• **'** • 
 
 
 ■r O 
 
 
 
 ^'?- 
 
 5°^. 
 
 ^o 
 
 
 
 lO-?-- 
 
 ^--^^^ 
 
 O^ * • , o » . '^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
^ ^ 
 
 •^ 
 
 ** ** 
 
 &' y& 
 
 kK />'}^i^y y«-^9;-\ *^<';^'"' 
 
 
 .0 "%. '-'^fO^^s'' ^ 
 
 
 
 
 • . o - AV '<^. ♦ . , i • ^^ o^ - ■ - 
 
 « t • o^, "^> «> 
 
 5^ ^, 
 
 
 • ao 
 
 
 
 %.^" 
 
 
 0^ ^i5. 
 
 ^'\ 
 
 
REVIEW 
 
 OP THE 
 
 REMARKS 
 
 ON 
 
 DR. CHANNING'S SLAVERY, 
 
 BY A CITIZEN OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 .inuxH-iuU- f 
 
 ^ 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY. 
 
 1836. 
 
Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1836, by James Monroe &. Co., 
 in the Clerk's office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 
 
 Cambridge Press : 
 Metcalf, Terry, & Ballou. 
 
SLAVERY. 
 
 C J 
 
 The "Remarks on Dr. Channing's Slavery " are written in 
 strong though not acurate language, with liveliness of illustra- 
 tion and general attractiveness of style. The subject is an 
 all-interesting one : the book remarked upon is from a great 
 and popular author. The Remarks are therefore read by 
 many. 
 
 This writing is a dangerous one; tending, if we mistake 
 not, to do the community much harm. 
 
 It is so, first, because it is written in a spirit of skepticism 
 with regard to moral means of influence. It treats the ex- 
 pectation of change to be wrought by appeals to men's 
 consciences, to their sense of the right, to their love of the 
 beautiful, of the pure, of the honest, as visionary and childish. 
 We are taught to believe that no projects are practical, but 
 those that appeal directly to interest, to selfishness, — 
 that virtue in the abstract is well enough to talk about, to 
 form a subject of sermons and poems, of the day-dreams of 
 enthusiasts and the discussions of ministers, but that it has 
 little to do with the actual, prosaic affairs of life. 
 
 Now moral means of influence are not vain. They are real. 
 They are powerful. They have wrought great changes ; they 
 will work greater. They are, they always have been, they 
 must necessarily be, of great efficacy in the history of the 
 world. What revolutions in the opinions, the tastes, the habits 
 of nations have been brought about by the writings of single 
 men ! How has the face of society been changed by the 
 unseen, silent, sure influence of principles of religion, of philoso- 
 phy, of politics, infused into the public mind by gifted writers and 
 speakers ! Our people's opinions are formed by what they read 
 
and hear. The views they take of things, and thence their 
 dispositions to act, are changed, MMlhout the operation of law, 
 without alteration of the circumstances upon which their 
 interests depend. The book that is made the family compan- 
 ion in the evening sends forth its members in the morning 
 with minds imbued more or less with its spirit. It determines 
 therefore in some measure the tone of society, and the actions 
 of those who compose that society. How can it be otherwise ? 
 It is matter of every day occurrence, that an individual's view 
 of an important subject is materially changed by the writings 
 or conversations of an able man. Indeed no one is so firm, so 
 strongly prejudiced, so firmly intrenched behind error, as to be 
 proof against these influences, Of the thousands who have 
 read Dr. Channing's book, for instance, many have been per- 
 suaded of truths new to them, or warmed to a fuller recognition 
 of those which before they speculatively admitted; all probably 
 have been more or less affected. Each one of us feels that 
 the operation of such minds upon him is real, strong, effica- 
 cious. He sees that it is the same with his neighbour. How 
 then is it possible that such influences can be other than pow- 
 erful upon a community of men like ourselves, having hearts, 
 consciences, understandings, not indeed sound, but retaining in 
 every instance some of the natural susceptibilities. No : moral 
 influences are not weak; and it is no dream to expect great, 
 though gradual, changes in the opinions, feelings, desires, of 
 our countrymen, wrought by the writings of our great men, 
 and by the conversations and moral action of the good. 
 These it is that mould society. These it is that inspire into 
 the busy mass new sentiments, new aspirations, and thereby 
 in the end reform institutions, and make laws. It is because 
 these are efficacious, that every man is bound to use his part 
 of therii well, to make every word, which he writes or speaks 
 on the great questions by which the country is divided, help 
 the right side. 
 
