REMARKS UPON SLAVERY, OCCASIONED BY ATTEMPTS MADE TO CIRCULATE IMPROPER PUREIC ATIONS IN Kilt Southern States* BY A CITIZEN OF GEORGIA SECOND EDITION. AUGUSTA: PRINTED FOR THE PUBLISHER. 1835. EMORY UNIVERSITY LIBRARY REMARKS, Ac. A number of publications have recently been sent to this place, and to other places at the South, by some of the Abolition Associa¬ tions at the North, for the purpose of distribution. One of these papers was placed in my hands by a person to whom it was directed—and though it has since been returned to the quarter from whence it came, yet I deem it not improper to make a few remarks upon the subject to which it related ; especially as all those with whom I am associated in life, have, in this subject, an important interest. It seems somewhat extraordinary, that any set of rational men, in this enlightened age, should be so regardless of the ordinary courtesies of life, as to desire to interrupt the harmony and quiet of an unof¬ fending people, who are legally pursuing their own business, within their own limits, without any disposition to interfere with the organi¬ zation of society in any other section of country but their own. There certainly seems very little in the conduct of the Abolition Societies at the North, to recommend them to the favourable regard of the inhabitants of this quarter. They seem to speak and to act, as though they imagined that an entire revolution in the state of society here, would be a matter of but little consequence, if such an event could be brought about through their instrumentality. They speak of slavery as a system of iniquity, at variance with the reveal¬ ed will of God, and a continued violation of his moral law—they de¬ nounce it as a practical denial of the declaration, that God made of one blood all the inhabitants of the world, and as a disregard of the rules prescribed for the intercourse of men with one another. In utter disregard of the principle that the regulation of slavery be¬ longs exclusively to those amongst whom it exists, these officious intermeddlers take upon themselves to pronounce it an evil of se¬ rious magnitude, and then assume to themselves a right to remove it, either with, or without the consent of those whose interests are to be affected by their proceedings; and they pursue their object in violation of the ordinary maxims of moderation or prudence. Whatever may be the circumstances connected with slavery— that it is neither a violation of the moral law, nor at variance with the revealed will of God, appears to me capable of demonstration; and, in support of this opinion, I take the liberty of submitting the following remarks. It will, on all hands, no doubt be agreed, that the Bible alone contains the revealed will of God—that we are to look in that Holy Book for the moral law. I will therefore take the liberty of inquiring how far slavery receives the sanction of this [ 4 ] high authority; for beyond the support it receives from this, it would be needless to attempt to vindicate or defend it. In an enquiry into the origin of slavery, I should not be inclined to go further back in the history of the world, than to the interest¬ ing period when, on the subsiding of the waters of the Deluge, the Ark of Noah rested upon the mountains of Ararat. From that time, the moral characters of those who had been miraculously preserved from the general destruction of the human race, began gradually to be developed, and a foundation was thus laid for the diversified orders of society, which the subsequent peopling of the world has presented. At an eventful period in the life of Noah, some years after the flood, we find that Patriarch, who had long been a preacher of righ¬ teousness, uttering, in the language of prophetic inspiration, the fol¬ lowing prediction in relation to the future condition of his family: " Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be to his bre¬ thren; (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." By this prophetical denunciation the inheritance of Canaan was servitude— "a servant of servants shall he be"—to the most degraded species of servitude was he subjected. The blessing of God and the bless¬ ings of freedom were pronounced upon Shem and Japheth, and to each of them Canaan was inevitably doomed to be a servant. Here, then, when there was but a single family upon earth, the inherit¬ ance of slavery was entailed upon one branch of it. And though " God made of one blood all the nations of the earth," or though, rather, all nations proceeded from one family, yet it is clearly and undeniably evident, that, from this period, God did not direct that one condition should be the portion of all. For the blessings of freedom were secured beyond the possibility of change to two branches of the family—the condition of slavery was unalterably the portion of another. That the prediction of Noah was uttered under the influ¬ ence of the spirit of inspiration—that it looked to the dispersion and subsequent circumstances of his family, is not, as far as I know, questioned by any one—his language was that of prophesy—a pro¬ phesy which was certainly to be fulfilled, and which has been thus far demonstrably accomplished. Whatever difficulties there may be in this portion of scripture, the prophesy or prediction, with regard to the different conditions, of the three branches of Noah's family, is clear and explicit. From Noah's family the world has been peo¬ pled—from the branch of it, whose inheritance was slavery, were descended the nations the Israelites were commanded to destroy, and the African race. The general state and condition of the de¬ scendants of Canaan, being foretold by the spirit of inspiration, when there was but a single family upon earth, and when there could be no error as to whom the prediction applied, could not have been changed or altered: the prophesy must have been fulfilled, and the aspect of the world at the present day bears testimony to its truth: [ 5 ] and however the condition of those who were thus doomed to ser¬ vitude may be meliorated by the mild discipline and brotherly love which the Gospel is intended to introduce, there is no absolute cer¬ tainty, that, to the prediction itself, with all its consequences, there is any limitation. Many years after the prophesy of Noah, and when the children ol men had greatly increased in numbers and wickedness, it pleased God, in the exercise of his sovereign will, to call Abraham from " his associates in idolatry," that he might make of him " a great nation," and that " in him all the families of the earth should be blessed." And he was pleased to make a covenant with Abraham, and to ratify it by a singular and sealing ordinance, which he and his posterity must " observe as a pledge and mark of their being the worshippers and servants of Jehovah." In giving directions in re¬ lation to the administration of this ordinance, a distinction was made by the Almighty himself, between the descendants of the favoured branches of Noah's family who were the ancestors of Abraham, and those of the branch doomed to servitude by the prophesy be¬ fore noticed. The distinction is that made between the children of Abraham, born in his house, and those bought with money, who were not of his seed. All the male children of Abraham's family, born in his house, or bought with his money, says the 13th verse of the 17th chapter of Genesis, must needs be circum¬ cised, and the covenant was to be in their flesh, " for an ever¬ lasting covenant:" and in conformity with this direction, we are in¬ formed in the 24th and 27th verses of the same chapter, that in the same day Abraham was circumcised and his son Ishmael, and all the men of his house, born in the house, " and bought with money of the stranger." The command given by God himself to Abraham on this subject, and the obedience rendered to it, evidence clearly that it was then customary, as it had no doubt been long before, for servants to be purchased with money—they were then bought and sold as they are at this day. When the Almighty called Abraham to become the father of the faithful, and the head of his Church, he would have required him to relinquish his controul over the serv¬ ants he had purchased, if his owning or possessing them as proper¬ ty had been contrary to the divine will, or at variance with the ex¬ emplary character Abraham was to sustain; but instead of this, di¬ rections are given in relation to these dependant members of his family, and a sanction is given to their continuance in their inferior condition. But while they were continued in Abraham's family with all their civil disabilities, they were made capable of enjoying the moral and religious advantages which Abraham had himself become possessed of, by the covenant established with him. This is an in¬ teresting and important fact, connected with the calling of the great founder and head of the Jewish Church. It was permitted in the order of Providence, that the condition of slavery should be conti¬ nued—that servants might be bought and sold; but though they were thus lowered, as to certain civil and political rights, the Di- [ 6 ] vine benevolence so directed, that this circumstance should not oc¬ casion to them any moral or