be. At that time, the sway of the Romans was acknow¬
ledged over all the civilized world, and wherever Roman citizens were, there
was Roman slavery. The churches, therefore, which the Apostles constitu¬
ted, were composed of slaves and their owners.
Among the Romans, slaves were considered as things. The master could
treat his servant as he pleased—could sell him, punish him, or put him to
death. A slave could not contract marriage, and no legal relation was ac¬
knowledged between him and his children. His master could separate him
from his family whenever he pleased. He could have no property—he Was
not incapable of acquiring it; but his acquisitions belonged to his master.
Of course, therefore, he could neither will away nor inherit property. He
could not testify in a court of justice. They were carried about by slave
merchants, who, many of them, realized immense fortunes by the traffic in
them. There were regular and legal slave-markets, where they were expo¬
sed naked, and all could examine them whether they wished to purchase
them or not. [The reader can see the subject presented at length by refer-
ence to the article "Servusin thq "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Anti
quities," and by consulting "Adams's Roman Antiquities."]
From what we have briefly presented, it will be seen that, in their essen
tial features, neither of those systems was milder than that in our midst.
Having premised thus much, we proceed to take up the first proposition
laid down.
I. Slavery is not an Immorality itself.
First. Because it is directly sanctioned by the letter of the Scriptures.
Secondly. Because it is not indirectly forbidden by the spirit of the Scrip
tures.
First. That God did sanction it directly under both the Old and New
Testament dispensations, appears:
1 st. Because He did not prohibit, or abolish it, when the most favorable
opportunities were presented for doing so.
1. At the time He called Abraham from his country, his kindred, and his
father's house, slavery existed in many—perhaps in all the nations of thn
n
fcrttij, lu calling him, God laid the foundation of a new state ot things.
He deyigned to make him the father of the faithful, as well as the progenitor
of the Hebrew nation, which should be the repositories of the lively oracles,
and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ should come.
Here was presented a most favorable opportunity, which God himself
made, foi prohibiting gross immoralities ; and, consequently, we find, that
Vbraliam was separated from idolatry, with which he had been, doubtless,
conue:ted ; for " his fathers served Other Gods beyond the flood"-*-that is,
the great river Euphrates.
Abraham was rich in men-servanfs, and maid-servants, as vvell as in other
kinds of property; and, we read, that, at the time he went out to battle against
the Kings, he had three hundred and eighteen male-servants in his house
capable of bearing arms. Now, if the holding another in involuntary ser¬
vitude be a sin, on what principle can it be explained that God did not prohib¬
it Abraham's connection with it ? It cannot be that it would have been re¬
quiring too much of him in the then condition of the world; for he that was
willing to offer upon an altar, Isaac, the son of promise, would, at the com¬
mand of God, have sacrificed any, or all of his earthly possessions.
2. When God led the children of Israel out of Egypt, another favorable
opportunity was afforded of declaring his disapprobation of slavery, if it be
sinful.
The probability is, that, at the time of the Exodus, there were no slaves
among the Israelites. I know that Jacob had men-servants, and maid-ser¬
vants, whom he doubtless carried with him into Egypt; but I have no evi-
dence that their descendants were, in the time of.Moses, the slaves of Israel-
Itish masters. We know that the Hebrews themselves, while in Egypt,
were suffering under slavery ot the most unmitigated kind. They were pla¬
ced, individually, under task-masters, who exacted from them, daily, the
most unreasonable and oppressive service. The presumption, therefore, is,
that those who were slaves themselves could not be the masters of slaves.
If this be a correct inference, then, the most favorable opportuni^ was pre¬
sented to forbid them all connection with " the sin of slavery." Be this as
it may—supposing that slaves were owned among them, the opportunity was
still favorable for two reasons. 1st. Because the people had learned, by
bitter experiehce, the hardships of Egyptian servitude, and would be likely,
if any thing, to be prejudiced against slavery; and 2. Because God selected that
occasion to promulgate to them, from Alt. Sinai, that holy and righteous law,
which could not compromise with men's depravity or weakness. If, then,
slavery be a sin, how can it be explained, that God did not avail himself of
this most favorable opportunity to prohibit, or abolish it t
3. At the advent of our Saviour, too, some things that had been tolerated
for wise purposes, and others that had fulfilled the object of their appointment,
were forbidden and abolished. Among the latter, may be mentioned the
ceremonial law—the law of retaliation, &c.; and among the former, polyga¬
my, which God had silently permitted, though He had never positively en¬
couraged it. This was the ushering in of a more spiritual dispensation.
God had ceased to wink at men's ignorance, and was about to make the last
revelation of His will to man. Now, if slavery be sinful, how happens it
that there was not a single expression uttered against it either by Christ, or
His Apostles ? On the contrary, every passage containing allusion to it, I
assert, and, in the proper place, shall prove, directly sanctions it.
Slaverv is in accordance with the letter of the Bible:
2. Because God distinctly recognized the relation existing between mas
• ter and servant
Ig
1. In the 1 t*ih Chapter of Gen, wp are iniormed tli.it .*■ ami tin* wile o
Abram, having lost all hope of having children hei,elf, ga\e linear, " hci
moid, the Egyptian," to her husband, " to be his wifrHagar, having
conceived by Abram, was so elated as to glory over her mistress, and thus
provoked chastisement from her. u And whenSarai dealt hardly with her,
she fled from her face. And the Angel of the Lord lound her by a fountain
of water in the wilderness. And he said, Hagar, SaraPs maid, whence
earnest thou 1 and whither wilt thou go 1 And she said, 1 flee from the face
of my mistress, Sarai. And the Angel of the Lord said unto her, Return
to thy mistress, and submit thyself und*}' her hands."
From the lilth verse, we learn that the Angel who addressed her was the
Lord Jehovah Himself. Here, th§n, we find God distinctly recognizing the
fact, that Hagar was a slave, and that Sarai was her mistress, and command¬
ing her, a fugitive slave, to return to her rightful owner.
2. In the covenant which God established with Abraham, (Gen. 18,) He
requires him to circumcise not only the males born in his house, but those
also who were "bought with money of any stranger." Here it wasi recog¬
nized that Abraham had authority over his slaVes, even to the subjecting
them to a painful rite, with, or without their consent. And it is worthy of
note, furthermore, that God not only recognized the relation as existing be¬
tween Abraham and his slaves—but, by entering into stipulations with liinf
Instead of them, in a matter in which they were deeply interested, directly
sanctioned his authority over tftem.
3. fn the law of the ten commandments—a law designed not for one na
tion, or period, but fdr the whole world, and all time—we find the same re¬
cognition. In the 4th commandment, we read, "In it (ihe Sabbath day)
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man¬
servant, nor thy maid-servant£jc.: and in the 10th, "Thou shall not
covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maid-setrvantf* &c
So long as these ten comrnandmehts shall constitute the moral law, so long
will God continue to recognize and sanction slavery.
3. Because lie gave laws to regulate their deportment as master and
servant, 0O~and it is worthy Of special note, that it is no where intimated in
•the Bible, that one of the duties of the master is to free his slave.]
This is shown by the following quotations: " Masters, give your servants
that which is just and equal-—knowing thatyealso have a master in heaven."
" thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, hut shall fear thy God."-—Col. 4 •
1—Lev. 25: 43. Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters ac¬
cording 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.
Servants, be subject to your masters with all feai*—not only to the good and
gentle, but also to the forward. For this is thankworthy, if a man, for con¬
science toward God, endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory
is it, if, when ve be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently '' but,
if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable
with God. Servants, obey, in all things, your masters, according to the
flesh—not with eye service, as men pleasers, but in singleness of heart, (ear¬
ing God. And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not un¬
to men—knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheri¬
tance ; for ye serve the Lord "Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive
for the wrong which he hath done; and there is no rcspe< t of perons. Let
i:;
-us many servants as are under the yoke* count their own niters worthy of
ail honor, that the name of God, and his doctrine, he not blasphemed. And
ihev that have believing masters, let them not despise jbem, because they are
brethren ; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved
partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort—exhort servants to
be obedient to their oWn masters, and to please them well in aiL things, not'
answering-again; not purloining, but showing all good fidelity,'that they
may adorn the doctrine of God, our Saviour, in all things.—Eph. 6 : 5, 8—■
1 Pet. 2 : 18—20; Col. 3 : 22—25—1 Tim. 6 : 1, 2—Tit. 2 ; 9, 10. '
We have,also a practical illustration of the'Apostle Paul's idea of the duty
of a servant, in the cobrse he recommended to Onesimus, a fugitive slave.
We do not find him aiding him in his escape to some ancient Canada, con¬
cealing him from,the search of his master in the by-ways, and cellars of
Rome, or proclaiming his " disfellowship" -for slaveholding Philemorf; but
the sun of New England morality had not risen then to enlighten the world :
and is it wonderful that the Apostle Paul was in the dark?
The distinguished President of Brown University endeavoVs, in his treatise
on Moral Science, to do away with the sanction' which these passages give to •
slavery, by the interpretation which he puts,upon them. He considers the
.comlmand to the slave, to obey his own master in all things, as analogous to
the command to return good for evil, to pray for them that despitefully use.
us, and persecute us, and when we are smitten on the one cheek to turn the
other also: that God never requires the slave' to be obedient, becavse it is
right, but because meeknesfe and forbearance under injuries will be well plea¬
sing unto him. " The martnpr in, which the duty of servants or slaves is in¬
culcated, therefore,, affords no ground for the assertion that the gospel au-11
thorjzes one man to hold anothor , in bondage, any more than the command
to honor the King, when that King was.Nero, authorized the tyranny of the
emperor ;, or than the command to turn the other cheek when one is smit¬
ten, justifies the infliction of violence by an injurious man." (Moral Science,
p. 216,) . .
The fallacy of this reasoning can be shown by the following considera¬
tions — ,
1. If the Apostle does not say, in the exact words, it is right for the ser¬
vant to obey his master, he does intimate very clearly that it is wrong for
him to refuse obedience. " But he that doeth wrong shall receive of the
wrong'which he hath done; and there is no respect of persons." Col. 3
^5.—(The reader is requested to read this in connection with the context.),
If it be wrong to refuge obedience, it certainly must be right to yield it.
2. " Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters
worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphe¬
med." 1 Tim. 6 : 1.—Observe the force' of tile language. Why are they
required to count their own masters (and pot the masters of other servants)
worthy of all honor? Not surely because, -in every case, they would have
honorable apd worthy masters; for human nature is the same every where,
and vile men are to be found in all ranks and conditions. The only satis¬
factory reason that can be given for the injunction is, that, in the opinion of
the Apostle, it is right for servants to count their masters worthy of all hon¬
or because they are their masters. How different this language from that
used by the piou^ Abolitionists of the present day,' who think a slaveholder
worthy of nothing but condemnation and reproach!
3. If the master, in the view.of the Apostle, bears the same Relation to the
servant that the injurious man does to the injured, how is it that he requires •
Ji.'ie slave to count him worthy of all honor? Are we to understand Dp.
If
Wavland 'o t,ay, that, m hta» pinion, 1 he iMViuur, when he couwmiub. ttiu
injured person to submit meekly to Ji>|u- lice, requites him to respect his op
pressor, and count him worthy oTfill honor ?—Again : if the slave's case is
analogous to that of an injured person, the master's mtist he to that of the in¬
jurious. If so, how happens it that we find God recognising the relation he
sustains as master, and g'ving him specific rules to regulate his conduct to¬
wards his slaves? Do we any where find directions given to injurious men
and oppressors, as such, to guide them in the commission of injustice! Does
the Saviour say to the violent man how he shall approach his patient victim,
and how many blows he may strike upon each cheek ? And yet we have
shown that God gives to the master, as well as to the slave, rules to regulate
his conduct.