 We object then to the spirit of the Remarks, that it under- 
 values these moral means. It thereby loosens our obligations 
 to think and speak and read and publish aright. If moral 
 influences are unreal, then to use them well ceases to be a 
 duty to the country. Convince men of this, and our strength 
 
is sapped, — our foundations are fearfully shaken, — our con- 
 fidence, our hope is gone, and society, deserted by its guides, 
 will lose its way. 
 
 We object further to the spirit of the Remarks, that it is a 
 wrangling spirit. The writer, as we shall see upon examination 
 of his pages, fights for victory, not for the truth. By this he 
 does great mischief The question of Slavery demands all the 
 coolness, all the elevation of mind and integrity of purpose 
 which can be brought to it. It is at best a fearful, a dark 
 question. The mind groans under it and is borne down. We 
 are already too much harassed by the difficulties which beset 
 us, too much posed by the magnitude of the evils threatened, 
 too near being incapacitated for exertion at beholding the 
 immensity of our task, the liveliness of the opposition, and the 
 moral apathy of men. Perplex us not by ingenious sophistry. 
 Let the spirit of contention prevail in the discussions of this 
 subject, and we are lost: lost to the integrity of purpose which 
 alone will merit, to the calmness of judgment which alone 
 will ensure, success. No greater injury can be done to the 
 community, than by encouraging them to make the subject of 
 Slavery one of the many, upon which spleen is vented, men 
 abused, vanity gratified, and truth neglected. 
 
 The tendency of the Remarks is harmful, again, in that 
 they represent virtue, pure regard for right, unadulterated by 
 views of immediate interest, as something speculative, unreal, 
 something meant for the closet, not for business life. True it 
 is, that among the mass of men, absorbed as they are in petty 
 pursuits, the right, the good, is but little regarded as the one, 
 the all-important end of existence. Rare enough are the 
 examples of manly rectitude, of supreme regard to higher and 
 better things than what we see and hear around us. The very 
 good man rises an anomaly among his fellows, and is called a 
 dreamer, a theorist. Yet none the less ought right to be the 
 great standard of all actions, domestic and social : none the 
 less for the boisterous voices and menacing brows of interested 
 men, are the plans of virtue the most practical, though the 
 least practised of all. Men are too apt to excuse themselves 
 for grovelling views, by treating whatever life is [jurer and more 
 elevated than their own, as speculation ; and whoever helps 
 
men thus to blind themselves to what should be their shining 
 light, does a great injury, a great wrong. 
 
 And lastly we object to these Remarks, that they represent 
 man as made for the law, and not the law for man. This is 
 the error of the profession to which the writer belongs. The 
 clergy regard man as made for the church, and judge of all 
 measures according as they bear upon the forms of religion. 
 Gentlemen of the bar regard man as made for the law, and 
 judge of all measures, according to their bearing upon what 
 they call civil society. Sentimental morality, they tell us, 
 abstract reasoning upon the rights of human nature, enthusi- 
 astic appeals to imaginary motives, are good enough for theo- 
 logians, but they have no practical bearing upon civil society. 
 What do you mean by civil society ? Moral reasonings have 
 an effect upon individuals ; and is not the community made 
 up of individuals ? The eloquence of good men does not, it 
 is true, enact and abrogate laws ; it does not work sudden chan- 
 ges, in manners or morals or establishments. But does it there- 
 fore produce no useful result? Civil institutions are but the 
 garments, which society wears to protect itself from ihe warring 
 of harsh elements. They are useful, they are right, only so 
 far as they help men forward in physical and spiritual progress. 
 They must be accommodated to individual wants; for for 
 individuals they are devised. The great question then, with 
 regard to the policy of a public discussion, is, not merely how 
 it is to affect civil society, so called, but how it bears upon 
 men, as such, upon individuals, whether directly or indirectly. 
 
 A professedly unprincipled author finds little welcome in 
 New England. One who, at the same time that he advocates 
 bad principles, shows them in all their ugliness, is compara- 
 tively an innoxious man. But he who, with apparent sense 
 of duty and regard for the public weal, wags his head at the 
 virtuous and sneers at well-laid plans of philanthropy, is, in 
 our matter-of-fact times, of all citizens the most dangerous. 
 That he is not emphatically a bad man is a misfortune. For 
 vice unhelped by virtue falls dead upon society, whereas a 
 mixture of principle makes a large mass of bad words 
 acceptable. 
 