religious disability. They might be introduced into the Church of God by its initiatory rights, and be partakers of its sealing ordinances, and might therefore be, as to their eventual and final condition, on a footing of perfect equality with their owners. Abraham might buy his servants, and he did buy them; but while he thus obtained the benefit of their services upon earth, he was to favour their instruction in religious truth, and be instrumental in their introduction to the Church of God, and the covenant established with them was to be an earnest or pledge of their everlasting happiness. They were to serve their owners up¬ on earth, and were required to serve them with fidelity; but to the joys of the upper world, they and their owners were made capable of being admitted in precisely the same way, on exactly the same terms, through the same propitiatory sacrifice, and by the same faithful performance of the duties devolving upon them in their re¬ spective stations. The condition of servitude was evidently recog¬ nized in the earliest ages of the Church, but servants had abundant cause of gratitude for the kindness shown them by their heavenly Father, who assigns to all their respective stations in life, and who, though he saw fit to allot to them an inferior situation in a world of trial and of perpetual changes, yet did not thereby in any degree deprive them of those spiritual consolations, which are altogether independent of our earthly condition, and which they might enjoy equally with those to whom they owed civil obedience. Their mo¬ ral characters were in no respect lowered : they might rather be exalted in consequence of their civil condition ; and they might, in a faithful discharge of duty, look forward with the same confidence their owners might do in consequence of similar fidelity, to those rewards of a well-spent life, which should be of endless duration. In the 20th chapter of G enesis, we have an account of Abraham's sojourning in Gerar, and of his imprudence in pretending that his wife was his sister merely; and, in the 14th verse of that chapter, we find that after Abraham had been rebuked for his indiscretion, that the king of Gerar " took sheep and oxen, and men servants and women servants," and gave them to Abraham. The present was no doubt intended as an atonement for what the king was sensible had been improper in his conduct, though he had done no actual in¬ jury; but the transaction evidences that men servants and women servants were given away or sold, with as little ceremony as oxen or sheep were; for slavery existed in Gerar as it did in other places, and servants were there, as in other places, considered a part of a man's property or possessions. The present of servants was, in this case, as readily received, as it was freely offered. In the 24th chapter of Genesis, we have an account of the mea¬ sures taken by Abraham for the settlement of his son Isaac in life. In reflecting on this subject, it became a matter of much solicitude to the parent, that a suitable companion should be selected for his son, and particularly that he should not become connected with one [ 7 ] of the idolatrous women of Canaan. He therefore directed an old servant, who had been many years in his family, and whom he had probably purchased in his younger days, to take the necessary mea¬ sures for obtaining a wife for Isaac, from amongst some of his dis¬ tant kindred, who were, like himself, worshippers of the only living and true God. The servant accordingly went into the land of Me- zopotamia, and endeavoured, by a prudent course of conduct, to bring the important business with which he was entrusted, to a hap¬ py termination. In the over-ruling Providence of God, it was so directed that an interview soon took place between the servant of Abraham and a female named Rebecca, who was found to be re¬ lated to Abraham, and who, the servant readily concluded, would be a suitable companion for his master's son. Under the pious influ¬ ence with which he had long been familiar in the family to which he belonged, he " blessed the Lord," who had thus far directed and prospered him in his journey, and he soon, in simple and appropri¬ ate terms, disclosed to the damsel the object of his visit to that sec¬ tion of country, and let her know that his purpose was to obtain for the son of his master a bosom companion. And in the belief that his object would be attained, if she would favour his views, he made a brief statement of his own situation in Abraham's family, and of his master's circumstances, and of the eligible connection she would form in consenting to the proposed alliance. In the lan¬ guage of gratitude and of piety, he stated that " the Lord had great¬ ly blessed his master," and that he had become great: "He has," said he, "given him flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and men servants, and maid servants, and camels and asses." The interview terminated to tbe servant's satisfaction. Rebecca was not insensi¬ ble to the advantages of tbe connection proposed to her, and was not disposed to reject an offer presented, as she thought, under the guidance of an over-ruling Providence, and she became soon after the wife of Isaac. It is obvious here, that the possession of men servants and maid servants were enumerated as amongst the bless¬ ings from the Lord, as well as the flocks and the herds, the silver and the gold, with which Abraham was enriched. Nor is any inti¬ mation given, that Rebecca hesitated to become the wife of Isaac on account of his being, or his father's being a slave-holder; nor did she seem to consider the moral character of either of them as affected by that circumstance. Whether her own family had been always accustomed to the possession of men and women servants, may not be certain—from her going to draw water for the flocks, and the readiness with which she drew for the camels of Abraham's servant, it would seem, that, in conformity to the custom of that time and country, she would not depend upon others to do for her, that which she could perform for herself—nor did she seem to no¬ tice the apparent want of politeness in the servant of Abraham, in not offering to assist in drawing the water which he himself needed. The reason he did not, resulted, no doubt, from his desire to obtain unequivocal evidences of the leadings of Providence, in the meet- [ 8 ] ing between him and the beautiful female, who he fondly hoped was to become a member of his master's family. In process of time, Rebecca became the mother of Jacob, who, amidst the vicissitudes of an eventful life, was the peculiar object of the divine care; and we find it recorded in the 43d verse of the 30th chapter of Genesis, that "he increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and men servants and maid servants, and camels and asses." It is well known to those who read the Bible, how frequently the Lord declares himself to be " the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob," and how these patriarchs became the heads and founders, under God, of that Church in which the true worship of Jehovah was to be preserved, and from which the Gospel has been trans¬ mitted to the present period. Yet all these persons were slave¬ owners, and slave-holders, either by purchase or inheritance, or both. Slaves were enumerated amongst their possessions, as sil¬ ver and gold, and camels and asses were; and as amongst the blessings bestowed upon them. And there is no intimation, I be¬ lieve, made, that the holding of this species of property was impro¬ per, or that slavery was at variance with the arrangements of Di¬ vine Providence. After the descendants of these patriarchs, or rather after the children of Jacob had suffered the oppressions of Egypt for many years, and the Lord had resolved to deliver them, we find, in the directions given for the observance of the Passover, the same dis¬ tinctions made, between the servants bought with money and the other servants, that had been made several hundred years before in the family of Abraham—for, it may be recollected, that the ser¬ vants bought with money by Abraham, were to be made members of the Jewish Church, by its regularly instituted ordinance, because, they being the property of Abraham, he was responsible for them, and they became sharers in his religious privileges; but hired ser¬ vants were on a different footing—they could claim a sort of quali¬ fied independence of those who hired them, and to whom they owed no permanent obedience. So, when the children of Jacob, or as they were now called, the children of Israel, were about to be de¬ livered from Egypt, it is said, in the 44th verse of the 12th chapter of Exodus, that " every man's servant that was bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat of the Passover; a foreigner or a hired servant shall not eat thereof." These regu¬ lations all seem to indicate, that important duties rest upon those who are the owners of servants, either by purchase or inheritance, as to the religious instruction to be given them, in order to prepare them for becoming members of the Church of God. In the direc¬ tions relative to the sacramental feasts, the distinction is constantly made between hired servants, and servants bought with money; and the more dependant condition of the latter seems proportiona- bly to increase the responsibility of those who own them. No inti¬ mation seems to be given, that the buying of servants is improper,, but the due discharge of duty towards them is imperiously enjoined. [ 9 ] In the 21st chapter of Exodus, many directions are given relative to slaves. Most of these, no doubt, refer to Hebrew slaves, who were, in many respects, differently situated from the slaves pur¬ chased of other nations; but the distinction between the two is strongly marked in the 20th and 21st verses, where it is declared that, " if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished," but " if he con¬ tinue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.'''