4. We admit that God does require servants to be obedient from the high¬
est of art motives—a desire to please him ; but who is it that he exempts
from the same requisition? The command is binding upon all of us, and at
all times: Whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do it all for the
glory of God. And, besides, we think that the Doctor, with all his great
nnd acknowledged powers of discrimination, Failed to note the difference be¬
tween a thing and its abuse.
Though God's command to honor the King, did not sanction the abuse of
his authority by Nero, it did recognise the fact that he had authority as so¬
vereign, and that it was the duty of his subjects to obey him—not alone that
they might please God, but because they owed allegiance to Nero as the Ro¬
man Emperor.
If the possibility that the master can abuse his authority makes that autho¬
rity itself illegal, the same is true in the case of the King, and the parent,
and this principle of interpretation, applied to any part of the sacred scrip¬
tures, would make it teach anything, or nothing, according as our interest or
prejudice might dictate. But Dr. Wayland himself has acknowledged, in a
note to the last edition of his work, that he has been led seriously to doubt
whether the view he presents is sustained by the New Testament.
Slavery is directly sanctioned by the Bible:
4, Because God gave specific directions to the Israelites how and where
to obtain slaves.
"Both thy bond-men, and thy bond-maids, which thou sbalt have, shall
be of the heathen that are round about you—of them shall ye buy bond-men
and bond-maids, Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn
among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you,
which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possession. Apd ye
shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit tbem
for a possession; they shall be your bond-men forever," &c. Lev. 25 : 44,
45, 46.
" When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim
peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open un¬
to thee—then it shall be, that all the people that are found therein, shall be
tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee." Deut. 20 : 10,11.
The above language needs no comment. It is too plain to be perverted
Can slavery, by any possibility, be an immorality, when God so unequivo¬
cally directed the Israelites, nay, almost commanded them to obtain slaves
hv purchase and conquest ? Abolitionists—many of them—doubtless, think
they are doing God service when they denounce those who recommend or
defend slaveholding; but we ask them, with these passages before them,
i b
hew can they free themselves from the charge cl" itripioud v denouncing Ah
mighty God Himself'!*
In the last place, it is not an immorality :
o. Because it is an institution vj'iich God Himself established.
We are informed, by Moses, that some time after the departure of Noah
out of the Ark, when, as yet, he and his family constituted the entire inhabi¬
tants of the earth, on the occasion of the indelicate conduct of his son Ham
towards him, he uttered the following curse and prediction against him and
his posterity : " Cursed be Canaan—a servant of servants shall he be unto
bis 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."
That this was uttered under prophetic inspiration, is evident from its re¬
markable fulfilment.—From Ham were descended the nations that occupied
the land of Canaan, and those that now constitute the African or negro race.
Their inheritance, according to the prophecy, has been and will continue to
Ac slavery, though the British Government haoe determined to seek the abo¬
lition of slavery throughout the world. For, however willing we are to ad¬
mit that Englishmen are irresistible in their efforts to imbrute the Irish char¬
acter, and tostupify the Chinese with their opium—in the most moral and
christian manner, of course, all for gain—we must be permitted to question
their ability to thwart one of God's prophecies.
God, by the mouth of Noah, either instituted slavery or he did not. If he
did, it cannot bean immorality ; if he did not, we are left at a loss to explain
how the mere curse of an incensed father should be felt by his son's posteri
ty thousands of years after it was uttered.
Slavery, under some form or other, by whatever name 'it may be called,
•is essential to the existence of civil society, and God, thus early, in the his¬
tory of man, ordained that it should exist.
T do not deny but that He may decree a particular event even to the speci
lie means for its accomplishment, and yet men be very siniul in bringing it
to pass. This doctrine was asserted by the Apostle Peter on the day of Pen¬
tecost, when he said to the Jews, in reference to their crucifixion of the Sa¬
viour : " Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge
of God, ye have taken, and with wicked hands have crucified and slain."
This, however, cannot be used against my position, as I am not defending
the conduct of the Englishmen of Old and New England, who kidnapped the
ancestors of our slaves.
Wo have thus presented arguments both inferential and direct. If any
•one of our positions has been sustained, we have proved that the Bible di¬
rectly sanctions slavery.
'The natural tendency of abolition sentiments has been exhibited in their
influence upon YVm. Lloyd Garrison, the father of New England abolition.
When he commenced the agitation, he professed reverence for the scriptures,
and (if we mistake not) was a professor of religion. But now, either from
disgust to the Bible because it refuses to sanction his cherished opinions, or
because the unhallowed fires, that have raged for so long a time in his breast,
have burnt up all his liner feelings, lie, and his party, boldly denounce the
Bible, the'Christian Church, the Ministry, the Fabbath Hay, Ac. Faci/ts
•"ffirriov J.
' 1 have endeavored, in the foregoing pages, lb express the aigmoent ill tin'
briefest manner possible. It is susceptible of almost indefinite addition and
expansion ; but, as I do not desire to fatigue the reader, I will let what hay
been written suffice for the direct argument on this part of the subject, f
will notice, however, before passing, to the second position under the first
general head, two offsets which have been presented against the direct scrip¬
ture sanction of slavery.
1. It is said, that the same course of reasoning would prove, as well,, that
God sanctions polygamy. I have not .seen any argument to sustain such an
allegation, and confess myseifat a loss to conceive'what one could be advan¬
ced. It cannot escape the notice of the most careless reader, that the two
subjects are mentioned in a very different manner iq the scriptures, and we
have, besides, in the New Testament, what is equivalent to a prohibition of
polygamy. No"specific law.against it was necessary, as it could have no
existence in Judea in the time of Christ under the Roman law, The words
of Christ, however, (Matt. 19 : 9,) may be construed by an easy implication
to prohibit it. If whoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another com-
mitteth adultery, he who marrieth another' without putting away' the first, is
no less guilty of adultery.* And the several passages in the Epistles of Paul,
referring to marriage, always imply, that it is the union of one man to one
woman. Rom. 7: 2, 3—1 Cor. 7 : 12, 14, 16.—(Paley.) In regard to
slavery, we have shown, that God not only permitted, but dircqtly sanction
ed it under both the Old and New Testament dispensations.
2. The second refuge is, that the word servant in the Bible does not mean
slave, but refers to one occupying a more voluntary situation than a bond-
man. In anticipation of this objection, we gave, in another place, an ac¬
count of the nature of Roman slavery, which account is sustained by the
concurrent testimony of all the classical writers on the subject. But little
additional is needed here. If the Roman sway extended over all those pla¬
ces to which the Apostles directed epistles, whenever mention is made of ser¬
vants it must refer to such as were servants under Roman law. This is
proof enough, of irself', that the sacred writers, when they say servants, mean
slaves. But the Greek .words used to express master and servant, would
setlte the point, were all other evidence lacking.
For master we have: 1. iCurios from kuros authority, and applied to
any one possessing authority ; and 2. JDespptes, from deos fear, and poieo
to make, or, perhaps, desmos a bond and poieo to make, and applied, prima¬
rily, to a master of slaves—-as every Greek.scholar knows, and any one can
•learn by application to the Lexicon.—For servant we have: 1. Giketen,
from oilcos, a house, that is, one belonging to the house; and 2. Do/dos,
from deolo bind, that is, a bondman. But it is needless to waste the read¬
er's time in proving that which every tyro knows.
Slavery is not an immorality itself :
Secondly. Because it is not indirectly forbidden by the spiri' of the
scriptures.
The opponents ofslavery claim the entire spirit of the Bible to be on their
side. They say, that the moral precepts'—such as thoti shalt love thy neigh-
bor as thyself, and all things whatsoever ye would that men should do io
you, do ye even» so to them—are diametrically opposed to slavery. That
the fact, that, under the circumstances, the Gospel dues nut forbid slaver}',
affords no reason to believe that it does not mean to prohibit it; forifitr,
principles were fully adopted, davefy could not exist; 'hat God has lvo
1 I
ways to reveal his will, the direct and the indirect. He may forbid a thing
directly* or he may command certain ditties, or impose certain obligations,
with which a certain course of conduct is manifestly inconsistent, and thus
forbid it indirectly: that God has manifestly imposed such obligations as are
inconsistent with slavery.
To the question—why this manner of forbidding it was chosen in prefer¬
ence to any other ? it is answered : The reason may be that slavery is a
social evil* and to its eradication a change must be effected in the society in
which it exists. If the Gospel had forbidden the evil instead of subverting
the principle; if it had proclaimed the unlawfulness of slavery and taught
slaves to resist the oppression of their masters; it would instantly have ar¬
rayed the two parties in deadly hostility throughout the civilized world, &c.
(Wayland's Mor. Sci. p. 214.) We have endeavored to present their views
in the clearest way possible, and in regard to them we make the following re¬
marks :
1. Suppose we grant, which we do unhesitatingly, that God does reveal
His will indirectly as well as directly, would it be doing justice to His char¬
acter—-would it be reverential to charge Him (as the Abolitionists do, if lati-
guage means anything) with saying one thing and meaning another? He
may reveal a thing indirectly, but it cannot be opposed to that which He has
already, in a direct manner, revealed; and we leave it to the unprejudiced
reader to decide, whether it has been satisfactorily proved, that the letter of
the Bible does sanction slavery. Should one of our fellow creatures ap¬
proach us with a certain language upon his lips, and feelings the reverse of
that in his heart, we would consider him a hypocrite and deceiver; and yet
God is charged—(1 shudder while I write it)—with permitting and sanction¬
ing slavery by the letter of the scriptures, while by its spirit He is seeking its
subversion!
2. If Christ and His Apostles viewed it as a social evil, and chose to Sub¬
vert the principle rather than forbid the evil, from a desire to avoid the anarA
chy and bloodshed Which would be the necessary consequence, it is more than
can be said of New England Abolitionists. They feel no hesitation to pro¬
claim the " unlawfulness of slavery," and " to teach slaves to resist the op¬
pression of their mastersand thus recklessly do that which, according to
their own showing, Almighty God Himself, from a regard to consequences,
refused to do. " Fools headlong rush where angels fear to tread."
3. We have no evidence from the scriptures that God withholds a revela¬
tion of His will from a knowledge that its promulgation would cause the shed¬
ding of htiman blood. Our Saviour Himself declares, that He came not to
bring peace on earth, but a sword, and that the principles which He incul¬
cates would set at variance even members of the same family. We do not
find him endeavoring to destroy idolatry by the use of language so framed
as by its Spirit to subvert it, at the same time that its letter would not fall un¬
pleasantly upon a pagan ear ; and yet there was no subject on which the
large majority of mankind were more sensitive than on this. Every reader
of ecclesiastical history knows, that more christian blood has been made to
flow bv the persecutions excited by paganism than by all other causes
combined.
4. The idea that God omits to forbid gross sin for fear of exciting men's
angry passions, and producing anarchy in society, springs from an unworthy
view of His character God cannot look upon sin; and, surely, He in
whose hands are the hearts of the children of men, und who can turn them
as the rivers of water aro turned would never be wi|hng, even in appeaiance,
to connive at sin liom a lear of consepiem e*.
r
lrt
5. The Apostle Paul did not seem to be as well instructed in regard to the
spirit of Christianity as some of our modern divines, or he sUrely would not
have used such language as he did to Corinthian masters and servants : Let
every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou call*
ed 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, beingfree, is Christ's servant.
Or, did the Apostle thus endeavor to blind their eyes to the oppression of the
system, that they might not be " arrayed against each other," and that the
invisible spirit so dissimilar to th^.corporeal part of the scriptures, might in¬
sidiously, and without their ktrowledge, dissolve their connection!
6. Our Saviour declared that to love God with all our hearts and our
neighbors as ourselves, constitutes the sum of the law of the ten command¬
ments. Now, is it not remarkable, that the very precepts which, it is asserts
ed, do so unequivocally condemn slavery, have inseparably inwrought into
their very phraseology a recognition and sanction of it? We have already
shown, that in the 4th and 10th commandments-—one in each of the two
tables—men-servants and maid-servants are mentioned, as those who are
rightfully held in bondage. Here, then, we have the letter and the spirit of
the moral precepts themselves arrayed against each other! Such impious
liberties can men take with God's word, when they desire to gratify their own
prejudices, or fear io offend the prejudices of those among whom they live!