It is because the pamphlet under consideration is of this 
 baneful tendency, that we propose to review it ; to examine 
 the positions the writer assumes, and to assign the due weight 
 to the considerations he brings forward. We shall not aim to 
 bring him discomfort by exposing the literary and philosophi- 
 cal faults, of which he is guilty ; our concern is with the book, 
 not with the man ; and with the book only so far as it has to 
 do with certain great subjects. 
 
 We pass over the two first pages, as containing nothing 
 requiring remark, and come to the propositions which the 
 writer lays down as the several subjects of the subsequent 
 chapters. 
 
 "First. Public sentiment in the free States, in relation to Slavery, is perfectly 
 sound, and ought not to be altered. 
 
 " Second. Public sentiment in the Slave-holding States, whether right or not, 
 cannot be altered. 
 
 " Third. An attempt to produce any alteration in the public sentiment of the 
 country will cause gieat additional evil — moral, social, and political." 
 
 We deny them all. Not only are these propositions not 
 true, they bear the mark of falsehood on their very face. 
 They are to be rejected a priori. That public sentiment is 
 perfectly sound, and ought not to be altered, cannot be said 
 of any country or of any time. That observer must have but 
 a low standard of right, his ideal can have but little beauty 
 and truth, who does not see everywhere lamentable deficiencies 
 in the prevailing tone of society. Such a dominion do inter- 
 est, passion, selfishness maintain in the world, that they make 
 large encroachments upon honor, purity, and truth among 
 every people. Public sentiment is more or less defective at 
 its very root, all the world over. It is radically defective. It 
 draws its life from wrong principles, from more or less base 
 motives, from passions too much indulged. The reign of 
 right is yet very far from being established. Much is to be 
 done, much is to be suffered, much, much is to be contended 
 for, before any honest man will be content with the opinions, 
 which he observes men habitually maintaining, and hears 
 them habitually express. And if this be true ; nay, even if 
 never so small a part of this be true, how false upon its very 
 face is the proposition, that public sentiment is perfectly 
 sound, either here or elsewhere. 
 
8 
 
 To pass to the second proposition. That " Public senti- 
 ment cannot be altered," is not true of any country or any 
 time. Public sentiment is always changing. It is character- 
 ized by fluctuation. Next year it may be very different from 
 what it now is. It is Protean. The fickleness of the people's 
 favor is a proverb. It is true, certain great principles often 
 obtain in a natio'i, and for a long period give it a peculiar 
 character. A spirit of liberty breathes through one people ; 
 a spirit of submission through another. A love of gain char- 
 acterizes the subjects of that state ; sentiment, and interest 
 in the fine arts those of another ; and an attachment to slavery, 
 united with unusual irritability and haughtiness of temper, 
 may be the deep-rooted peculiarity of yet a third class of men. 
 But how has popular character changed under the influences 
 of religion, philosophy, and enlightened views of interest ! 
 How often have we seen a people madly eager to destroy an 
 institution, which a few years before they clung to with rever- 
 ence ! All things pass away, save truth. Ignorance, super- 
 stition, despotism, persecution, are gone or are going with the 
 causes which produced and maintained them ; and the attach- 
 ment to, or tolerance of, slavery must pass away, now that 
 the barbarous influences, from which it sprung, have failed. 
 The awakened sympathies of men, the stern rebukes of up- 
 right truth, are pressing upon it and driving it to a closer refuge. 
 Its circle is daily narrowing, and it will soon disappear like 
 unsupplied waters under the beams of the summer sun. Rad- 
 ical changes in public feeling must necessarily be slow. But 
 by wise and good means they are none the less sure to be 
 wrought. However difiicult, they are yet, to say the least, 
 possible. The unqualified assertion, that public sentiment in 
 the Slave-holding States, or in any States, cannot be altered, 
 is evidently and extravagantly false. The position cannot be 
 maintained for a moment, in the face of history, or of what 
 we experience every day. 
 
 The third proposition, understood according to its words, 
 would bind us to entire passiveness, with regard to public opin- 
 ion in all cases. It would require men of character and tal- 
 ents, to refrain from attempting to influence in any way the 
 public mind. It would rob the people of its leading men, of 
 