* The wanton destruction of the life of a slave was considered like a similar outrage upon any other individual, as murder, and was pu¬ nished as such. But the law scarcely supposed that any owner of a slave would voluntarily subject himself to the loss of his value, by taking away his life, though he might accidentally incur such a mis¬ fortune by imprudence ; he might give his slave moderate correc¬ tion, for misconduct, with impunity, but if in doing this he exceeded the bounds of moderation, and death ensued, he should be punish¬ ed; but if the unfortunate stroke which happened to prove fatal, was rather the result of accident than intention, and the slave lived a day or two after the chastisement given, the master should not then be punished, because the slave was his money, whose life the master would have been interested in preserving, and whose loss was a pecuniary punishment to him, for his indiscretion or violence. This law was not greatly different from the law existing amongst us at the present day, in relation to the government of slaves—the own¬ ers may punish them for misconduct, and that with some severity, if they are inconsiderately inclined to do so; but, if under such pu¬ nishment the slave should actually die, the owner would assuredly be made answerable therefor, according to the circumstances of the case, whether it should turn out to be murder, or manslaughter, or excusable homicide. The children of Israel, who were the peculiar and chosen people of God, were not to buy or sell into perpetual servitude the child¬ ren of each other—they were all members of one great privileged family, and could only sell themselves or their children for a limited period; but for a limited period even the Hebrew children might be sold and kept in bondage to each other. But the Israelites were permitted and directed to buy their slaves of the nations round about them. In the 25th chapter of Leviticus, 44th, 45th and 46th verses, are the following directions on this subject:—"Both thy bond men and thy bond maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you—of them shall ye buy bond men and bond maidsmoreover, of the children of strangers that 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. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: "but over your brethren of the children of Israel, ye shall not rule, one over another with rigour." Here are directions given for the purchase of slaves, and the designation of the period for [ 10 ] which they might be held in servitude—they should be purchased for an inheritance for the children of the purchaser, and they should inherit them for a possession, and they should be bond servants for ever. This is a period of servitude as extensive as can be found in any of the slave-holding states of the Union. It intimates a conti¬ nuance of servitude in the person to who n it applies during the en¬ tire period of his earthly existence—for a longer period no one could desire to have control over this species of property. The Ten Commandments, delivered with awful solemnity from Mount Sinai, and which are justly considered as the great outlines of the Holy Law of God, are intended, in their injunctions and di¬ rections, to be of universal obligation, to embrace the various classes of society—the rich and the poor—masters and servants—parents and children. The fourth commandment, and the tenth, suppose a state of servitude to exist amongst those to whom they are directed. In the fourth, in which an observance of the Sabbath is enjoined, it is declared, " Six days shalt thou labour, but the seventh is the Sab¬ bath of the Lord," in it thou shalt not do any work, " thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man servant, nor thy maid servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates," &c. And in the tenth, it is said, " thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man servant> nor his maid servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his." In both of these commandments the condition of slave¬ ry is evidently supposed to exist in the same way it did in the time of Abraham, and in all subsequent periods to the time the command was given, and they seem to look forward to the con¬ tinuance of that condition for as long a time as the obligatory na¬ ture of the command shall endure. The head of the family is to en¬ join the observance of the Sabbath upon his children and servants, and all are forbidden to covet the servants of others. We find in the 25th chapter of the 1st of Samuel, that David, in a period of distress, sent a respectful request to Nabal for a supply of provisions ; but Nabal very churlishly replied to the messengers, " who is David, and who is the son of Jesse 1 There be many ser¬ vants now-a-days that break away every man from his master."— The rude and contemptuous reply of Nabal, evidences that the owning slaves at that period was not only common, but that disor¬ derly ones were to be found amongst them, inasmuch as he was so indecorous as to charge David and his messengers with being run¬ away slaves. We find there were servants engaged with the Jews in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem; for Nehemiah says, in the 16th verse of the 4th chapter, that the half of his servants wrought in the work, and so earnestly did they work, that he says, in the 23d verse, that nei¬ ther he nor his brethren nor his servants put olf their clothes, &c., and in the 22d verse of the same chapter, it is said of those from the adjacent villages, that " every one with his servant should lodge within Jerusalem and in the 16th verse of the 5th chapter, Ne- [ n ] hemiah says, that " all his servants were gathering thither to the work," even to the neglect, probably, of some of his private business. The Book of Job is, in all probability, as old as any of the Books of Moses; and Job himself, was, it is likely, in his prosperity long before the children of Israel left Egypt—he was pronounced by the Almighty to be a perfect and an upright man, and there is conclu¬ sive evidence that he was the owner of a great number of slaves —some of them we find were destroyed by fire, and many of them were slain by the Sabeans and Chaldeans, in those various misfor¬ tunes with which Job was overwhelmed. In the course of his suf¬ ferings, Job speaks of the negligence of his servants towards him, though they had been accustomed to treat him with reverence and respect in the days of his prosperity; and, in a restless impatience under his sufferings, he wished that he had never been born, or that he might have been early consigned to the grave, where he says, "the prisoners rest together, a.id the servant is free from his mas¬ ter." The expressions here convey the idea that the rest of the grave was the only freedom from servitude, which many slaves could expect, or would ever experience—for they would be in bond¬ age during their whole lives—a condition to which, in the order of Providence, they were subjected in the present state ; but the con¬ dition they were placed in here was of but a temporary nature— they were hastening to the grave, where the rich and the poor, the small and the great, the master and the servant, would all be on a footing, all would then be free from temporal calamity ; and if they had been faithful in the discharge of their respective duties, from the rest of the grave they might hope to rise to everlasting joy. We find in the 24th chapter of Jeremiah, that king Zedekiah made a covenant with the* people of Jerusalem, that every man should let "his man servant or maid servant, being a Hebrew or Hebrewess, go free, as they had served out the time for which the Jews could hold each other in bondage. And it appears that the princes and the people let the Hebrew servants go free ; but after having done this, they again brought them into subjection, contrary to the law of God in regard to Hebrew servants, and for this con¬ duct they were severely punished. The same authority which au¬ thorized the limited servitude of Hebrew slaves, authorized the per¬ petual servitude of others, and none but Jewish servants were em¬ braced in the covenant of king Zedekiah, and that covenant was to carry into effect the known law of the Jewish nation. David and Solomon both speak of slaves and slavery as a known and recognized condition in society : "the king's favour (says Solo¬ mon) is towards a wise servant;" and again he says, "a servant will not be