But let us take up the moral precepts themselves, and see whether they do
condemn or undermine slavery.—-They are these: Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself; and, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do
unto you do ye even so unto them. These are but different forms to express
the same idea ; but let us take them up separately.
1. I grant that our servants, according to the teachings of the Saviour,
are, like all other'men, our neighbors, and that the precept makes it our duty
to love them, as we do ourselves ; but deny that there is any thing in this
incompatible with slavery. Let us see:
1. How much are we permitted to love ourselves? and 2d. What is
meant by loving others as ourselves ?
To these questions I am willing to adopt the answers that Dr. Wayland
would give, if I understand him.
1. YVe are permitted to have that regard for ourselves which would prompt
us to use all those means of happiness that God has bestowed upon us, which
we think will best promote our well being: that is, it does not mean that we
are to be blind to our faults, or make ourselves the objects of our chief de¬
light—but in subordination to the will of God, and without violation of the
rights of others, to seek after the greatest amount of good for ourselves for
time and eternity.
2. In regard to the import of the command to love others as ourselves -
1. It cannot mean that we are required to have the same indiscriminate re¬
gard towards all men. Surely we are not commanded to indulge the same
feelings towards the virtuous as towards the vicious, towards the stranger as
towards the partners of our bosoms; and the honorable man, placing a just
estimate upon his own character, cannot be required to have the same degree
of esteem and love for a knave as for himself. 2. It does not mean that we
should treat all men alike. If it does, then the child violates the precept
when he reverences and obeys his parent, and the latter is guilty of unjustifi¬
able oppression when he exercises control over his offspring—many words
in the English language are devoid of meaning, as, equity, loyalty, rertrem e,
submission, &e.~-all distinctions in 'society would be broken down, all go-
19
vemment subverted, and every individual would live in isolated independence.
3. Nor does it mean that we ore to devote our personal efforts as much to
the advancement of others' interests, as of our own. It needs no argument
to prove, that God does not command me to work as hard for every body
else, as for myself; or that it is my duty to place all my neighbors on an
equality with myself by an equal distribution of my property, or by any oth¬
er means. 4. In short, I suppose the meaning is, that we should have the
same kind though not the same degree of love for others as for ourselves:
that is, as our self-love impels us to use all lawful opportunities for accom¬
plishing our well-being, so our love to others should induce us to leave them
in the uninterrupted enjoyntent of those means of happiness which God has
bestowed upon them.
The only question, then, is : What are the means of happiness which
God has bestowed upon the person occupying the relation of slave! If He
has conferred the same in kind and degree upon all men—upon the Hottentot
as upon the refined and intelligent descendant of Japheth—upon the child of
degradation, born in an English coal mine, and compelled to perform the
service of a beast of burden without regard to sex or physical capacity, as
upon a proud and aristocratic peer of the realm, or the King upon his throne—
if freedom, be one of the means of happiness conferred upon the slave by his
creator, then the master violates the precept by holding him in bondage.—
The Bible, however, settles that point, when it commands the slave to be obe¬
dient to his master.
The master can, in the spirit of the precept, love his dlave as himself, at
the same time that he exercises authority over him, just as the parent obeys
the precept, though he compels his child to yield implicit obedience to his
will.
2. Let us see whether the other phraseology affords a better shelter for the
abolitionists. All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto
you, do ye even so unto them. 1. Does this mean, literally, that I should
do all things to others, that I wish them to do to me, without any reference
to the relations I sustain to them ? If so, then if I desire my children to
obey me, I must obey them implicitly also : if a Sovereign wishes his sub¬
jects to defer to his authority, he must also make himself subject to them, and
SO on through all the relations that exist among men, 2. Does it even mean
that I should do to others as I would ivish them to do to me, were our situa¬
tions reversed ? As a thoughtless and inexperienced child, I would be most
likely to wish an unreasonable indulgence from my parent: does the precept,
therefore, make it my duty to treat my son in the same way I would wish him
to treat me, were our situations reversed 1 As a criminal, I would be most
likely to wish that my Judge would not pass upon me the sentence of the
law ; does the precept make it my duty, therefore, as Judge, to acquit every
criminal arraigned before me ? All we can make of the preeept is, that it is
our duty to do unto others as it would be reasonable for us to wish others to
do unto us, were our situations reversed.
And thus, when applied to the slave, it makes it his duty to serve and obey
his master, for it would he reasonable that he should wish his master to do
the same to him, were their situations reversed; applied to the master, it
makes it his duty to be kind and humane to his slave.
The precepts lie in direct opposition to the abuses of slavery, as to those
of every other relation between man and man ; but they neither undermine
nor forbid it.
Thus we have briefly shown, both from the letter and the spirit of the
fcriptureo, that slavery i.s not an immorality itself.
2tJ
{Jut, it may be asked. u is not slavery a violation of the natural rights ol
the negro, and therefore an immorality ? Are not all men created free ahd
equal?" If by natural right is meant the right which God bestows upon
one born in a state of slavery, I answer, no; for, if I have not already pro-
yed that the Bible does recognize the fact that men can rightfully be held in
bondage, it is not for lack of arguments within my reach. But if, by the
term, something in opposition to the teachings of the Scriptures is meant, I
have no answer to give; for I am not addressing myself to infidels, and I
know of no natural right but that which the God of nature bestows.
The opponents of slavery lay much stress Upon the dogma, that all men
are created free and equal, and well they might; for it is the only shadow
of authority that seems to sustain them. I have no idea that Mr. Jefferson,
a slaveholder himself, attached the same meaning to the phraseology that our
modern philanthropists do; but even if he did, 1 have no hesitation in pro¬
nouncing it false qnd absurd; and I have ample means of proving my
assertion.
1. The idea we receive, upon the first annunciation, is false and decep¬
tive. It goes upon the supposition that human beings are created adults,
without passing through the stages of childhood and infancy. Suppose, in¬
stead of using the term men, the phrase were, all infants are created free
and equal, would not every one see its absurdity? Free of what?—of pa¬
rental restraint ? Free to do what?—what can they do ? Equal to whom ?
—to their parents? Equal—I nad almost said, to their superiors; but the
assertion is that they have no superiors. Equal in what ? In condition—in
right? What rights have they? If the assertion is, that every infant is
equally free with every other infant—would not the truth be as well express¬
ed^ if we say, every child is as absolutely under parental control as every
other child ?
2. The assertion is not sustained by the facts in the case. All men are
pot on an equality, in factt and if the term men include females and minors,
are not designed to be so by the Creator. The Supreme Ruler of the Uni¬
verse commands children to be obedient to their parents, and wives to be in
subjection to their husbands. Here, then, we have at least t^yo-thirds, per¬
haps more, in a state of subjection to others. But Dr. Wayland says, that
children and apprentices arq exceptions. Where did he learn this? The
Bible as distinctly points out the existence and condition of the slave as of
the child—and if the one, according to it, is an exception, the other is also.
And besides, as all human beings are created in an infantile state—and, ac¬
cording to Dr. W., are, while young, rightfully held in a state of subjection,
it follows, that instead of being free, all are created in a state of bond'
age I The exception including the whole race, and that, too, without any
respect to the assertion, that all men are created free !
3. If all men are created equal, in what does the equality consist 1 In
condition? ^either physically nor intellectually are all mbn on an equali¬
ty. One is poor and another rich; one handsome and another deformed ;
one robust and another delicate ; one intelligent and another stupidin
short, there are as many varieties of condition as there are human beings.
But Dr. Wayland acknowledges this, and claims that the equality is one of
right. What he means by this is not sufficiently evident. If he means that
all men have equal rights, I have only to appeal to facts as they are, and
the teachings of the Bible, to show its impossibility. The child has not equal
rights with the parent, the wife with the husband, nor the female with the
Jl
male."*—But it, by equality of right, ho means that all men have an equal
right to use the means of happiness conferred upon them by their Creator, I
have no controversy with him other than to challenge him to prove, from
the Bible, that freedom is one of the means of happiness conferred upon the
slave. And we have already shown, tpnt in his unsuccessful attempt to do
this, he has had to invoke the "spirit1' (ghost?) of the Bible murdered by
him for that purpose.
4. It is sufficiently evident, that it is the design of God, and necessary for
the aggregate happiness of tho human race, that there should be different de¬
grees and dependencies among men. Suppose all mankind were upon a
dead level—that every body was equal to every body else, and each was in¬
dependent of his neighbor, what would be the state of society 1 Indeed,
there could not be such a thing as society, and the whole human race would"
speedily become extinct. Consequently, God, in his wisdom, has instituted
the family gradations, has established the relation of master and servant, of
governor and governed, and commanded each to be content with the situa¬
tion in which he is placed.
5. If all men are created free and equal, it is not right that u-e should mo¬
nopolize the kind offices of the reformers and enlighteners of New England.
I will submit it to them, whether they do dot owe a du'y to Englishmen, al¬
so, with whom they are leagued in Holy Alliance? And I suggest to them
the propriety of resolving their delegates to the next " World's Anti-Slavery
Convention" into a committee, whose duty it shall be to visit all the mines,
workshops, factories, farms and palaces, of "The Fast-anchored Isle," and
report upon the beautiful equality that exists in English Society. It cannot
fail to be highly edifying to the rest of the world, to see two such nations—
New England ("The Universal Yankee nation") confessedly superior (at
least, she confesses it,) to all other indtciduals and nations, and Great Bri¬
tain—containing every variety of political condition, from abject slavery up
to despotism,—united in preaching to us the beautiful theory, that all men
are created free and equal! Alas, with such examples before us, we have
no warrant for believing that either Cant or Hypocrisy has departed this
life I
6. There are some things, in regard to which, men are created on an.
-equality—as, for instance, their moral condition by nature, their obligation
to love God with all their heart, <Sic. The master and the slave, the bond
and the free, are all, by nature,, totally depraved—-are all personally respon-.
sible to God—have all the same way of salvation offered to them in the Gos¬
pel, and have all the same heavenly inheritance reserved for them, if they
close in with the offers of mercy tendered to all without reference to condi¬
tion; but, in their relations to each other in this world, men are not, and
never can be, on an equality.
*Miss Grirnke, Miss Martineau, Abby Folsoni, et id omne genus, are cham¬
pions not only for negro but also for fbmale rights; and, in the assertion of
the latter, they rebel not only against " The Lords of creation," but against
tho Bible also. It used to be an old-fashioned idea, which the Apostle Paul
fintertained, that the man is the head of the woman, and that it is a shame
lor the woman to speak in public; but Miss Grimke says he was prejudiced
ugaiusl the female s-ex, and should not, therefore, be regarded. What a pity
that the Apostle roi Id not have foreseen how well she can speak, or who
knows but what he may have granted a special dispensation in her favor!
J3
JSkctiov 3.
Let us proceed to the consideration of the second proposition, We shall
-confine our remarks, in this place, to the influence it exerts upon the master.
Before closing, however, we design to show, in an ample manner, that its in-
iluence upon the negro is the reverse pf evil.
Slavery is not a moral evil, then, because—
II. It has not an immoral tendency.
The following questions, it is thought, will cover the whole ground.
first. Does it hinder the advancement of ptety in the heart of the master ?
Secondly. Does it exert a demoralizing influence, generally, upon those who
live in the midst of it I
1. The Rev. Mr. Colver, the pastor of a Baptist Church in Boston, re¬
marked, at the late meeting of the Triennial Convention in Philadelphia,
that, in his opinion, no slaveholder could be a christian. If the Rev. gentle¬
man's opinion be the truth, the first question is more than answered at once ;
and all slaveholders are heirs of perdition. We draw no little consolation,
however, from the reflection, that, if slaveholding does debar men from the
kingdom of Heaven, and if all the descendants of Adam are to be divided by
the Judge on the last day, with reference to this question; we shall be found
in company with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and- [many if not} all the
Prophets—company almost, if not quite, as good as Mr. Colver's !