those whose written and spoken opinions guide it aright. Tlie 
 writer means to refer to the subject of Slavery alone. And 
 why are we to refrain from expressing opinions on Slavery ? 
 Is public sentiment perfectly sound on this subject? In the 
 discussions of it, has there been so little mixture of passion, 
 have men been so free from selfishness, from hardness of heart, 
 from obstinacy, from all bias, and from every mental evil, as to 
 insure a perfectly healthful state of public sentiment? — If, on 
 the contrary, the minds of our countrymen on this point are 
 boiling with false zeal, rage, and revenge; if conversations and 
 writings on this point are virulent, fierce, and menacing ; if the 
 excitement is so great as to be thought to threaten the dissolu- 
 tion of the union or civil war; if, moreover, a large portion of 
 our country is so thoroughly doomed to this inherited curse, 
 as to be induced to continue what they cannot conscientiously 
 maintain, as to be kept constantly in a state of jealousy, irrita- 
 bility, and unwillingness to be convinced, — how can it be that 
 public sentiment, in this regard, is so faultless, that any 
 attempt whatsoever to alter it, will cause, not only evil, but 
 great evil, moral, social, and political? — The proposition like 
 the two former is false on its very face. From the very 
 circumstances of the case, it is morally impossible that it 
 should be true. Erroneous feeling there must be, on the sub- 
 ject of Slavery. It would be a miracle that we should be 
 free from it. In so far as such is the case, in so far as public 
 sentiment is wrong, it should, if possible, be changed. Here 
 as elsewhere, we must seek out the true, the right. This 
 can be done only by looking into the merits of the case with 
 coolness, conscientious integrity, and love of truth, feeling that 
 in formin?, uttering, and publishing opinions on this dark 
 question, we incur a heavy responsibility. This Dr. Channing 
 seems to us to have done. We cannot think so favorably of 
 the author of the pamphlet we are examining. 
 
 After laying down the three propositions upon which we 
 have commented, the writer proceeds to endeavour to establish 
 the first. In order to show that "public sentiment in the 
 northern States is perfectly sound," he states what he believes 
 that sentiment to be. 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 " The doctrine of the Northern States is: 
 
 " 1. That Domestic Slavery is a deep and dreadful evil. 
 
 " 2. That its continuance or removal is solely within the power of the domestic 
 legislation of the State in which it exists. 
 
 " 3. That it is a breach of our highest political contract, and a violation of good 
 faith and common honesty, to disturb the internal condition and domestic ar- 
 rangements of tiie Slave-holding States. 
 
 Now, first, this is not the pubHc sentiment of the northern 
 States. Secondly, if it were, it does not go far enough. 
 
 1. We do not fully understand what is meant by the 
 " Doctrine of the Northern States." It maybe, it probably is, 
 the case, that most of our leading men hold as doctrine what 
 is here laid down. But we deny that such is the prevailing 
 "Public Sentiment in the free States." A majority of our 
 citizens think and speak of Slavery, if at all, as an evil. Yet 
 how many of the majority extenuate the evil! How many 
 tell us of the comfortable condition of the Slaves, in compari- 
 son of the poor peasantry of Europe, of the lightness of their 
 toil, of the liberality with which their wants are supplied, 
 indeed, of the general happiness of their lot, — forgetting that 
 the very condition of being owned by a master, is an incom- 
 parably greater evil than subjection to all physical woes, to 
 hunger and thirst, to poverty, torture, and death ! How few 
 make it the sentiment of their hearts, that Slavery is, not only 
 an evil, but a deep and dreadful evil ! Why is it that we hear 
 so much lightness of remark on this imposing question ? 
 Why is it that we are sometimes told that the " black rascals 
 of the South " are only fit to be Slaves, and that they were 
 not made for a better lot? — Is the general tone of conversa- 
 tion, or even of writing, among us, such as coming from men 
 under the consideration of a deep and dreadful evil ? By no 
 means. Our citizens believe Slavery to be an evil. But they 
 do not feel the extent of the calamity. They do not wish, 
 or they dare not, or they are not able, to look into its depths. 
 They do not, as they should, dread it, for itself, with solemn 
 anxiety. 
 
 2. If the public sentiment were such as the author repre- 
 sents it, it is not enough. Men must not only believe Slavery a 
 deep and dreadful evil ; they must feel it to be a deep and 
 dreadful wrong. They must not merely be convinced of its 
 
11 
 
 disadvantages ; they must be persuaded of its astounding 
 barbarity. And this feeling must not only obtain ; it must 
 prevail ; it must become universal, before the assertion that 
 "Public sentiment is perfectly sound," can be true. 
 