corrected by words." And David says, "as the eyes of servants look unto the hands of their masters, and the eyes of a maiden to her mistress, so our eyes wait upon the Lord our God," &c. If we pass from the Old to the New Testament, we shall find a perfect coincidence on this subject in the two dispensations. I am not aware of any expression in the New Testament, forbidding in- L i* J dividuals to hold slaves, or requiring the owners of slaves to eman¬ cipate them. Many directions are given to masters as to their treat¬ ment of their slaves, and to slaves as to the fidelity with which their duties should be performed ; but no intimation is given, that it is ne¬ cessary the relationships between masters and servants should be dissolved, nor is any direction given by Christ himself, as far as I know, that such relationships should be terminated. In the Gospel, as under the Abrahamic covenant, servants are invited to become partakers of those spiritual privileges with which their everlasting interests are connected. But it is nowhere intimated, that these important interests will be advanced, by their neglect of the duties attached to their civil condition, or that those duties can be omitted or neglected, consistently with the requisitions of the Christian dis¬ pensation. Paul, who was a most faithful Apostle, gives directions to servants, who have believing masters, how to conduct towards them, and also how to behave towards those who were not believ¬ ers ; their civil duties were, in either case, to be duly performed, whatever might be the religious character of their owners. Had there been any thing immoral or improper in holding or owning slaves, is it to be supposed there would not have been found some¬ thing in the Apostolic writings condemning it 1 I am aware of the arguments founded on the reciprocal duties which individuals owe to each other, and while allowing, in their utmost latitude, the divine injunctions on this subject, I still say, that there is nothing in them, in my view, which requires the owner of a slave to liberate him, or which forbids his being continued in bondage. If slavery is abso¬ lutely unlawful, there must be some express prohibition of it in scripture : if no such prohibition is to be found, it would seem that its unlawfulness could not be easily demonstrated. That it might be generous in the owner of a slave to liberate him, no one would question, even if the slave were not benefitted thereby ; but whe¬ ther it is the duty of an individual to do this, is another matter. Acts of duty and acts of generosity may have their origin in very different principles. What the Gospel requires, it is our duty to do : the authority of that is unquestionable. In the time of Christ and his Apostles, the slavery existing then was similar to that found in our country at the present period, ex¬ cept that it was in many respects more severe; but there was then, no crusade instituted against it. The Apostles did not go forth and organize Abolition Societies, or attempt to disturb the civil relations of men, under pretence that the order of things, which under God had been established, must be overturned. They preached the Gos¬ pel to masters and servants, and promised its rewards to all who would obey its precepts. They told masters to give unto their ser¬ vants that which was just and equal—and told servants to be obe¬ dient to their masters, and thus they endeavoured, by prescribing the duty, to promote the comfort of both. "Servants," says the Apostle Peter, " be subject to your masters with all fear ; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thank- [ IS ] worthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if when ye are 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 to God." The Apostle well knew the nature of man, and he here supposes what might no doubt happen, that some persons, in a state of slavery and belonging to the Church, might have passionate or inconsiderate masters, who might buffet or beat them when they did not deserve such treatment; but under these circumstances he recommends to them the exercise of such a meek and quiet spirit, even suffering wrong¬ fully, as would do credit to their profession, and be acceptable to God: and as an encouragement to them to do so, he reminds them of their suffering Saviour, who had endured much more to save them from eternal suffering, than they would, under any circumstances, endure by any injustice to which they might be subjected. For even "hereunto were ye called," says he, "because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that ye should follow his steps." But in the humble and submissive spirit they recommend, the Apostles neither intended to sanction or countenance any spe¬ cies of cruelty or injustice, but only to direct the course of conduct to be pursued when these should occur, as they might do in a world where so much latitude was given to the unruly passions of men. In numerous instances directions are given to masters to be kind to their servants, and attentive to their comforts. " And ye, mas¬ ters," says Paul, in the 16th chapter of Ephesians, "do the same things to your servants, forbearing threatening, knowing that your master also is in heaven, neither is there respect of persons with him." The solemn truth, that all men had a master in heaven, who would hereafter deal with them according to their moral characters, without regard to the civil conditions they had sustained in life, was well calculated to impress upon all a due sense of the importance of a faithful discharge of duty in every situation of life. The reci¬ procal duties of masters and servants are enjoined by all the Apos¬ tles, and those relationships seem to be recognized throughout all the sacred writings. In the early period of our Saviour's ministry upon earth, a Roman centurion applied to him to heal his servant who, he said, was sick of the palsy. The tender concern of the Roman soldier for his ser¬ vant, and his faith in the power of the person he addressed, presents his character to us in a most favourable point of view. Our Lord received his application kindly, saying, " I will come and heal him." The centurion, probably surprised at the ready condescension of the Saviour, and full of confidence in his power, intimated that he was not worthy he should come under his roof, but that if he would bare¬ ly "speak the word," the object he solicited would be obtained: " For I," said he, " am a man under authority, having soldiers under me, and I say to one go and he goeth, and to another come and he cometh, and to my servant do this and he doeth it" Thus intimat¬ ing his conviction that the Saviour had as absolute control over all t 14 ] diseases, as he had over his own servants. The Saviour commend¬ ed his faith, and granted him the desired favour, but did not ques¬ tion his right to hold or own the servants of whom he spoke. During the whole period of our Saviour's ministry upon earth, he was surrounded by those who were slave-holders—in one of his dis¬ courses with his disciples, we find him discriminating between ser¬ vants and those in different situations : " Henceforth," says he, " 1 call you not servants, for the servant knoweth not what his Lord doeth, but I have called you friends," &c. And we find that there were servants amongst the crowds who heard the messages of Christ, and servants met the nobleman whose son Jesus had mi¬ raculously cured, and told him, " thy son liveth and they, with the father and son, in this case, became believers in him whose mercy they experienced. There were servants, and probably many of them in that crowd, who went with Judas to arrest the Saviour, for when one of the disciples drew a sword, and with it made a random blow, he " cut off the ear of a servant of the high priestand we afterwards find, in the 26th verse of the 18th chapter of John, that another servant of the high priest, who was kinsman to the one that had been wounded, charged Peter with being one of the disciples of Jesus, just before that crowing of the cock, whose sound pierced Peter to the heart; and there stood also at the same time other " servants with the officers, warming themselves" at the fire of coals that had been made. Yet we do not find that at this interesting period, or at any time in the life of the Saviour, when he was sur¬ rounded by masters and servants, and when he well knew the con¬ dition of all about him, that he ever pronounced it improper to own servants, or required those who did own, to liberate and discharge them. And I trust it will not be deemed irreverent to remark, that in his discourses we may confidently look for as correct opinions, and as pure morality, as we could rationally hope to find in any of the Abolition speeches or publications of the present day. The Apostle Paul not only recognized as legal the relationship of master and servant, but took great pains to restore a runaway slave to his owner. The account of this transaction is to be found in Paul's Epistle to Philemon. It seems that Philemon, who had been converted under Paul's preaching, was the owner of a slave named Onesimus, over whom, as the law then stood, he had the power of life and death. In consequence of some misconduct