2. Northern Abolitionists are much in the habit of drawing invidious com¬
parisons between New England and Southern piety, always to the disadvan¬
tage of the latter. We are far from complaining of this, nor do we affect to
be surprised at it. Self-adulation is no new thing under the sun. It was
not uncommon even in our Saviour's time, if we may judge from the illus¬
tration He gave of the two men who went up into the temple to pray, the on^
a pharisee and the other a publican. The pious people of New England,
therefore, are not destitute of precedent, when they say ; " We thank God
that we are not as other men are, or even as Southern slaveholders." As
for us, we know that we have no piefy to boast of, and acknowledge that
the prayer and confession of the publican are appropriate to us: " God be
merciful to us sinners." We lay claim to no other character than to that
of sinners ; but we thank God, that a large and increasing number in our
midst have " a good[hope" that we are sinners saved by grace. It excites
no feelings of envy in our bosoms to be told, that our brethren in the non-
slaveholding States are more holy than we. We thank God, and rejoice,
rather, that others are not so dwarfish in their spiritual stature—though we
are constrained to confess, that we cpuld have joyed with more confidence,
had others, and not our brethren themselves, testified in their behalf.
3. But, supposing that the piety in the non-slaveholdiDg States is of a
higher order than that in the South, (a fact which, some simple-minded peo¬
ple may think, remains yet to be established,) can it be attributed to the ex¬
istence of slavery in the latter ?
1. The difference between a slaveholding christian and a non-slavehold-
ing, consists in the fact that the former has human beings dependent, under
certain restrictions, upon his will, whose time and labor he controls, It is
contended that this connection has upon him an influence averse to his ad¬
vancement in godliness. If this be true, it results either because it is sinful
to hold our fellow creatures in bondage, or because the lawful dependence of
others upon us affects us badly. The former cannot be true; for we have
already proved, (and we challenge any one to refute the scripture argument
—as little successful as we have been in bringing it out) that the Bible sane-
23
^ions and approves slavery. The latter, then, tnOst he the cause, il any, Vltz:
that the lawful dependance of our fellow creatures upon us is a hindrance
to our advancement in holiness.
If this be true, then the man, who lives a life of celibacy and seclusion, is
in a better situation to advance in holiness, than one who takes to him a help¬
meet for him, and mingles in lawful intercourse with his fellow creatures—
a doctrine which, we believe, does not find many advocates out of popish
countries. Again: If it be true, a man never committed a greater error
than when he joined himself, in u holy wedlock," to the affectionate wife of
his bosom, and every additional " pledge of their mutual affection," pushes
the unhappy parents further from God—the subdivision of society into house¬
holds has been disastrous to the cause of Christ, and every orie should seek
for safety in individual isolation. Finally: if it be true, the faithful pastor is
in a situation the least favorable to advancement in holiness, as he has so
many dependent upon him for spiritual guidance!
2. So far from believing thatthe lawful dependance of our fellow creatures
upon us is a hindrance, I maintain that it is one of the greatest aids to the
advancement of piety in our hearls. Let the following reasons, among tna-
•ny that might be advanced, suffice:
1st. It increases our feelings of responsibility. It is in morals as in
mind and physics, that the more our faculties are taxed, within reasonable
limits, the more they are improved. The parent, in the responsibility he
feels, and the trembling anxiety to discharge that responsibility in bringing
up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, finds one of the
most efficient means for the promotion of his own spiritual good. The pas¬
tor's responsibility keeps him near the throne of grace, and the christian
.master, in proportion as he feels the responsibility that God has imposed up¬
on him, in committing to his care so many immortal souls, will be led to be
•circumspect, watchful, and prayerful.
2, The disehaige of our duty to our servants, (as to all others dependent
nipon us) exerts a sanctifying refex infuence upon our hearts. God has
commanded us to pray for others, and labor for their spiritual welfare. This
He requires, not because Ha is dependent upon us for aid to accomplish his
wise and gracious purposes towards them; but because he designs that our
labors shall react beneficially upon ourselves—that while we are watering
others, our own souls may be watered also. And it is a truth which will
not be questioned, that those christians, who are most active in endeavors
to advance the spiritual interests of others, experience themselves the most
of the life and power of godliness. Thus christian masters, in laboring, as
they are bound to, for the spiritual welfare of their servants, receive the same
blessing ih large measure which they endeavor to impart to them. Thus we
find that the large majority of scripture worthies, who made the greatest at¬
tainments in holiness, were slaveholders. Abraham, Job, Elisha, Lot, &c.
&C.» were those who lived near to God, and who enjoyed much of His ap¬
probation and grace.
But, it may be asked, is not the master strongly tempted to treat his
slaves harshly, and unjustly—and is not this a great hindrance to his spiritual
advancement' Tothis I answer—I. That temptations themselves, if resist¬
ed, do us no harm but the reverse; and it will be necessary, therefore, to
show not only that the master is subjected to temptation, but that he must of
necessity yield to it. 2. The disposition to tyranize over even a brute is not
the characteristic of a christian, and the pious master is not more likely to
oppress his servant than his child. 3. The temptation to overwork the slave
lor gain, is much less strong to the-master than that which is felt by all men
21
lo overreach their neighbors in business transactions; since it is for the! pe¬
cuniary interest of the master to treat his slaves vyell.
These are but a fevV of many arguments which go to show, that the ten¬
dency of slavery is to promote rathei than retard the growth of piety in the
heart of the master.
Secondly. Does it exert a demoralizing influence, generally, upon those
who live in the midst of it I In regard to its influence upon the morals of the
master, Dr. Wayland uses the following language: " By presenting objects
on whom passion may be satiated, without resistance and without redress, it
lends to cultivate in the master, pride, anger, cruelty, selfishness and licen¬
tiousness." * * * il That in all slaveholding countries there are excep¬
tions to this remark, and that there are principles in human nature which, in
many cases, limit the effects of these tendencies, may be gladly admitted."—
(Mor. Sci. pp. 209, 210.)
We have reason for profound gratitude lo the Doctor, that he haspermit¬
ted any in our midst to be exceptions, when he could, as easily, have made
us all proud, angry, cruel, selfish, and licentious!
1st. Let us see whether the Doctor's premises are correct, viz : that slave¬
ry presents objects on whom passion may be satiated, without resistance
and without redress : and 2d. Examine whether it tends to cultivate in the
master pride, &c.
1. If, when he uses the terms resistance and redress, he means that slaves
have no right to use physical force against their masters, either to prevent
them from accomplishing their purposes, or to punish them for injustice, he
is certainly right; but will he tell us in what respects children and appren¬
tices are differently situated'! Where will he find authority for the child to
resist his parent with violence, or to take vengeance upon him for insults or
oppression ? Therefore, from the Doctor's own premises, it inevitably fol¬
lows, that the parental delation, " by presenting objects on whom passion
may be satiated, without resistance and without redress, lends to cultivate, in
the parent, pride, anger," &c !
But if he means to say that slaves have no protection from the bad pas¬
sions of their masters, or that the latter have nothing to restrain them but
their own will, however unsanctified, the assertion is not true, and should
not have been made by as great and good a man as Dr. Wayland.
Slaves do find protection from the bad passions of their masters: 1. In
the master's self-interest. It will not promote his pecuniary welfare very
much to ill-treat, maim or kill his servant; "for he is his money"—-(Ex.
21: 21.)
2. Public opinion exerts a restraining influence upon the master that can
very rarely be resisted. God has made it an instinct of our nature to desire
the good opinion of others; and even the fratricide Cain declared that the
disapprobation of his fellow creatures was a punishment greater than he could
bear. Is it said that public opinion is not infallible, and may itself need
rectification ? I answer s To prove that the overwhelming sentiment of the
South is not on the side of humanity, requires something more than the bare
assertion of persons a thousand miles distant, who are too prejudiced to en¬
tertain the truth if favorable to us, and too self-cpnceited to admit that others
are not in need of their reforming influences.
Finally, the law affords the slave the amplest protection from the bad
" passions" of his master. The following is the law of Georgia : " Any
owner or owners of a slave or slaves, who shall cruelly bent, such slave or
slaves by unnecessary and excessive whipping, by withholding proper food
and sustenance, by requiring greatei labor from such slave or Javejthan he
25
ni she or they are able to perform, by not affording proper clothing, where¬
by the health of such slave or slaves may be injured and impaired—every
such owner or owners shall, upon sufficient information being laid before
the Grand Jury, be by said Grand Jury presented, whereupon it shall be the
duty of the Attorney or Solicitor General to prosecute said owner or owners,
who, on conviction^ shall be sentenced to pay a fine or be imprisoned, or
both, at the discretion of the Court."—(P. C. p. 143.) The Doctor's premi¬
ses being thus shown to be false, (and it contained all the argument with
which he favored us,) do not his conclusions of necessity fall to the ground?
2. Does slavery tend to cultivate in the master pride, anger, cruelty, sel¬
fishness, and licentiousness ? Let us take up the indictment count by count.
1. Pride is defined fin inordinate self-esteem—an unreasonable conceit of
one's own superiority. In what principle of slavery resides the tendency to
produce this feeling? 1st. A slave is property, possessing a value in dol
lars and cents. 2d. He possesses an inferiority of condition to his master*
3d. The master exercises authority over him. I know of no other peculiari¬
ty in slavery that can be said to contain this tendency.
1st. Does slavery tend to cultivate pride in the master because it gives
him the possession of valuable property ? The Doctor cannot mean this ;
for, in the same connection, he argues that it tends to impoverish rather than
enrich : and if wealth itself has this unhappy influence upon human charac¬
ter, we most urgently entreat the Doctor, to interest himself, either to prove
that his New England countrymen have told a falsehood, or to warn them
of their danger: for they have, time and again, boasted that they are richer
than wei
2d. Does the mere consciousness of superiority of condition tend to culti¬
vate pride? If so, no man is in more danger than Dr. Wayland himself;
for there is no man whose character and position are more enviable.* And
alas ! for poor New England ; she feels, and scruples not to assert, that her
condition is superior to that of any other people i is it wonderful, therefore,
that pride reigns undisputed throughout her borders? fl^Though, just
here, I must confess^ it is not very clear to my mind, that her self-conceit is
not the cause of her consciousness of superiority, rather than the effect of
^•<*£0 I may, with safety, leave it to any unprejudiced mind to decide,
which is in danger of being puffed up by superiority of condition—the mas¬
ter, who draws no comparisons between himself and his negroes, or the em¬
ployer, who hires the services of one politically his equal, but who, In every
other respect, is his inferior apd dependant ?