 The rest of the first chapter is given to illustrating the first 
 tenet of what is called our doctrine. We are told that "it has 
 been so long acknowledged and so recently repeated that it 
 needs no additional enforcement." In reply to this, let it be 
 asked ; do long acknowledgment and recent repetition render 
 additional enforcement of an important truth unnecessary? It 
 has been acknowledged ever since the time of Moses, and is 
 repeated to us every Sunday in some of our churches, that to 
 love our neighbour, to steal not, to oppress no one, are funda- 
 mental duties of humanity ; but has it therefore become need- 
 less to present these duties in new, striking, attractive points 
 of view ? Is it not still a patriot's best work, to labor to make 
 them admired and loved and cherished by all ? It has been 
 long regarded as the duty of every man, to give his voice 
 and his life to the side of truth and virtue; yet what constant 
 enforcement of this truth is demanded ! When was it denied, 
 that an author is under an obligation to the community to 
 use what power he may have, for their good, — and in all 
 discussions of duty, to take up his pen with singleness and 
 candor? Yet notwithstanding any recent statements of this 
 obligation there may have been, would not he be doing the 
 State service, who should by enforcement of it, help put a stop 
 to the miserable sophistry and wretched wit, by which our 
 people are played upon, and made sadly to err, even on matters 
 of the gravest, the most solemn import? — Notice the looseness 
 of thought, the want of logic, the inaccuracy, the helter-skelter 
 style, which are apparent in this part of the Remarks. They 
 will be found to pervade the whole. 
 
 It is asked, " what possible benefit is to be gained by repeat- 
 ing in every inflection of taste and style, and with all the 
 gorgeousness of rhetoric, long-established truisms which 
 nobody denies." Among these is classed the truth, which 
 Dr. Channing makes it his object to prove, to enforce, and to 
 illustrate, namely, that " by the moral law there can be no 
 property in a human being."' Tiiis. reader, is one of the long- 
 
12 
 
 established truisms, which nobody denies. Yet turn to the 
 eighteenth page, and we find the author himself denying it. 
 We are there told that " it is true only with important qualifi- 
 cations and many limitations," that " it is declared to be false 
 by the universal past legislation of the world." And from the 
 last paragraph of the second chapter we are left to conclude 
 generally, that to hold men as property is not a violation of 
 the moral law. For the writer tells us that the Supreme 
 Court, with whose decision he leads us to suppose he fully co- 
 incides, "would undoubtedly decide by an unanimous opinion, 
 that human law can confer no right of property against the 
 principles of sound morality; " and that they '' would as readily 
 decide that the law of Massachusetts before the constitution 
 of 1780 did make property of a slave." Hence, since, "to 
 make property " is used in these pages as synonymous with 
 the phrase " to confer right of property," it follows, that the 
 writer believes it to be the unanimous opinion of the Supreme 
 Court, and that it is his own, that by the principles of sound 
 morality there may be a right of property in man. Yet the 
 contrary of this is " the long-established truism," which needs 
 no enforcement. 
 
 The truth which Dr. Channing makes so radiant, though 
 indeed a truism to all who know the celestial faculties and 
 destinies of the soul, is by no means so to the author of the 
 Remarks, nor to those Avho agree with him in opinion. Dr. 
 C. attempts to show, and to make felt, that this truth is to be 
 received without any qualifications or limitations whatsoever, 
 that it is a fundamental, immutable law, which courts, legisla- 
 tion, constitutions have no power to infringe. 
 
 Let anyone who has thought it worth his while to read the 
 Remarks, compare the difl'erent passages which have been indi- 
 cated, and in their contradictions he will see evidences of a mind 
 unsettled on the very fundamental point of the discussion. 
 He will find something very far from that clear, consistent 
 exposition of truth, which we want on the subject of Slavery. 
 
 The questions, which are put, are easy of answer. We 
 shall be excused for omitting some amplification and epithet. 
 " What benefit is to be gained by repeating long-established 
 truisms which nobody denies?" Answer: That not only nobody 
 
13 
 
 may deny, but all may assert and heartily feel them, and 
 act according to their spirit. This end is not gained by bare 
 repetition, but by an eloquent exposition of thcin. " Why 
 are we told that, by the moral law, there can be no property 
 in a human being, when, for more than half a century, the soil 
 of New England has not been pressed by tlie foot of a domestic 
 slave?" Answer: That the soil of South C<u-olina may be 
 alike free. " Why are we told that man, every man, however 
 obscure liis condition, is a rational, iDoral, and immortal being, 
 &c. ? " Answer: That men, taught to prize their couunon 
 natm'e more, may defend it with greater constancy from 
 degradation in their fellows. " Why are we told in detail of 
 the vast evils of Slavery, vfec. ? " Answer : That feeling them 
 more strongly, we may, with solemn anxiety, set about re- 
 moving their cause ; or if that be impossible, strive to guard 
 ourselves against the effects. " Addressed to us," says the 
 pamphlet, " such glowing and exciting language is useless for 
 conviction." Even allowing this ; it must be remembered that 
 people are not only to be convinced ; they are to be persuaded. 
 They must not merely acknowledge, they must feel. 
 