for which he apprehended punishment, or from some other cause, this slave ran away from his master, and fled to Rome, "a distance of several hundred miles," where he accidentally heard Paul preach, and was converted. Paul of course became interested in his wel¬ fare, and knowing from his own confession, or in some other way, the manner in which he had left his master, he was desirous of send¬ ing him back, and seemed anxious that both master and servant should behave in a manner becoming their Christian profession. To insure Onesimus a favourable reception from his owner, Paul wrote the Epistle mentioned, which has been much admired as a [ 15 ] prudent and masterly production for the purpose intended, well cal¬ culated to restore the proper relations that had before existed be¬ tween the parties. St. Paul in this case conducted as became his Christian character—he knew it to be improper for Onesimus to ab¬ sent himself from his master's service without leave ; and he knew, also, that the manner of his coming away might naturally excite a spirit of resentment which he was desirous to moderate—he there¬ fore induced the servant to return to his duty, and exerted himself to secure him a favourable reception from his owner. The latter object could scarcely have been more effectually accomplished, than by informing Philemon that Onesimus had become a member of the same church with himself, and whom he might, therefore, in that respect, receive as a brother, without any relinquishment of the services he had a right to claim from him as his servant, and which services he would, no doubt, under the change of circum¬ stances, demand with becoming tenderness and moderation. Had Paul been influenced by the spirit of some of our modern Abolition¬ ists, he would probably have disregarded the master's rights in this case, and have encouraged the slave to continue in a course of dis¬ obedience, and have aided in obstructing, rather than in promoting, his return to his duty. But Paul being a Christian, he knew what was becoming.in Christians in all situations, and there can be no doubt but that both master and servant were made better by the Apostle's interference and advice. With these facts, and with a multitude of others that might be presented from the same source, will the Abolitionists assert that there is 110 sanction for slavery given in scripture, or will it not be necessary, before making such assertions, to prove that all such facts should be expunged from the sacred records 1 It will not, how¬ ever, be pretended, though the scripture sanctions slavery, that it any where commands it, and from the principle of brotherly love which the sacred volume inculcates, no one will pretend, I presume, that it would be a transgression of any of its rules, for the owners of slaves to emancipate them whenever they should deem it expe¬ dient to extend to them this privilege. But this is a matter resting altogether with those whose interests and whose feelings would be effected by such a proceeding. There exists no authority in any body of men, so far as I know, to destroy the relationships existing between masters and servants in our country, without the volunta¬ ry consent of the master himself. But the Abolitionists at the North openly avow a determination to effect an eventual emancipation of the slaves in the Southern States at all events, and not to cease their exertions until this ob¬ ject is accomplished, whether their owners will consent to it or not. As an entering wedge on the subject, to be driven up according to the success attending their first efforts, they propose an application to Congress, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and if this purpose is accomplished, they calculate upon more extended success. The petitions to Congress, those heretofore presented [ 16 ] and those preparing, are predicated upon the exclusive authority vested in Congress for certain purposes over the District in ques¬ tion. But the authority of Congress does not in my view extend to this subject, even in Columbia. By the 16th clause of the 8th sec¬ tion of the first article of the Constitution of the United States it is declared, that Congress shall have power "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceed¬ ing ten miles square) as may by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seatfof government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places pur¬ chased, by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals," &c. Under this clause from the cessions of the States of Maryland and Virginia the seat of government was established in the now District of Co¬ lumbia ; but the authority granted to Congress to legislate exclu¬ sively over the District, was an authority to exercise control over such matters as were the usual subjects of legislative regulation. It never was intended, when the ten miles square should be ceded to Congress, that the citizens within those limits should hold their property by a different tenure from that, by which the inhabitants without those limits held theirs. It was never intended that Con¬ gress should have the exclusive right of disposing of the possessions of individuals within those limits, any more than that they should have the right to dispose of the possessions of individuals in other sections of the country. The inhabitants of the District of Colum¬ bia have the same exclusive right to all thhir possessions—to their houses, lands, money, goods or slaves, as the individuals of any other part of the country have to theirs, and Congress could with as much propriety pass a law to deprive any and every citizen of that Dis¬ trict of his house, his land, or his money, as of his slaves—for every citizen has the same exclusive right to one species of property as to another. With what propriety, then, could Congress pass a law de¬ priving the citizens of that District of their slaves, any more than they could pass a law for robbing them in any other way 1 I saw it stated in one of the anti-slavery publications, that there were a num¬ ber of "human beings framed in the image of God," held in slavery by the government of Columbia who ought to be liberated, &c. Now, according to my idea, there is not a single human being held in slavery in the District of Columbia, by the government: if the government own any slaves there, they may certainly liberate or sell them ; but to say the government hold them in slavery, because individuals own them there, seems not to be a very correct mode of speaking—it is making the government hold in its hands the pro¬ perty of its citizens, and to be able to dispose of it at pleasure. The government no more hold the servants of the citizens of Columbia District in slavery, than it holds the carriages, the horses, and the funds of the people there in its power. Congress have the same kind of legislative authority over the places purchased by the con¬ sent of legislatures of the respective States, for forts, arsenals, ma- [ 17 ] gazines, &c., that they have over the District of Columbia; and will it be pretended that they would be authorized to pass a law, liberating the slaves that might be found in these various locations In the different States, without the consent of their owners? Does the power of exclusive legislation granted by the Constitution, con¬ vey the right of making a separation between property and its own¬ ers in those Districts, without regard to the claims or rights of those by whom the property is held? Congress can legislate for the Dis¬ trict of Columbia, but the robbery of citizens can surely be no part of legitimate legislation. If the slaves are ever liberated in the Dis¬ trict in question, it must be by the voluntary consent of those who own them: if this consent is obtained, the question is there at an end—without it, their rights are not to be shaken. In many of the speeches and publications of the Abolitionists, some pretty highly drawn descriptions of the state of slavery in the Southern States are presented, which those living there would scarcely recognize as correct representations of their country. From some of these, a person who did not know better, might be inclined to suppose that there was a constant feeling of hostility or oppression, encouraged or maintained between the slaves and their owners, and that this feeling, where power was altogether on one side, and unconditional submission on the other, led often to acts of cruelty and injustice ; and cases in confirmation of this idea are sometimes furnished by writers, who appear to have given a furlough to truth, that the imagination might range unrestricted. That acts of cruelty may and do occur in countries where slavery exists, no rational individual will question—and that acts of cruelty may and do occur in places where slavery is not known, is most certainly demonstrated both by experience and testimony; but to consider occasional acts of cruelty as presenting a correct view of the coun¬ try'in general, where they happen, would be as unreasonable as it would be to consider a country perpetually inundated, because a traveller on a journey happened to fall in with a mill pond in it. Let the writers who are so sensitive on this subject make a visit