3d. Does the authority that the master has over his servant, tend to ex
cite pride ? I know there are cases in which the undeserved possession of
*{ a little brief authority" has a tendency to turn weak heads} but when per¬
sons inherit authority, and grow up to it, and when, in the possession of it,
they are not superior to tens of thousands around them, occupying the same
position, I deny that it has a tendency to excite pride. If the mere posses-
4Nothing that I have said, or may say, about Dr. Wayland's arguments,
will be construed into disrespect to him. I have referred to his arguments,
because he is the only anti-slavery writer, within my knowledge, who con¬
descends to argue—arid because his " Moral Science" has been distributed
extensively within the Southern country. Dr. W. is honestly opposed to
slavery, but is not a i Abolitionist in the modern acceptation of the term.—
There is no mnu whose character and writings I admire more, and I deem
hi« to he ruin ot the master minds of our country and of the age
D
2fi
sion of authority has this influence, how proud must parents and teachers beI
2. The next charge is, that it tends to excite anger. This must mean,
either that it is an agreeable sensation which slavery affords the master an
opportunity of gratifying; or that the conduct of our servants is usually so
perverse as to irresistibly excite anger. If the former be the Doctor's mean¬
ing, we Ijave already shown, that it conduces neither to the master's interest
nor safety, to practice such a pleasant pastime upon his servant. If the lat¬
ter be his meaning, we must be permitted to say, (even though our preference
may be charged to the dreadful influence of slavery upon us,) that we prefer
the system, with all its vexations, to the miscalled system of " help" labor
which prevails in New England,
3. The third specification is, that it tends to cultivate cruelty. I grant
here, again, that when persons, who have not grown up in the midst of the
institution, become suddenly possessed of slaved, there is a strong influence
exerted on them to treat them with cruelty. This is shown in the case of
many New England men, who become possessed of Slaves, It has grown
into a proverb, that Northern men are hard masters, and it is notorious that
negroes prefer to live with any body else. But it is not necessary, to insure
the obedience and industry of the slave, that the master should treat him with
cruelty or even severity : the best disciplinarians, and most successful plant¬
ers, are those who get along without the use of the whip—and the laws af¬
ford ample protection against the disposition of the cruel man. There is no
doubt that there are many cruel masters, and there is as little doubt that
there are many cruel pafents and teachers.
4. The fourth count in the indictment is, that slavery has a tendency to
make the master selfish ! My slave is my property, and I feel interested in
all that concerns him, while the m?m whom I hire is altogether indifferent to
me ,* his welfare is, in no respect, identified with mine—I am, in no degree,
affected by his prosperity or adversity. Now, I will put it to any man, who
makes the slightest pretensions to reason, in which case would I be most
likely to act from selfish motives, when 1 exact labor from the former or from
the latter?—In each case I may be influenced by selfishness; but in the for¬
mer, I cannot accomplish my own interest without regarding the interest of
my slave. To my poor apprehension, it would seem that slavery has a ten¬
dency to counteract rather than cultivate selfishness.
9. The last evil influence that Dr. Wayland lays to its charge, is, that it
tends to cultivate, in the master, licentiousness. By this he must meah, ei¬
ther, 1st. That masters are generally dissolute, and the system affords them
a favorable opportunity of gratifying their propensities ,* or 2d. That the in¬
fluence it exerts upon them tends to make them so.
1. The first is a question of fact, and is to be settled by testimony, rather
than argument. Our kind friends, the Abolitionists, volunteer their testimo¬
ny, and, with great unanimity, assert that we are a licentious people, and
are very zealous in their endeavors to convince the rest of the world of the
truth of their assertion.* It may be fortunate for our reputation, therefore,
* #The writer of this heard Miss Grimke assert, in a speech before a mixed
assembly in Massachusetts, that slavery had so deadened the moral sensibili¬
ties at the South, that even females were accustomed to look upbn lewdness
not only with indifference, but even with connivance—and that she herself
had been in that dreadful condition. I mention this only as a specimen of
the testimony given against us. Far be it from me to complain of Miss
Grimke, or to accuse her of falsehood. She is a very honest lady, and
doubtless spoke the truth—as far as her <'0>rEssi0JV gois.
27
that they are distinguished more lor prejudice, and malice, than for the love
of the truth. That there is much licentiousness in the slaveholding States,
cannot be denied; but I would that we had the evidence, that it is confined
to this side of Mason and Dixon's Line. Comparisons are odious; but were
the question, the comparative virtue of the North and the South, 1 would
have no hesitation in submitting it to the decision of any impartial person ac¬
quainted with both sections. Mine will be received as the testimony of an
interested witness; but it is my settled conviction, derived from a personal
acquaintance with both people, that the seventh commandment is more fre¬
quently violated by the whites, in the New England than in the Southern
States. They havenq mingling of colors to disclose their sin, it is true; but
who, on entering any large Northern city, is not made painfully aware of the
low state of moral feeling, in noticing the innumerable evidences of pros¬
titution that meet his eye on every side? What visitor of New York city,
has failed to notice with what unblushing effrontery prostitutes of both sexes
make Broadway their place of assignation ? Who that has read the publica¬
tions of the Moral Reform Societies, has been able to resist the conviction,
that licentiousness is rife throughout town and country ?
It is a principle in human nature, to suspect that others have the same mo¬
tives, and engage in the same secret practices, that we do; and this affords
an easy explanation of the charges made against us by our Northern friends.
It was on this principle that the Rev. Mr. Johnson, the Editor of the New
York Evangelist, (an abolition print) at the same time that the columns of
his paper teamed with slanders about Southern licentiousness, was in the
constant habit of visiting theatres, brothels, and every other abominable
place. Aqd who has forgotten the case of the Rev. Mr. Taylor, another
prominent Abolitionist, the Editor of the Oberlin Evangelist, who has been
convicted of a number of cases ofillicit commerce, of seduction, and of at¬
tempts to procure abortion ? Within the course of one year, as many as
a half dozen anti-slavery clergymen,* of high standing, in the non-slave-
holding States, have been expelled from their respective churches for a viola¬
tion of the 7th commandment! If this gives us any correct idea of the moral
character of their clergy, what must that of their people be ?
It is true, that in the Northern States they have their large Moral Reform
Societies; but then they need them—and for none- more urgently than for
the members of those societies themselves.
If it is asserted that there is gross and beastly licentiousness to be found
in the slaveholding States, I admit it; but if the charge be, that there is more
than in the non-slaveholding, 1 deny it, and defy any one to prove it.
2. Does the influence that slavery exerts upon masters tend to make them
licentious ?
Licentiousness is promoted, 1st, by temptation ; and 2d, by the absence of
restraining influences,
1st. What is there in slavery that increases the force of temptation ? Is it
said that the master has unlimited control over the persons of his slaves, and
is therefore tempted to exert it for the gratification of his sensual, as well as
his other " passions?" I answer, that the master's cqntrol of his slave is but
*The following is taken from the " Philadelphia Christian Observer:"—
" It was recently stated to us, that there have been twelve cases of apostacy
among ministers in New England. Some of them were Baptists, some
Methodists, and others were of the Congregational Church.—All were zeal¬
ous for reform ; or, as our frier.d remarked, ' they commenced with aboli¬
tionism, and ended with dtahohsm, or open infidelity.'"
UR
little greater than that exercised by the Northern man ovei hi. liirerl M'i
vant, and the temptation in the former case is not enhanced by the fnseiim
tions to be found in the latter. Any one can form some idea, as well of the
actual state of morals at the North, as of the temptation to licentiousness,
by reading the account of the trial of the Rev. Mr. Fairchild—a Boston
Clergyman—charged with having illicit intercourse with his servant girl.
Verily, those who live in glass houses should be very careful how they cast
stones !
2d. The restraining influences that oppose the gratification bf sensual do.
gire, are, virtuous principles instilled by parents into their children, public
opinion, and the fear of God. Will any one undertake to prove that these
do not exist in all their accustomed power among the Southern people ?—.
Does any one assert that we have not virtuous mothers to instil correct prin¬
ciples into our youth ? Is public sentiment vitiated 1 I should be constrain¬
ed to believe it, did such things occur in our midst, as take place, with impu¬
nity, in open day, or under the broad glare of gas lamps, in New York,
Philadelphia, and Boston.
If the Northern people examine into the actual condition of society in their
midst—if they look at the temptations to licentiousness afforded by the sys¬
tem of " help" labor-^if they examine their factories, many of them schools
of vice—if they ascertain how large a proportion ol the houses in their large
cities are houses of fashionable assignation, and how many thousands of
abandoned females serve, at once, to gratify and increase the licentiousness
of the people, they will find no inducement to look away down here to dis¬
cover this vice, unless it be with a desperate desird to find those who can bear
them company, and sustain thelm in their infamy.
If slavery promotes licentiousness, it must follow, of necessity, that slave-
holding countries are more licentious than others ; but this is contrary to
fact. France and Italy, to say nothing of England and other European
countries, are not corrupted by slavery, and yet where can be found more
conjugal infidelity and illegitimacy?
We have followed Dr, Wayland, not because it is necessary, in order to
proye that slavery has not an immoral tendency, but to show the absurdity
of his assertions.—The Bible argument would have been sufficient of itself
to have established this, since that which the Bible sanctions cannot have an
immoral tendency.
We have thus, with the utmost possible brevity, endeavored to show that
slavery is pot a moral evil.
PART II.
Not a Political Evil.
Is Slavery a political evil 1 We use the word political here in its en¬
larged signification.—That is a political evil:
I. Which prevents the accumulation of national wealth.
II. Which opposes the supremacy of the laws.
III. Which hinders the increase of public intelligence•
1. Let us look at the political economy of the question. What effect does
it have upon national wealth ?
Dr. Wayland presents three reasons to show that it is disastrous tb the ac¬
cumulation of capital; 1st. That it discourages industry. 2d. That it pro¬
motes extravagance, and 3d. That it exhausts the soil of the country.
It seems to me that nothing can be more easy than to disprove this
>0
V '
1 I TheDortnr sijn that, bv making labor disgiacoful, it restricls ilie
lumber of laborers, and thus tends to discourage industry. This is an as¬
sertion that is very commonly made by abolitiuni-.lr. They seem to think
that masters disdain to soil their di licuto h-u ds by contact with any imple¬
ment of industry, and are in the habits df calling mlo ifcqiiisition the services
of their slaves for |he gratification oi'their most trivial bodily wants. Effemi¬
nacy and indolence are, m their opinion, the prevailing characteristics of the
Southern slaveholdei 1 \\ e arc disposer) to hi 'eve, too, tint they are honest
in this opinion. They have no way of reasoning but by analogy ; and
knowing what they won d he ptone to do, under like circumstances, it is
natural lor thern to believe lint we keep slaves to " Ian Us while vve sleep,
and tremble when we wake." And 1 don't know but even tit in would be as
reputable as to live upon the Contributions of the Northern people, as aboli¬
tion leeluiers now do. It is much easier to make money out of a sickly pub¬
lic sympathy, than by digging it out of the earth.
Elut does slavery make labor disgraceful, and thus tend to discourage inj
dustry 1 I shall find no difficulty in disproving this asst rfion, as the majori¬
ty of those who will read this live in the midst of the institution, and are ac¬
quainted with the facts as they exist. In Georgia, (and the other planting
States do not differ materially from her) there are four geographical divis¬
ions : 1st. A strip of level and marshy land on the seaboard, adapted to the
cultivation of Rice and Sea Island Cotton, where an large plantations, and
the majority of the population are blacks. 2d. A belt of thin pine land
occupied mostly by whites. 3d. The fertile aud hilly region in the middle
part of the State, where, at present, the main popu'ation is to be found, a
large portion of which consists in slaves—and 4th. The limestone or moun¬
tainous region, where grain is chiefly produced, and where there are, com¬
paratively, few negroes.
Now, I hazard nothing in saying, that, leaving out of view the first of
these divisions, where the climate is sultry, and the iioh locutions unhealthy
for whites, nine out of ten of the masters, in the remaining divisions, under¬
go as much physical labor, in their fields, as their negroes do. Nay, more,,
it is my sincere conviction, which has not been affected by an extensive ac¬
quaintance with all the New England States excepting Maine, that there is
no country upon earth whose people do more generally engage in manual
labor, than do the people ot Georgia, with the exception, already made, of
those who live on the Seaboard. The sons of our farmers engage in labor
with almost as much regularity as their negroes do, and their daughters will
yield to none in industry. If this is not true, it is the easiest matter in the
world to disprove it.
There are some few rich men here, as well as in New England, who, un¬
happily, bring up their children in idleness, and suffer them to loaf about the
villages ,* but I speak from personal knowledge, when I say, that fewer loaf¬
ers are to be tound in Georgia, than in any Northern State of the same popu¬
lation. The people of Georgia are slandered, when it is said, that, in their
estimation, labor is disgraceful. Even on the Seaboard, though it is admit¬
ted that the people do not engage generally in manual labor in consequence
ot their climate, and the unhealthy location of their productive lands, there
are very lew drones. With the exception of a small number of those who
own overgrown fortunes, the large majority of the planters manage their
own property. If the superintendent of a factory deserves to be considered
a working man, can the name he d mied to him, who manages the complicat¬
ed business of a large plantation .' It is my honest conviction, derived from
an ext insive acquaintance with the people of this State, that, in no part of
10
this Union, is labor held m more honorable estimation.