 In the next paragraph it is said that the South, as well as 
 the North, maintains that man cannot be held as property; that 
 a great part of " the best informed and well principled peo- 
 ple " there "feel deeply and powerfully " "the moral, social, 
 and political degradation that Slavery brings with it ; " "the 
 sin, misery and wretchedness in which, with retributive jus- 
 tice, it involves all classes of the community in which it is 
 foimd." This needs no comment. Every reader perceives, 
 without help, the extravagance of this statement. Such er- 
 rors show either great incapacity, or culpable carelessness, in 
 the writer. 
 
 It is not unfrequently said, that Dr. Channing harps upon 
 truisms. This peculiarity, far from being a fault, is the great 
 merit, the boast, of his writings. He founds his philoso- 
 phy, his morality, his religion, his eloquence, upon no debata- 
 ble ground. He establishes himself upon first principles, 
 which find confirmation in the heart of every reader. 
 
14 
 
 All true philosophy, all good argument, all sound logic is 
 foimdcd upon Irnisms. Every train of reasoning, which can- 
 not be reduced to a self-evident proposition, is false. Of every 
 triitli, of a ch )ract(;r to permit qneslioniug, we may ask the rea- 
 son ; and in like n)annor we may ask the reason of this reason, 
 and soon, demanding the why at every proposition, until finally 
 we arrive at one which can be made no simpler, which needs 
 no proof, which is its own reason. Such trnths, and such as 
 are, by the agreement of all the world, necessary deductions 
 from them, form the basis of reasoning, and are called' truisms. 
 The more distinct and complete the chain of connexion be- 
 tween any thing maintained and these fundamental truths, the 
 more convincing is the proof. The shorter this chain, the less 
 the chance of error. 
 
 Among these truths, so simple, so evident, as either to need 
 no proof, or to find their proof in every heart, are some of the 
 greatest, the most fruitful of instruction, upon which our re- 
 flections can be engaged. Our obligations to God and man, 
 our main rights, such as those of freedom and self-defence, are 
 not mervrly evident to accomplished casuists, but are, in their 
 main features, known instinctively by every mind. They 
 need no ingenious reasoning. They are not to be sought in 
 the dark. They blaze every where and form the light of life. 
 The great laws of external nature are to be understood by 
 those, only, who have skill and means to observe, and science 
 to interpret what they observe. The astronomer must have 
 his telescope and know how to direct it: he looks far into dis- 
 tant systems, with which he has nought to do but as a philos- 
 opher, and by patient observation, and long and difficult cal- 
 culation, comes at a partial knowledge of the laws which they 
 obey. The moral world, on the contrary, is not distant ; it is 
 all within us. Its great laws, the laws of duty, are not hard 
 to be discovered ; but since they are to bind all men, the igno- 
 rant as well as the instructed, the barbarous alike with the ed- 
 ucated, the clown and the philosopher, they are plain, evident 
 without search, to all. All that ingenuity and learning add to 
 moral science is trifling, compared with that which is known 
 by every boor, which the peasant reads in the oak leaf, and 
 
-15 
 
 hears preached by the bird. The great truths of our common 
 nature find confirmation in every breast. They are truism.s. 
 
 Metaphysicians and moralists have lost sight of this. In- 
 volved in learned mysteries, they have forgotten, or have never 
 learned, that their subject, their witness, their judge, is every 
 hnmati mind ; and in perusing their pages, we recognise any 
 thing rather than a faithful delineation of what we feel within 
 us. Their principles find no echo in our hearts. Their dis- 
 cussions are not animated and verified by that quick and pro- 
 found philosophy, common sense. They do not appeal to 
 universal man. 
 
 Moral truth is simple. Proposed nakedly to the mind, it is 
 immediately received. It needs no confirmation from abroad. 
 We see in it nothing novel, nothing strange. It appears as 
 something not to be questioned, as something which every 
 body admits. 
 
 What greater praise then can be given to a moral philosopher, 
 than that he is simple, that he writes what every body admits, 
 that he does not seek to surprise by paradox or by the subtil ty 
 of his logic, but that he speaks the great principles of human 
 philosophy with such truth and power, that they harmonize 
 with our feelings, and we recognise them, not as another's 
 conclusions, but as our own ? 
 