to one of the Southern States, in Company with some moderate or exten¬ sive slave-holder, who has been with Iris family on a summer excur¬ sion, and let him witness the cheerful excitement, the undisguised satisfaction and heartfelt joy manifested by the slaves at home, a's the family return to their dwelling—let him witness the delight with which the old servants and the young ones meet their owners and their children, and let him then judge for himself, whether there are any of those hostile feelings, those inimical sensations' on either side, which he might have previously supposed both sides to have entertained. The fact is, there is a warm and sincere attachment very generally felt by the slaves for their owners, and there is an affectionate regard felt and manifested by their owners towards them —a mutual sort of friendly feeling naturally growing Out of the re¬ lation they sustain towards each other, and which tends to thecorh- fort of both. And, in numerous cases, ncither'the prosperity or hap- C 18 ] piness of the slave would be promoted by S.h acceptance of eman¬ cipation, if the anti-slavery associations could furnish it. In many cases 1 have no doubt it would be rejected; and, where it was not, the instances would not be few where the condition of the slave would be made worse by accepting it. I happened, a few years ago, to be passing from Providence, irt Rhode Island, to Boston. I stopped for awhile on my way at a large, well-known and elegant establishment, some miles from the latter place. I sat down while there in the front piazza to converse a short time with the landlord, a very pleasant and intelligent man, who, finding where I came from, made various remarks upon the different classes of population at the South and the North, and seemed inclined to believe that the actual condition of the slaves in the Southern States, was not correctly understood in the quarter where he lived. He remarked to me, that, a few days before, an elegant carriage with a genteel family stopped at his house—that the driver, a fine-looking black man, was very active in relieving his horses and taking them to the stable, and that when they were provided for he was brushing and cleaning his harness and putting every thing in the best order. He said he went and entered inu> conversation with him, and found he was from South Carolina; that his owners had been on a summer trip, were now returning home, and he with them. The landlord asked him if he wished to get back to the country where men of his colour were generally slaves, and whether he would not rather remain in that quarter, if he might be permitted to do soj where he might enjoy the sweets of liberty. He replied, that he wanted to get back to Carolina with his master and mistress; he said he had seen "enough of the free negroes in Boston, and that he would be very sorry to change places with any of them." He appeared, the landlord said, to look with contempt upon the free blacks in the places where he had been, and seemed to rejoice that he did not belong to that " poor sort o'class." This case, I presume, was not a solitary one—many a Southern servant, ■\vho witnesses the miserable condition of much of the free colour¬ ed population of the Northern cities, returns rejoicing to that servi¬ tude in the Southern country, which many of the Northern emancipa¬ tors would try to persuade him was enormously oppressive. The Carolina carriage driver, it is probable, would have retained all hi9 Southern preferences, even if one of the leading Abolitionists in New York had introduced him into his drawing room, and had him amused with the pleasant notes of the piano; for, in defiance of such allurements, he would have indulged the pleasing anticipations of again enjoying the less refined, but more acceptable vocal mu¬ sic, which he well knew might be expected on his master's pre¬ mises. An account was published some days ago in a Northern paper, of an application made for the admission of a little white girl to the alms-house in New York. On inquiry, it was found that she had been from her infancy under the charge or in possession of an un- [ 19 ] feeling man, who had heated her like a dog—she was then a good- looking girl, about fourteen years of age ; and, after the applicant had secured her a place where he wished, and was about retiring, he offered her his hand In taking leave of her. She shrunk back from his offered hand—and the circumstance being noticed, led to some examination by the person she was left with, when it was found that her hand and arm was much bruised; and, " Oh! sir," said she, " my back is very sore where my master has beat me"—and on investigation, it was found that she was cut with a whip from the shoulders to the calves of her legs, and some of the stripes were inflamed and festered. Whether the person who had charge of this little defenceless female belonged to the Abolition Society or not, I have not heard—it is likely enough that he did, for such differences between theory and practice, amongst sentimental phi¬ lanthropists, sometimes happen. Be this as it may, here was an in¬ stance of cruelty, barbarous, unfeeling cruelty, which it is believed has few equals in the slave-holding States, towards any portion of their coloured population. But should we from this instance un¬ dertake to judge of the usual conduct of those having white servants, or friendless children under their care in New York? Should we from this vile instance pretend to estimate the humanity and feel¬ ing of that great and polished city, or of that flourishing state? Surely no reasonable being would do any such thing; and yet it would be just as rational and proper, to make up a general opinion from this solitary case, as it would be to judge of the usual treatment of slaves at the South, from some instances of abuse, which an abo¬ lition writer might collect, or which, in the exercise of his ingenuity, he might invent; from such a statement, for instance, as was pub¬ lished not long since in an Eastern paper, as "An extract of a letter from Georgia." With the subject of slavery at the South, it would certainly be as well for our Northern brethren in no respect to interfere; this is a matter belonging exclusively to the Southern people, and let them have the management of it. Many erroneous views are entertain¬ ed abroad in relation to the condition of this portion of our popula¬ tion. A vast proportion of the slaves in the Southern country, en¬ joy as many of the comforts of life as are allotted to many day la¬ bourers in any other country, and many of them would gain but lit¬ tle, as to real enjoyment, if they were to change places with their owners; and I am not sure that any great mistake would be made by an individual, who, in forming an estimate on this subject, should assert that the coloured population was, on the whole, the happiest class of our community. They work, to be sure, as labourers do in other countries, and as labourers must do if they expect to live any¬ where. " In the sweat of his brow," it was decreed, that man should eat bread, till he returned to the "dust from whence he was taken ;" but the industry necessary to man's support is favour¬ able to his enjoyment, and the labourer who, by his own exertions, is enabled to supply his own wants, has a reasonable share of alt [ 20 ] that happiness which can be enjoyed here below. While the in¬ dustrious individual will usually be virtuous and happy, the idle one will be vicious and miserable in every condition of life. The differ¬ ent grades in society are necessary in the arrangements of Provi¬ dence, and are in accordance with his will; and we should no doubt make very erroneous calculations, in attempting to judge of the happiness of one class of the community by contrasting its condi¬ tion and mode of living with that of another class. In the Divine benevolence a due degree of enjoyment is allotted to all, and one class, or one individual finds much satisfaction in a station or pur¬ suit which would afford little comfort to others. The slaves in the Southern States, contrary to the opinion of many who never wit¬ nessed it, engage in their labours with readiness and spirit; they seldom require coersive measures to urge them to duty. They who witness their cheerfulness when they meet together of an evening, or even when employed in their usual avocations, would not suppose they ever yielded to depression of spirit, or felt regret at the stations they occupied; in fact, dissatisfaction and regret s seldom manifested by them. A mischievous fellow, getting amongst them and bent upon evil, might be instrumental in excit¬ ing restlessness and discontent, which otherwise would have been wholly unknown, and might occasion mischief, which, without him, would never have happened. But is this to be wondered at, when we witness the discontent which an artful or designing politician is sometimes instrumental in producing in the ranks of freemen, even under the most perfect forms of civil government ? That evil men may be successful in exciting mischief, the mobs which occur in populous cities conclusively demonstrate. However unfavourably a state of slavery may be viewed, still, as it exists in this country, it has