2d. What is there about the system of slavery that tends to produce ex¬
travagance? 1st. Is it because slaves are productive property ? I know
that men are sometimes led into extravagant habits, from the idea that they
have inexhaustible wealth ; and many melancholy examples prove, that that
propensity is not confined to slaveholding States. Alas 1 how inconsistent
are our enemies 1 With one breath, they assert that we nold on to slavery
because we are avaricious; and with the very next urge us to free our
slaves, because connection with them tends to make us regardless of money,
and ignorant of its value / Now, they assert that we are in danger from
the rapid accumulation of our property; and then, declare that the whole
system tends to impoverish ! Another evidence, where none is wanting, of
nheir lack of honesty and candor !
If the rapid accumulation of property tends to remove from its possessor
correct ideas of frugality, in what danger are the manufacturers of New En¬
gland, many of whom are realizing from ten to one hundred per cent, on
their investments !
2d. The reason of our extravagance, according to Dr. W., is that we do
not labor, and thus learn the value of money. Now, this is the Very thinjJ;
that the Doctor should not have taken for granted, for it is the very thing
that cannot be proved ; since it is contrary to fact.
3rd. Is the soil of the country impoverished by slavery ? Our lands in tho
middle sections of Georgia are liable to deterioration: 1st. From the natuie
of the soil, which is easily washed away by heavy rains. 2d. From the
nature of our crops, which expose much of the earth's surface naked to the
action of the sun and rains—and 3d. From the value of oar staple produc¬
tions, and the large bodies of land still unoccupied ; so that the temptation is.
strong to cultivate Without any reference to the effect upon the land, with the
expectation of migrating to a frpsher soil.
In what respect are these causes aggravated by slavery ? Does the labor
of the slave increase the tendency of the soil to wash away ? Is it said that
free labor would be likely to apply some counteracting influence ? 1 answer
that the Jaws of husbandry are very simple, and the same principles which
the freeman could apply he can teach his slave to apply.
In regard to the second cause, it will hardly be contended, that the form
of the cotton plant would be changed if it were cultivated exclusively by free-
men ! If our crops were, like those of New England, mainly grain and
g^ass, our soil would be liable neither to be washed away nor impoverished.
The reckless disregard to the effect which the mode of cultivation may
have upon the land, which has been apparent in too many cases, may, in a
slight degree, be aggravated by slavery; but the prominent and sufficient
causes are, tho value of the article produced, and the large body ot unoccu¬
pied land.
We have a great many instaiices of fields cultivated by free labor alone,
and we do not see that they differ materially from those adjoining them.
And it is a remarkable fact, if slavery does impoverish our soil, that in the
Low Country, where the land has been tilled almost exclusively by slave la¬
bor, it is in a better state of 'preservation than anywhere else.
There Is one other argument, which bears with material force upon the po¬
litical economy of this question, and that is, that the most durable and fertile
lands in the State could never have been brought under cultivation, without
negro slavery. God has so constituted the negro, that he can live, and en¬
joy good health, in places which would be (he grave of the white man. Had
slavery never existed, our rice fields and our rich cotton lands in the south*
J1
eastern and southwestern parts of the State, could never have been brought
under cultivation : and yet, slavery tends to national poverty 1
11. Doe$ slavery oppose the reign of law and order ?
1 should like much to enter at large into this part of the subject, if I could
command the leisure, and did I not suppose that the reader is tired of the
subject by this time. It would be no difficult matter, by a comparison of our
condition with that of the non-slaveholding States of this confederacy, as
well as by argument, to show that no state of society is so well adapted to
the preservation of public order, as that of which slavery is a component
part. Under present circumstances, I shall not be able to institute an ex¬
tended inquiry into the peculiar influences that operate to the subversion of
law and order in the non-slaveholding States—I can do but little more than
to suggest a few considerations, that show the tendency of slavery to pre¬
vent a spirit of lawlessness, leaving my readers, if any have had the patience
to follow me thus far, to continue the inquiry, and carry out the comparison
for themselves.
Slavery, then, tends to promote public order, because:
1. It prevents the immigration of large bodies of ignorant and lawless
foreigners into our territory. There is no class in our country, whose in¬
fluence we have more reason to dread, than that of the refuse population of
Europe, large crowds of whom are annually landed upon our shores. Rear¬
ed up in ignorance and vice, ground down under oppression, and kept in
subjection, at honrje, only by the bayonets of a standing army, it is not won¬
derful that they should exhibit, on landing in this free country, the most un¬
bounded licentiousness, and insubordination to the laws. All the non-
slaveholding States have telt, in a greater or less degree, their power for evil.
New York, and many of the other Northern cities, are, even now, slumbering
on a mine which a spark can explode ; and who can forget the terrific riots
in Philadelph'a, caused by the lawlessness of the Irish Catholics congregated
there? What has taken place in Philadelphia, will be repeated, in other pla¬
ces, whenever a favorable opportunity shall present itself.* Thanks to our
*The following are the views of the philosophic M. De Tocqueville, in his
work on the United States and its Institutions:—"The United States have
no metropolis; but they already contain several very large cities. Phila¬
delphia reckoned lfil,000 inhabitants, and New York 202,000, in the year
1830. The lower orders which inhabit these cities, constitute a rabble even
more formidable than the populace of European towns. They consist of
freed blacks, in the first place, who are condemned by the laws, and by pub¬
lic opinion, to an hereditary state of misery and degradation.—0^?*They al¬
so contain a multitude pf Europeans, who have been driven to the shores of
the New World by their misfortunes or their misconduct, apd these men in¬
oculate the United States with all our vices, without bringing with them any
of those interests which Counteract their baneful influence. As inhabitants
of a country, where they have no civil rights, they are ready to turn all the
passions which agitate the community to their own advantage: thus, within
the last few months, (this was written, I believe, in IS37,) serious riots have
broken out in Philadelphia and New York. Disturbances of this kind are
unknown in the rest of the country, which is in no wise alarmed by them,
because the population of the cities have hitherto exercised neither power nor
influence over the rural districts.—Nevertheless, I look upon the size of the
American cities, and especially on the nature of their population, as a real
danger, which threatens the future security of the democratic republics of the
New World ; and 1 venture to predict, they will perish from these circum
M
system of domestic servitude, we shall ever be exempt from such yutbfeaks*
All, or nearly nil, of our mental offices are filled by out negroes, and there
is, consequent!) , very little inducement offered for large numbers pf thiscla^s
of foreigners to collect in our territory*
2. It identifies the people with the suil, and makes them interested in thq
preservation of order. All slavehofding countries are necessarily agricultu-
rat, and the inhabitants are the ow tiers of the soil. The cultivators of the
earth have nothing to gairi, but every thing to lose, by weakening the arm
of the law. Other professions may escape from the consequences of disor¬
der, or may even find their greatest pecuniary advantage ip it; but agricul¬
ture can thriVe and flourish only unde)r the steady reign of law and order.
The pecuniary interest, therefore, ol the slaveholder, secures his influence
on the side of law. Thus, it has grown into a proverb, and been recognized
by the legislatures of all our States, that freeholders, all other things being
equal, are morh likely to be patriotic than others. Impendent, top, upon
their own industry, and the smilings qf a kind Providence, they are likely to
be more moral, and this is a strong argument, which might have been urged
to show that slavery has not an immoral tendency.
3. It makes the poor more independent of the rick, than in countries
where the people are divided into employers and employed } and thus, alsd,
dirtiinishes the number of transient "persons. In all slaveholding countries,
there are to be found many who do not own that species of property, and
who are dependent solely upon their own labor for a support. As but very
few, comparatively, can obtain employment as overseers, and rich men prefer
the labor of negroes, the large majority fire naturally induced to settle small
farms of their own. This not only produces a state of general independence,
and prevents the Collection pF large bodies of transient persons, but it holds
out inducements to young men to enter into the marriage relation, than whiph
there are few stronger guaranties fpr their morality and good behavior*
In the nott-slavehqtding States, on the contrary, society is divided into
employers and employed. The farmer must have his laborers, the ftmrtufac-
turer his operatives, &c, From this spring three serious evils in this repub¬
lican country.
1st, It draws a broad line of distinction between the rich hnd the poor,
makes them mutually and absolutely dependent upon each other, apd affords
'them an opportunity, pach in turn, to play the tyrant to the other. In times
of depression in the money market, when the supply pf laborers exceeds the
demand for them, employers enrich themselves at their expense ; and, On the
other hand, when the demand exceeds the supply, they, in their turp, by
" strikes" and other combinations, turn the tables upon their employers, and
bring them to their terms. Thus jealousies pre excited, and distinct and
well recognized classes formed. These views are sustained by the fact t hat
one of the largest political parties in New England is known by the name of
" The Working Men's Partv,'* and that so man^ appeals are made, by poli¬
ticians, Jo the prejudices of the poor against the rich.
2d, A second evil is, that it concentrates in the hands of the rich a politi¬
cal influence to whipb they are not entitled, in a land, where party spirit
rages with so much Volence, the temptation is pot a trivial one, which would
urge employers to make orthodox political opinions essential qualifications in
their laborers. Thus, 1 heard a gentleman, wbo owned extensive factories
stances, unless the government succeeds in creating an armed force, which,
whilst it remains under the control of the ipoajority of the pition, will be inde¬
pendent of the town population, and be able to repress ifs excr<eps '
33
in Luiiiiecticut, demure,Awhile lie to as smaitmg under mortification from the
defeat of his pttily, that" he had always cngiged his hands without reference
to th»ir politic il opim u ^ hut th it he had determined, from that time forth, to
puisue a different course, a? he could not reconcile it to his sense of duty to
himself and his country, to give employment, to men whose votes would be
cast in opposition to his interest, and, what he considered, the true policy of
the country** This hindrance to the independent exercise of the rights of
suffrage is not found at all, or to a very linpited extent, in our slaveholding
States.
3d. The third evil is that it nurtures a large class, who possess, individu¬
ally, no local habitation, who give no pledges for their good behavior, and
whd are consequently ripe for riot and revolt. And, unhappily, we are not
destitute of facts to sustain our theOry. Look at the lawless conduct of the
tendnts of the Vdu Rensaelltjr estates in New York, who have, thus far, set
at defiance the civil authorities ; one of whom, at the last accounts, has had
to summon to his aid a posse of a thousand mdn. Look at the " charter re¬
bellion in Rhode Island"—the murders cdmmitted Upon the persons of the
Mormons by an infuriated and lawless mob in Illinois j and last, though not
least, the awful riots in Philadelphia—tfie most ominous thing fn connection
with which is, that the rioters and their abettors still claim, that the will of
the majority of the people of Kensington was, and of right ought to be, para¬
mount to the lew.
Abolition Congressmen and others, when they-wish to be specially inso¬
lent, tailnt us vyith the charge, that we monopolize the services of the army
and navy to keep our slaves in subjectio»f History will have to record two
applications to the Federal Executive for military aid, made within a. few
months pf each other—tone by the Governor of R. Island, and the other by
the Mayor of Philadelphia—to repress the riotous spirit of their orderly and
happy people ! while its pages, from the organization of the government un¬
to this time, will he searched in vain for a similar application, to quell a ser¬
vile insurrection \ pV°m the Whiskey Rebellion'' in Pennsylvania, and
Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts, to the riots in Philadelphia, (the refuge
of runaway slaves,) the military power Of the government has been called
into requisition to quell disorders only in the pon-slaveholding States! I
could fain wish, that the evidence were afforded me, that our Northern friends
have any way to avoid the anarchy towards which they are fast tending.