 If Dr. Channing merely repeats what every body knew before; 
 if he adds no force to the moral truisms which he utters ; if 
 he supports them with no richness of illustration, and brightens 
 them with no new ray of sanctified fancy; if he states them 
 with no beauty of expression, with no copious flow of lan- 
 guage ; if they gather no grace, no power, no evidence, no life, 
 no beauty, by passing through his page — then he is justly to be 
 condemned for profitless repetitions. But if, on the contrary, 
 familiar and neglected truths are made by him to rouse the 
 attention, if dull common place becomes under his influences 
 movingly eloquent, if those principles which every body 
 recognises, and every body is repeating from day to day and 
 from hour to hour, come from his pen, endued with new life, 
 filled with new energy, wrapped around with glorious images, 
 applied to new and important relations, — in short, regenerate, 
 from a mind able fully to feel and strongly to express them, — 
 
16 
 
 then he is to be praised that he has turned his great powers, 
 not to the support of paradox or debatable truth, but to the 
 illustration and enforcement of the great truisms of humanit7. 
 
 Any attempt, say the Remarks, to bring the community to 
 a stronger sense of the evils of Slavery, will only excite pas- 
 sion and foster ill-will ; for there is no remedy, nothing pro- 
 posed to be done. It cannot be said that nothing is proposed 
 to be done, when men continue, not only proposing, but acting. 
 In fact that very course is proposed, the pursuit of which is said 
 by our author to be productive only of evil. It is proposed 
 that our whole people should be made to feel on this momentous 
 subject aright. Here is something very practical and worthy of 
 our best endeavour. Every good man, every patriot, and every 
 one who has an enlightened care for the welfare of himself and 
 family, will engage in this work, not indeed with the ex- 
 pectation that it will be immediately effected, but with the 
 hope that public opinion will be daily growing in some degree 
 more correct, and with a thorough conviction, on the part of 
 each, that he, as an individual member, and by his connexions, 
 has some power, more or less, upon the judgments of the com- 
 munity, and that he is under a solemn responsibility to use this 
 power well. Now, to pause here, — even if this were all, if 
 nothing more were proposed, than to correct, purify, and 
 strengthen public sentiment in this regard, the proposition 
 would be definite, practical, and important. Each man has 
 herein a duty laid before him, from which he cannot turn 
 away. As a citizen, his opinions, feelings, expressions are one 
 element in the great aggregate, which is so powerful in its 
 operation. He is bound then, from this consideration, to 
 think, speak, and act justly. Once let our people be persuaded 
 of the magnitude of the evils of Slavery, of the bitterness of the 
 wrong done to the Slave by retaining him in his bonds, once 
 let Slavery be generally regarded in its true light, and relief 
 from this "entailed curse" would be easy and prompt. Our 
 nation would no longer permit this blot upon its character to 
 remain ; it would suffer humanity no more to be outraged under 
 its sanction. 
 
17 
 
 But more is proposed. The author of the Remarks strangely 
 forgets, or puts out of view, Dr. Channing's Chapter on the 
 "Means of removing Slavery," and alludes to it here only for 
 the purpose of satirical embellishment. He is guilty of a 
 misstatement, we will presnme a careless one, which tends to 
 blind the reader to the true view of the subject. That nothing 
 is proposed, is not true, in any sense. Not only is it recom- 
 mended and urged, in general, that each man should use his 
 own judgment with soberness, but particular courses of con- 
 duct are counselled to the Slave-holders. Nor are the means 
 suggested for doing justice to the Slave, or meliorating his lot, 
 so void of " practical efficiency," as to deserve to be passed over 
 so lightly. It is proposed that the labor of the slaves should 
 be exchanged for labor of a freer and more animating kind, 
 — that their rewards should be made to depend upon their own 
 exertions, — that their families should be more under their care 
 and protection, — and that buying and selling them should be 
 prohibited by legislative enactment. Here are practical, defi- 
 nite proposals, which are, to say the least, not absurd. The 
 discussion is not where the author of the Remarks would 
 place it. The question is not a merely speculative one. It is 
 of vital and immediate interest to our people. It bears on 
 them, most practically. Tlieir political existence perhaps 
 depends upon the right decision of it. And we trust that few, 
 under the infliction of such a scourge, will sit down with the 
 pusillanimous exclamation : Leave the Slaves' rights to the 
 ministers ; there is nothing to be done. 
 
 And even if what the author here maintains were true, if 
 nothing had been proposed, or to use the words of the pam- 
 phlet, which we do not fully understand, "If no human secu- 
 rity had been suggested of the least practical efficiency," yet 
 the author's point would by no means be made out, that an 
 attempt to bring our people to a deeper sense of the evils of 
 Slavery can be productive only of evil. 
 