advantages over some other condi¬ tions which may be found in all communities upon earth. The slave is indeed obliged to work for his support, while he has health and strength, as many others have to do; but when he is sick he is certain of being provided for; he knows his owner will take care of him. If he has a wife and children, he is sure they will not suffer in consequence of his indisposition. During his illness he is suppli¬ ed with nourishment and nursed with care, and that without anxiety or expense to himself; and when he recovers his health, he does not find that he has contracted a debt which he is unable to pay, and he does not therefore fear a justice's warrant, nor is he troubled with bank notices; and he feels confident that there will be no diminution of his family supplies, in consequence of his having his earnings for awhile suspended. Still it may be said, and truly said, that this individual is not free—that is, that he has not that sort of political freedom which his owner enjoys. But what if he had this, would he then be any better off? would this something, of which he may be told without duly understanding it, actually di¬ minish his toils, or increase his enjoyment? Less labour than, he now performs would not put him in possession of the comforts with [ 21 ] Which he is now surrounded, and more he would not be apt to per¬ form by way of providing against misfortune. To a large propor¬ tion of the slave population, emancipation would not be a blessing; they would not live better than they now do in consequence of the change; they would not work less for a support; or, such of them as did work less, would probably acquire habits which would occa¬ sion to them the change of a comfortable habitation for a jail or a workhouse. Intent as the abolitionists are upon effecting a change in the con¬ dition of the slave population of our country, they appear to make very little inquiry, whether they are prepared for the change they propose, or would be benefitted by it; they seem to think that a set of beings, who have long been accustomed to a situation in which they are useful, and where they are satisfied, can at once be trans¬ ferred to a different station, without any of the requisite prepara¬ tions for the alteration. It is the civil condition of the slave alone which excites their solicitude—their more important interests they very little regard. Were they to urge upon the owners of slaves the importance of communicating to them moral and religious in¬ struction, and were this subject properly treated, it is very possible they might be instrumental in doing some good, while in their pre¬ sent course of conduct they are only doing mischief, and that con¬ tinually. For, what benefit have they yet done to the coloured pop¬ ulation of our country? they have made their condition worse even at the North, and seem likely to make it worse at the South. It is to them the outrages against the negroes in the Northern States are to be attributed ; they have occasioned the house-burnings, the beatings, and the robberies that the poor negroes have sustained there, and how much good can they be supposed capable of doing them here ? I do not say, or pretend, that the leading Abolitionists at the North have themselves gone to the negro houses, pulled them down, and destroyed their contents ; but I have no doubt that they have, by their imprudent proceedings, occasioned these evils—they have resulted from their injudicious intermeddling with matters which did not belong to them. In relation to the religious and moral instruction of the slaves, it will not be pretended that there is not a lamentable deficiency in this respect almost everywhere; were proper exertions made to communicate to them the important truths which the Bible contains, there can be no doubt their moral cha¬ racters would be greatly improved. The Bible contains nothing but what it would be desirable that every class of beings in com¬ munity should be made acquainted with ; and the more perfectly those in a state of servitude were instructed in the truths and doc¬ trines of the word of God, the better would they be qualified for dis¬ charging the duties of the stations they might be called, in the order of Providence, to fill. The Bible contains the rule of conduct for masters and servants—it enjoins a just and proper course upon all orders of men, and forbids any violent attempts to overturn the set¬ tled order of society, in pursuit of any selfish purposes. And while [ 22 ] the great rule " of doing to others as we would that they should do to us," is acknowledged to be obligatory, it should be understood, that in its application a due regard should be paid to the situation of the parties on whom it is to operate. And if a servant under this view were to conclude, (as he would do if he reasoned justly,) that if he were a master he would not incline to have his rights invaded by his servant—and if a master were to reflect, that if he were a servant he would be unwilling to be subjected to injustice or cruel¬ ty ;—the reasoning of each would lead to a correct course of con¬ duct in both. It would tend to make each render to the other that which was right according to their respective situations. Each would be required to do to the other, what the other might be ex¬ pected to do to him, were there a change made in their respective stations. It is highly probable, that the want of duly discriminat- ng between the civil and moral condition of slaves, has, in many in¬ stances, occasioned erroneous impressions on the subject of their re¬ ligious instruction. All instruction communicated to them should have an exclusive reference to their moral improvement—with their civil condition their teachers should in no respect interfere: it is from the evil of sin they should aim to deliver them, and from its bitter consequences to secure them ; and while this object is faith- . fully adhered to and regarded, much good might be effected. The consolations of the Gospel reach individuals in every situation of life ; its directions are not confined to any one class exclusively— its blessings are freely offered to all. The Saviour died to redeem the fallen race of man—through his merits and righteousness and the influence of his regenerating spirit, salvation can be obtained by the high and the low, the rich and the poor, the bond and the free. As the situation of servants necessarily circumscribes their spiritual privileges, their owners ought to feel it a duty to provide for their proper instruction, for the more intimately they become acquainted with the great truths of the Gospel, the more will their moral characters be elevated. The inevitable tendency of the Gos¬ pel is to make men better in every condition of life. And it will not be questioned, I presume, but that all the important truths of the Gospel may be orally communicated to those who are incapable of reading them. The first salutary effect of the Moravian efforts amongst the degraded Esquimaux Indians, was produced by the mere reading to them the accountfof the Saviour's suffering and death. In the same way may all the important truths of the sacred volume be communicated. The Abolitionists, I know, are often free in their censures upon those regulations'in the slave-holding States, which prohibit the slaves from being taught to read. But as fa¬ vourable a subject as this is for declamation, I would ask, what pro¬ portion of the slave population of our country could, under any cir¬ cumstances, be made to be a reading people ? But what is of more importance to ask, what proportion of them, if all could read, would confine their reading to books that would improve their morals as well as inform their minds? If those who could read, would read [ 23 ] the Bible only, or books which tended to illustrate its truths, read¬ ing would then be beneficial to them, and to those amongst whom they resided. But if they were to read, as they no doubt would be invited to do, those publications which the anti-slavery presses would furnish, their reading would then only tend to make them restless and discontented, and would probably seduce them to a course that would ensure their ruin. A consideration of the difficulty of keep¬ ing improper publications from those who could read them, has no doubt had its influence in producing many regulations on this sub¬ ject. When we consider the mischief done in many communities of freemen by the circulation amongst them of vile and licentious publications, is it to be wondered at, that an opinion should be en¬ tertained, that a capacity for reading similar productions might not be beneficial to a still more ignorant class 1 The Abolitionists them¬ selves occasion restrictions on this subject, which they afterwards take pleasure in condemning. It ought to be the desire of all benevolent individuals, and of all political economists, to be instrumental in producing the greatest amount possible of human happiness ; but such an object would be very little promoted by the liberation of the coloured population of the Southern States with their present acquirements, either as re¬ lated to themselves, or those amongst whom they resided. As an evidence of this, look at the free