Another fact will show more clearly, if possible, the nature of the danger
tp which the peoplp of the non-slaveholding States are subjected. There is,
*The following extract from a Maine paper, of recent date, is only one
among hundreds of examples, that could be cited to show the truth of our re¬
mark
"The following is a copy of a handbill that was posted up in our streets
last Friday:
" Several instances have tome to our knowledge, of attempts to deter citi¬
zens from voting in this city at the approaching election, in accordance with
their political preferences, by threats of depriving them of employment. We
pledge ourselves to procure for persons, who shall be discharged by their em-,
plovers tor such cause, situations ps advantageous to them as those they shall
thus lose.
Samuel Veazip, Ephruim Moullon, Charles Stetson,. H. Winslow,
D. F. Leavitt, (J. L. Boynton, .T.Norwood, J.S. Chadwich,
H, Strickland, JabezTrue, Andrew Freeze, H. J. Pillsbujry,
John Williams, J« W. Hathaway," S. P. Strickland, Otis $mall,
E
34,
at the present time, in the State's north of Maryland, a well organized party,
numbering, in a single city, some thousands of voters, who are in favor of
an equal division of property, and most clamorously derpapd it. Thanks
to our system of domestic'servitude, such influences cannot exist in our
midst. . > , ■' i ' ,
III. Does slavery hinder.the increase o'f public intelligence ? -It is admit- 1
ted, that the standard "of intelligence is not as high as it should be in the
Southern country,. There are some in slaveholding, as Well as in other "
States, who cannot read and write. But is this one of (he effects of slavery?
Nothing can be more easy than to show, and that,'too, by facts Which can¬
not lie, that its tendency is the very reverse of this.",. r. , . .
.'If slavery produces ignorance among the. whites, it must follow, that where
it has the strongest foothold there is the greatest amount of ignorance, and
80 vice versa. • To test ,this, let us recur again to the different geographical
divisions of Georgia.' (And I confine my observations to Georgia, because
I have had no opportunity of becoming personally acquainted with the physi¬
cal and intellectual features pf the other.Southern States.) Let us compare
the 1st and 2d divisions, as marked otiPon page 29 of this treatise, In the
first—the strip of land on the sqaboard—the large majority of the population
are slaves; while in the 2d7~the belt of thin pine land back of it.—there are
very few slaves comparatively.' Now, if slavery tends to produce ignorance,
it must follow,' that there is less intelligence in theYormer than in the latter.,'
The fact in the case is, that there are, perhaps, none in the, "former but what
pan read and write, and a large portion'are liberally educated—.While the
latter contains w'thin itself nearly alt the ignorance with which the State has-,
been reproached.> In the 1st and 3d divisions, therefore, Which are emphati¬
cally the slave districts of Georgia, there - are very few, if any, (and there
.are none with whom I am acquainted) who cannot read; while,in those di¬
visions of,the State, where there are very few slaves, unhappily, too large a
number cannot read.' These facts do not seem to' favor the idea, that slave¬
ry tends to hinder the increase of'public intelligence.
- Is it asked, why, then, is education hot more generally diffused in the
State T I answer, not because, our, people and legislators have" not been alive,
, to jts importance, for no-State has made greater exertions, 'of resorted to more
expedients, for the accomplishmertjt of this!object, than has Georgia. This
has been evinced by the yarious attempts of - her Legislature to establish a
, system of common schools, and the numerous and successful efforts of her
citizens,.to found colleges and, High schools., AH her plans to organize a
, general system of common school instruction have failed, because of the
sparseness of ber population. ■ Is it asserted, that, slavery prevents her from
being densely populated, and' thus,.incidentally, prevents public intelligence?
I answer, if this be true, it must follow that the population is thfe least dense
" where slavery has the strongest foothold; but the reverse of this is true. In
■. the belt of pine land, the population, is sparse, because the land is poor; and
so sparse is it, that you can ride,.sometimes, for five, ten, and even twenty
miles, without seeing a " clearing" in the .interminable pine forests. Ileie-
'and there, along the margins of "theWater courses, and in other fertile situa¬
tions,- population is to be found "but all other places are thinly settled, and
.would have been, though there had never been a slave upon earth.
Wherever .our population is sufficiently dense, schools are organized and
sustained ; and, in such places, there is as'much intelligence, on an average,
as is to be found in the most favored Northern State. 1
"We have a greater number, that cannot read and write, than they have in
Massachusetts—but then we have also a greater number, in comparison,
.15
*ho are liberally educated, it' the one fact, therefore, be held to the discred¬
it of siaver.v, the other should be adduced in its praise. Georgia feels more
infpirst in the c;tu«e of common school education, and has done more for the
instruction of her children, than New Jersey, or, perhaps, Rhode Island. If
her connection with slavery has prevented her from accomplishing as much
as Massachusetts, what has caused Rhode Island and New Jersey to fall be¬
hind her'? • if slavery has made her less successful than Massachusetts, in
diffusing education generally among her people, what has caused her to ex¬
cel Massachusetts in the number of her Colleges, and her liberally educated
men? To institute, too, a fair comparison between the two States, it must
be borne in mind, that Georgia was settled more than a century after Mas¬
sachusetts, and that she has but recently come into possession of a large por¬
tion of her territory. Who will say that she, a hundred years hence, will
not have passed far beyond the position now occupied by Massachusetts?
It would seem, to those who look at the subject without prejudice, that
slavery, by affording an opportunity to command leisure, has a tendency
rather to promote public intelligence.
Thus we have shown, briefly, but we hope satisfactorily, that it is injurious
neither to national wealth, public order, nor public intelligence—and, there¬
fore, not a political evil.
PART III.
Is Slavery a Social Evil?
These remarks have been extended far beyond my original intentions,
and I shall be.as brief and compendious as possible, upon this part of the sub¬
ject. Under the head of its moral and political influence, I hope I have suc¬
ceeded in showing that it is not injurious to civil society; in this place, I
shall content myself with suggesting a few reasons, to show that it is not an
.evil in its influence upon social intercourse. I am induced to be the more
brief, because I consider this an unimportant part of the subject, and because
. I do not know that, any one has pronounced it an evil in this respect.
That slavery has a tendency to promote social intercourse, is evident, from
the following considerations:
1. Slaveholders are more likely to be friendly to each other. Their bu¬
siness does not make thqm pecuniary rivals. Engaged in producing, by the
cultivation of the earth, valuable staples, for a foreign market, they do not
find a clashing of interests, and do not experience that ill will, which is a
natural consequence. Depending, also, as we have observed, only upon
their own industry, and the blessings of Providence, they are much less like¬
ly to be mercenary and selfish, than when they make a living by trade:
and no mercenary and selfish man can be a great acquisition to a social cir¬
cle. Finally, their fellow-citizens not being the sources from whence they
obtain their livelihood, slaveholders find no inducement to make impertinent
enquiries into the private and domestic concerns of their neighbors, even to
obtaining inventories of all their possessions, like the people of some of the
other more favored sections of this country, who are famous for their spirit
of enquiry ! ' And, thus, there is less temptation to scandal, the great bane
ofsocial intercourse.
2. Slaveholders are more likely to be dignified in their intercourse with
each other. Accustomed to avoid unnecessary familiarity with their ser¬
vants, they acquire a habit towards others, that prevents the familiarity which
breeds contempt. Having respect for themselves, they are more likely to
command respect from others.
3. The influence of slavery is to make the master frank, open-hearted
and unsuspecting. This is self-evident, and needs no illustration.
4. Slaveholders are more likely to be polished in their manners'. This
is especially true of those who own large numbers of slaves, and who have,
consequently, the leisure and other facilities for mingling together in social
intercourse.
5. They are more hospitable. The last two remarks haveTeen admitted
by our enemies themselves, and I will not stop to establish then..
Thus have we not only attempted, according to promise, to show that
slavery is not an evil, but, incidentally, that it is a positive good. , These pa¬
ges have been written in great haste, and under great disadvantage. There
are many arguments omitted which' might have'been urged, and many that
are used might have been stated more forcibly. The time has come, when
it is proper for the southern, people to maintain the system of domestic servi¬
tude by argument as well as by other means ; and one object I have in view,
is to draw out others on the subject, who are better able to do it justice. I
am gratified at the manly and decided stand that the editor of the Index has
taken on this subject; and his example should be, and doubtless will be, fol¬
lowed by all other religious editors in the slaveholding States.
Slavery is advantageous both to the white and the colored race; and,un¬
til it becomes a pecuniary evil, so long as we have the Bible, our reason,
and our independence, we expect to maintain it.
It is an institution which God designed to exist as long as the world shall
last; and, whether we, abolish* it or not, 1 have no doubt, that when the
Archangel's trump shall sound, bondmen, as well as freemen, will call upon
the mountains and rocks to fall on them, and hide them from the face of Him
that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb.~^(Rev. 5 : 15.)
If slavery is not a moral evil—if it existed in all the Apostolic churches—
■if the Bible, from beginning to end, sanctions it, what should we, as religious
men, do towards those who denounce " the sin of slavery," and stir up strife
on this subject?, I answer, in the language of the Apostle Paul, who could
not have better suited his instructions to the peculiar circumstances, if he had.
lived in our own times ;
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters wor¬
thy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they
■are brethren ; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and
beloved, partahers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the
words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according
to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions
and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings,■ evil surmishigs,
perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and d.esiitute of the truth',
supposing that gain is godliness: FROM SUCH W1THDRAW THY¬
SELF.—1 Tim. 6 : 1-5.
It remains for me to show, which I think I can do in the most ample
manner, that slavery has not been an evil to the negroes themselves.
PART IV.
Has " American Slavery" .been an Evil To our Negroes Themselves ?
Much declamation has been expended upon " the sufferings of the slave,"
by hypocrites, and well meaning, but ignorant fanatics: many tears—some
37
Cold, and others warmed bv the fires.of passion and prejudice—have gushed
forth at the recital of the wrongs and outrage with which this southern land
is filled : tnany thousand hearts, in other portions of this confederacy, pre
burning with desire to sever the bonds w hich hold them in religious and po¬
litical union with "the Suuthern oppressor," and are impatient for the op¬
portunity to draw tho sword against us, in defence of the " do'.vnirodden
slave;" and vet., it i's susceptible of demonstration,* to any mind that is but
half freed from prejudice, that, instead of an evil, "American Slavery" has
proved a blessing to the negro race—that, in every respect, the condition of
the slave, in these United States of America, is better than that occupied by
his brethren in any part of the world, now, or during any past age. Noth¬
ing can be more easy than to prove this.
1. la his moral, intellectual and physical condition, he is belter off than
the race have ever been in Africa.
1st. It is known to all, that the moral condition of Africa is wretched be¬
yond description. They have no idea of the true and living God, and Christ
and His Gospel are alike unknown to them. "Their religion consists only
in a stupid worshipping of snakes and animals, or an idol made of wood or
stone." (Nat. Hist. N. R. p. 5.) Nor is the moral character of the peo¬
ple superior to their religion. Mungo Park remarks, m his emphatic lan¬
guage, that, in Africa, the people are all thieves', (Trav. p. 188.) and, in re¬
gard to licentiousness, all travellers concur in stating that the commerce be¬
tween the sexes is almost as unrestricted as that between brutes. " In sev¬
eral countries of Africa, the time of puberty is very early, and corruption is
carried to a monstrous excess., Among the inhabitants of Darfur incest is
very common, and chastity is considered as the result of ugliness or inferiori¬
ty, prostitution being received as a proof of worth." (N. H. N. R. p. 89,
and authorities there cited.) No one can deny that the slave, in this chris¬
tian land, enjoying the benefits of the Gospel, and affected by its influences,
is immeasurably superior, in moral condition, to the besotted and depraved
African.
2nd, He is superior in his intellectual condition. I could cite here, by the
page, the accounts given, by credible writers, of the astonishing imbecility
and ignorance of the native African, but deem it unnecessary, as no one
doubts that the American slave far excels him in intelligence. In Africa,
there is not one ray of intellectual light, direct or reflected, and its inhabi¬
tants are as ignorant as human nature can be. Our negroes, it is true, have
not reaped all the intellectual advantages which their situation affords, in
consequence of the legal enactments against their instruction in letters ; but
this is our misfortune as well as theirs. Intelligence is not, by any means,
incompatible with the system, nor does ignorance make our negroes better
slaves. The truth of this can be established bv reference to Roman sjave-
ry. We find no obstacles opposed, by Roman legislation, to the instruction
of slaves. All had the right to educate their servants if they wished, and
were strongly induced to do it, as intelligence enhanced much the value of
the slave. • Some of the most intelligent men in Rome were slaves: they
were merchants, amanuenses, poets, actors, &c.; and we are informed that
M. Licinius Crassus derived his largest revenue from educating and then sell¬
ing his slaves. But Rome, had jurisdiction over all in her territory, and
could make her power felt by the seducer rather than his victim.
Interest and inclination would both prompt us to instruct our slaves, were
it not for the officious interference of fanatics who are without our jurisdic¬
tion. We know that our negroes, treated .well or ill, are flesh and blood;
and if the arch-fiend, by his artful machinations, could seduce angels from
:;a
their allegiance to a just and pure God, we have no reason to believe that
his representatives here would be less successful in inciting the poor negroes
to their ruin. Bui, with all the restrictions placed upon tin in, our slaves
are infinitely superior to tho native African in intelligence.
3d. The physical condition of the negro has been improved by American
•Slavery. The African slave trade possessed many things about it of an
atrocious character, butlnany of the evils ascribed to it were nothing but fig¬
ments of the imagination. It is a fact, sustained by JMungo Park, that the
large majority of those who were transported from Africa to America were
slaves, long before they came into the power of the white man. So that,
leaving out of view the sufferings of "the middle passage," and the sunder¬
ing of the ties that bound ,him to his native land, the African, whose service
was transferred from a savage to a christian land, made a happy exchange.
' According to Park, 'tthe slaves in Africa are nearly in the proportion of
three to one to the freemen." (Trav. p. 133.) All captives taken in war
among them become slavesand, as their regular Wars, as well as their
plundering excursions, are very numerous, it is reasonable to suppose that a
large portion of the population are slaves. When, in addition to this, we
bear in mind that, in seasons of scarcity, large numbers sell themselves for
food—that the persons of insolvent debtors, as/well as their'effects, are sold
to satisfy the claims of their creditors, and that the laws make slavery the
penalty for the commission of murder and other crimes, we can readily be¬
lieve that the proportion of three slaves to one freeman falls short of, rather
than exceeds, the truth,* The slave trade may have aggravated this state
of things, but it could not have been the muse of it. There were cases, we
know, in which free Africans were seized with the express design to sell them
to the slave dealer; but the large majority of those transported to this coun¬
try, I am not permitted to doubt, would have been slaves, though a ship had
never visited the coast of Africa. " From the relative numbers of the free
and enslaved population, it is natural, that slaves should constitute a large
proportion of the persons taken in battle ; and this proportien is farther in¬
creased by the inequality in the means of escape, which the freeman and the
slave respectively possess—the former being, in general, mounted and better
armed. Of 900 prisoners taken upon one occasion, only 70 were freemen.
Moreover, the friends of a freeman will sometimes ransom him by giving
two slaves in exchange; but the slave has no such hopes of redemption."
(Park's Trav. p. 135.) No one will doubt but that slavery here, under the
humanizing influences of the Gospel, is more mitigated than in pagan and
savage Africa.
If we compare the physical condition of our slaves with that of the free-
men of Africa, we will be constrained to come to the same conclusion. No
language that I can use can convey an adequate idea of the wretchedness of
those whose situation is the least intolerable. "In Africa negroes lead a
precarious life. The}'', reside in huts, and cultivate a few fields of couz
couz, (Holcus Spicatus—Linnaeus,) for subsistence." Filthy almost be-
• , ^
*" Slavery in Africa.—kn English gentleman, who has spent fourteen
years in Western Africa, where he has been Governor of some of the most
important English possessions, states that probably nine-tenths of all the
population of Africa are, at this moment, slaves; that, in some places, the
slaves are to the free, as thirty to one ; that slavery there is of all sorts, from
that which gives the master the most absolute control, to that in which the
slave has the common privileges of a member of the family, and may, in
some cases, inherit his master's property."—IV. Y. Jour. Com.
33
Vond beliei, and half starved, "they are subject to the tyrannical sway of
petty hereditary princes. They are very poor, and often bargain their lib¬
erty for a few bottles of rum, yards of blue cloth, or iron bars." (Nat. Hist.
N. p. 5.) So precarious is their subsistence, that they often sell them¬
selves for a meal of. victuals, and parent!? very frequently sell their children
to purchase food for the rest of the family. (P.'s Trav. p. 138.)
In no more signal manner has God shown his favor to any people, than
he has to that portion of the African race, whose lot he has cast in the
land of American slavery rather than in wretched and benighted Africa.
2. Our negroes are better off* than are their brethren in St. Domingo.
This sooty republic is distinguished for nought, save the laziness, vice, ig¬
norance and wretchedness of her inhabitants, and for the anarchy which
continually reigns within her borders. But, we presume, no one will cite
St. Domingo as an example of the blessings of emancipation. I say nothing
of the " apprentices" in the British West India Islands, because events are
not sufficiently developed there ; but it is my opinion—and time will corrobo¬
rate it—that the English Government, when it passed the emancipation act,
exhibited even more inhumanity than folly.
3. The negro is better off* here—in the land of American slavery-—than
are his brethren in the non-slaveholding States of this confederacy.
1st. He is better off'in his religious advantages. The colored people constitute
80 small a portion of the population in the northern States, and there is withal such
a prejudice against them, that very inadequate provision is made fur them to enjoy
a preached Gospel. Excepting in the cities, where they live in sufficient number
to constitute their own churches, and a very-few places where they are permitted
to sit indiscriminately with the whites, the only provision made for them is so in¬
convenient, and at the same time, such an outrage upon their feelings, that none
but those whose piety subordinates every other feeling can be induced to avail them¬
selves of it. A small portion—say ten feet square—of that corner of the gallery
which is farthest out of sight, is walled up so high, as to entirely conceal the occu¬
pants from the congregation, and provided with seats so arranged that, if the tenants,
by the most erect and constrained posture, can obtain a sight of the minister, it isas
much as they can do. The large majority, it is reasonable to suppose, refuse the
privilege thus insultingly tendered. I have known negroes in their most populous
communities, with churches all around them, who, for 3 ears in succession, never
bear the Gospel preached. And it would give me no surprise—nay, the reverse
would surprise me more—if it should be proved that, in the land of the Puritan, ne¬
groes live to mature age, and die without hearing the Gospel.
How different is it with us in this " land of oppression." Excepting in the ci¬
ties, where the negroes have churches and pastors of their own, all of our houses
of worship are constructed with especial reference to their wants. Either the en¬
tire gallery is set apart to their use, or a large and convenient part of the body of
the house is occupied by them, where they have the same opportunity of hearing
the word preached that their masters haife. In addition to this, a large number of
our pastors appropriate one service every SabbaPh to their particular instruction,
and, in many places, (and the number of such places is constantly increasing,) they
are taught in Sabbath Schools; a thing I never saw in N. England. I have travelled
extensively in those States, and visited many Sabbath Schools, and never have I
seen or heard of a colored child instructed in them.
Nor is this all. In those sections where they live in large numbers, missionaries
of all evangelical denominations are sustained among them, who not only preach to
all they can collect on the Sabbath, and to the several plantations on different
nights in the week, but also, in some instances, give them catechetical instruction.
There is not one of our three millions of slaves but what enjoys the same sanc¬
tuary privileges that his master does.
tld. The negro here is better off than his New England brother in political con¬
dition. No situation can be more harrassing than that occupied by the colored
man there. If the laws and public opinion had united in disfranchising him—if
they had even deprived him of political existence, and condemned him to the con-
40
dition of "a tiling, a chattel," his condition would bo tolerable; but where the
law assigns him one place, and public opinion another—where the law grants him
certain privileges which public opinion forbids him to exercise—where the law
holds out inducements to him to seek respectability, and public opinion strives to
degrade him, and even denies him all the rewards of virtue—I ask, Can his situa¬
tion be more harrassing and miserable'.1 And yet, this is precisely the condition of
the colored people in the non-slaveholding States. In theory they are free, and oil
an equality with the whites, but they dare not " assume the port," or claim the
privileges of freedom and equality. The law considers them as citizen's, and al¬
lows them the right of suffrage, but wo to the unlucky wight, who has the boldness
to present himself at the polls. According to law, the common schools are accessi¬
ble to all the children of the commonwealth, colored as well as white ; but mobs
have pulled down, over their heads, the school houses of those teachers who dared
to admit '• colored youth" into them. Who has forgotten the disgraceful excite¬
ment got up in Connecticut, because a certain Miss Crandall established a " !Semi-
jiary for colored young Ladies and who does not know that# in the city of Cos-
ton, even at this time, no negro boy dares to venture into the public schools!
What is the consequence of this state of things '! The poor negro has all the disa¬
bilities oj slavery without any of its protection ? All that the law does for him,
is to tempt him to do that which will excite the,prejudice and rage of the mob, and
then leaves him to its tender mercies. The feeling which the Northern people
have towards the negro, seems to partake more of the nature of hatred than of
prejudice. I have been frequently surprised, and pained, at the wanton manner in
which inoffensive and unassuming negroes have been insulted in my presence.
No wonder that our colored people, whenever they have escaped or been carried
there, have been so anxious to get back again to slavery. Let me be a slave a
thousand times over, rather than such a freeman as the New England negro !
3d. Our negroes are better off than those in the non-slaveholding States, in pe¬
cuniary condition. Our servants are sure of food, raiment, and shelter, as long
as they live—have no apprehension of suffering for lack of attention m sickness or
old age—and, when they die,feave their children without, any dread of their com¬
ing to want. Many of them, particularly in the cities, amass considerable money,
and most of them, by a little industry, are enabled to afford luxuries of food and
dress that the " peasantry of England" sigh after in vain. With the poor negro
in the non-sleveholding States, on the contrary, want is the general rule and com¬
fort the exception. The large majority of them are not even sure of escaping star¬
vation, and but jew are unacquainted with the sufferings attendant upon abject
pinching poverty. Here and there, in favored situations in the country, they are
to be found in easy circumstances, cultivating their own farms; and in the cities,
wherever they can obtain situations as ostlers, waiters, boot-blacks, etc., they can
procure the necessaries, and, perhaps, in a small way, .the luxuries of life ; but
what chance is there for the residue to compete With the white laborer, with all
the disadvantages of ignorance, color, and the public odium resting upon them!
What a tale of wretchedness could the cellars in New York, Philadelphia and Bos¬
ton, unfold ! I am credibly informed that nothing is more common than for five or
six families to be crowded together intooqe cellar, with nothing to eat but the cold
victuals that they are able to procure by Pegging, and with hardly rags enough to
cover their nakedness. When to this we add, that, being destitute of the means
of procuring fuel, they are unable to maintain fires that can drive out the piercing
cold of that inclement region, or dry up the dampness of a room whose floor is al¬
ways covered with water, we have cpmpleted a picture wretched beyond anything
that has been imagined by the most " downtrodden slave" in our midst. No won¬
der, when we consider their degradation, wretchedness and want, ti)at t'1® 'ast
census should have reported such a large proportion of insane among them ! And
tlys unmitigated suffering exists, too, unnoticed, ajid unpjtied, in the very midst of
a philanthropy that sighs and weeps over the imaginary sufferings of those a thou¬
sand miles distant I