negroes in those sections of coun¬ try where their numbers are comparatively few. Have their cha¬ racters been elevated as their civil privileges have been incfeased % Have they been found generally very desirable members of the communities in which they live ? What is the proportion of crime committed by them, as estimated by their numbers, when com¬ pared with the white population amongst whom they reside, or with the slave population in any of the slave-holding States ? I verily be¬ lieve there are fewer crimes of the more atrocious grades commit¬ ted by the slave population of the Southern States, taken altogether, than there are committed by an equal number of other coloured people wherever they may be located ; and I do not know but I might safely say, there were fewer of the higher order of offences committed by them, than would be found to be committed by an equal number of individuals in almost any other country whatever. There are fewer murders, for instance, occurring amongst the slaves in the slave-holding States, than are committed amongst an equal number of individuals almost anywhere. Let those who doubt this examine the court records from abroad, or of our own land, em¬ bracing a population of more than two millions of persons, and com¬ pare the criminal convictions there, wiih those which take place amongst our slave population, and see in whose favour the compa¬ rison will preponderate. It is not intended by these remarks to in¬ timate that slavery is particularly favourable to morality, but it is intended to say that there has been, and continues to be, a vast deal of misapprehension on this subject, especially amongst those Abolitionists who suppose, or pretend, that in the slavery of the L 24 ] South, there is a continued succession of crimes, as well as of in¬ justice and cruelty. I have very little doubt but that there are now fewer crimes committed amongst the slave population of the South¬ ern States, than there should be in any brief period amongst the same individuals if they were made free—the change in their cir¬ cumstances would not promote their industrious habits, and would, in all probability, occasion a resort to modes of living very little in accordance with their moral advancement. I saw published a few days since, in a Northern paper, an account of meeting of the citizens of Palmyra, a town in the State of New York, for the purpose of taking measures for "ridding that place of the vagabond negroes," by whom it was alledged "to be infested to auralarming extent, and "for devising some efficient and legal means ab security againsi their nocturnal depredations and demoralizing "cfluence and in the proceedings of the meeting it was declared, if that they had been seriously annoyed by these people," who they pronounce to be, " with few exceptions, lazy, dissolute, pilfering va¬ gabonds, generally refusing to labour for adequate compensation, not depending on their nightly thefts and the poor laws for their means of subsistence:" and they request "the owners of houses which they occupy to expel them forthwith, and.hereafter to refuse to receive them as tenants." This meeting was held, and these de¬ clarations were made, by a part of the inhabitants of the State of New York, at the very time another part of them were sending their vile publications to this quarter, in order to effect a change which might convert the honest and industrious servants here, into such "dissolute and pilfering vagabonds," as they resolve to expel from their territories and exclude from their houses. It can only be ne- nessary to state this fact, to enable every reader to form a correct opinion of it. If a few free negroes were found so offensive and troublesome to the citizens of New York, why should they be anx¬ ious to increase their numbers, where they have no certainty of being more acceptable or more orderly? Why not leave the colour¬ ed population here in quiet enjoyment of the comforts with which they are provided, and to that salutary employment which pre¬ serves them from the vices and debasement which are the usual consequences of idleness? The efforts of the Abolitionists, it is clear, are not calculated to promote the interests, or advance the comfort of the slaves or their owners; but if they did either, what right have they to intermed¬ dle with this subject at all ? what right have they to send their pub¬ lications or their emissarie here to promulgate doctrines calculated to excite discontent in any portion of our community? If let alone, the slave population of our country would quietly discharge their duties, and be satisfied with their situation. The cultivation of the earth requires and must have labourers—but those labourers are nowhere without their com forts, and, I have little doubt, if an ac¬ curate estimate could be made, but that there would be found t.o be as much actual enjoyment amongst the cultivators of the earth at [ 25 ] the South, as there would be amongst an equal number of labourers in any other places—there would be found as few individuals amongst them suffering for the necessaries of life, and as few wives and children in want. How often do we read of tumultuous proceedings in foreign countries amongst labourers from distresses experienced for want of employment, and how serious are some¬ times the evils of these tumults ? But in the slave-holding States these difficulties do not occur—the labour that is required is per¬ formed as directed, and the industrious slave, having executed his task for his master, has often a part of the day to work for himself, and has a piece of land assigned him to work on, and he often re¬ alizes an ample reward for his industry. When there happens to be little work to do, the slave is not troubled in consequence of it; and if the result of his labour proves less profitable than was hoped' for, the slave is not incommoded thereby—his wants are supplied, and he is satisfied. Where is the necessity, then, for strangers to intermeddle with his condition 1 and what right have they to in¬ trude, like the serpent into the garden of Eden, to disturb the peace of those, who, without such interference, would enjoy unin¬ terrupted tranquillity 1 The slaves themselves are not, and cannot be benefitted by such intrusions, and they are usually far from de¬ siring them. As one amongst other evidences of this, I will men¬ tion the following circumstance, which I have understood recently occurred at no great distance from this place. A respectable planter had given permission to a white individual to hold religious meetings with his coloured people on his premises at pleasure. This individual, instead of attending to his proper duty, had the im¬ prudence to address his audience on the subject of their civil condi¬ tion, without an effort to communicate to them moral instruction. The negroes being unwilling to listen to what they knew could not benefit them, one of them went to his owner and informed him of the course pursued. The gentleman told him that he must be mis¬ taken, that the man he spoke of would not make such a return for the indulgence afforded him. "Well," said his informer, "you come to-night, massa, where we hah meeting, and you hear for yourself" The gentleman accordingly took two friends with him, and placed himself in a situation to become acquainted with all that transpired, and, to his great surprise, he heard the speaker delivering a pretty well finished abolition discourse to his people. Without any apolo¬ gy for the little interruption he occasioned, he with his friends en¬ tered the house and took the orator, in the midst of his labours, un¬ ceremoniously, into custody ; he told the negroes that he hoped their speaker intended to do them good, but as he had forgotten the purpose for which he was admitted there, and was attempting to lead them into mischief, he would reward him according to his me¬ rits. He therefore adopted prompt measures for impressing upon the speaker what he supposed would be a seasonable lesson of in¬ struction for his future course of conduct, and then dismissed him, with directions to make no more visits to that quarter. He accord- [ 26 ] irigly made an expeditious retreat from the civilities he was receiv¬ ing, and, in all probability, was ready to complain of the little coun¬ tenance shown to his attempts to corrupt those he pretended to in¬ struct. And is it to be supposed that men of this stamp, when once known, are to have free access to the plantations of those whose con¬ fidence they thus abuse ? Or is it surprising that, when facts of this kind are disclosed, that even missionary services to the coloured population should sometimes be received with suspicion and caution? The conduct of the Abolitionists of the North, in their efforts to distribute their vile publications through the Southern country, is as little justifiable as was that of the individual just mentioned. They manifest an unwarrantable inclination to interfere with our domes¬ tic relations, and their conduct must have an injurious influence t .%.< ■ i ■ vUjggirl 5 S/- io.f' o ' U _ oil •• "to J'• ' un : -.'i lUv. >v. v. rj :*> o o(<#:o >(I . IV II' J? <;.! itoiij t«b" ■ . m ii fioit ,i •!!,.(. .'iii •• I; ;<•: £i . Ui'd >n\i mil F«,