 " If there is no known remedy, why instruct a man of his 
 condition?" In order that he may find one. This is our 
 answer, simple and decisive, though very different from that 
 which the author leaves us to infer. Indeed it is a peculiarity 
 of this pamphlet, that propositions are advanced as evidently 
 3 
 
18 
 
 true, which are, on the coulrary, evidently false, and that ques- 
 tions are put, apparently intended by the writer to be answered 
 unhesitatingly in one way, which every intelligent reader must 
 unhesitatingly answer in the other. "A practical moralist," 
 says the pamphlet, " is bound to find a remedy for the evils 
 he enumerates, or to keep silence till he can." This, we 
 submit, is a false principle. An evil must necessarily be 
 known before its remedy can be discovered and applied. To 
 insist, therefore, upon remaining in ignorance of an evil, until 
 the remedy be known, is to render the discovery of the remedy 
 impossible. It is only by examining an evil that we can learn 
 to cure it. 
 
 And finally, even making the violent supposition that there 
 not only is no known remedy, but can in the nature of things 
 be none, yet the writer's point is not made out. For there 
 are many unavoidable evils, which ought to be known, and 
 looked full in the face. Do we not warn an expiring friend 
 of the approach of death, even though it be sure ? If Slavery 
 is to be the eternal curse of this country, if we have the dismal 
 prospect of the continuance of this national affliction to the 
 remotest posterity, still let our people feel fully the awful 
 magnitude of the evil, and the heinousness of the wrong, that 
 even if they may not mitigate them, they may at least i:ot 
 suffer their fundamental notions of policy and right to be cor- 
 rupted by a wrong view of such an anomaly in the history of 
 a republic, 
 
 "The duty of Christianity,'' says the pamphlet, "is not to 
 excite strong abhorrence in one portion of the community 
 which may lead them to break the bounds of moderation and 
 prudence, nor to excite in another angry and hateful feelings 
 and stir up their resentment and revenge." No. This is true. 
 Every one must assent to this. The office of Christianity, 
 and the duty of a Christian (if the writer will permit us to cor- 
 rect his rhetoric) is, not to excite hostility and resentment, — 
 but on the contrary to foster benevolence, and to encourage 
 an independent and unwavering pursuit of right on the part of 
 every individual, — to infuse more and more of the spirit of 
 philanthropy into all political proceedings, — to bring gover- 
 nors and the governed more and more into subjection to the 
 
19 
 
 moral law. It is not for the blacks alone that we must act. 
 " Sympathy is due to the white man as well as to the slave." 
 Here Dr. C. and his censor agree. Not so, long. Objection is 
 made "to the severe and indiscriminate reflections which this 
 teacher of morals " throws on our Slave-holding countrymen. 
 Next comes a definition of "malicious slander;" but Dr. C's. 
 work, on account of failing of one essential of this definition, 
 is stated to be exculpated from coming under that category. 
 Indeed the paragraph seems to have been written only for the 
 purpose of introducing the illustration with which it closes, 
 namely, that Dr. Channing's book is a poisoned shaft from a 
 weak bow. There are other writings, of which this simile is 
 more illustrative than of that to which it is applied. 
 
 On the next page, the author caricatures in a few well- 
 drawn traits the religious cant of the day, that pervading, that 
 truly malignant bane of our country. We wish him and all 
 his brothers of the pen God speed, in tearing the veil from 
 the theological apes whose voices are all too much attend- 
 ed to and obeyed by the mass of our people, and who are 
 a scandal to true morality and pure religion. Perhaps ridicule 
 is the only weapon with which the men of the rueful visage 
 and sepulchral tone can be successfully attacked. If so, 
 let all good men and true, thus armed, have at them, till 
 they be silenced or swept away. But it must be remem- 
 bered that ridicule is a dangerous weapon, that its strokes 
 are uncertain, that in aiming at hypocrisy, we may wound 
 religion. We must beware of being too severe and too 
 searching, lest we shatter the foundations upon which all 
 that is best and most promising in the character of our people 
 rests. 
 
 To return to the objection brought against " the indiscrimi- 
 nate reflection thrown on the Slave-holders," it is to be 
 answered, that Dr. Channing's censures are by no means indis- 
 criminate. He takes pains to guard himself, on this point, 
 and to make his reader observe that he argues only from the 
 necessary tendencies of Slavery, and its general effects. He 
 does not, in the words used by the author of the Remarks, 
 "note down all the faults of our Southern brethren, to cast 
 them in their teeth." He writes not in the manner of one 
 
20 
 
 seeking to calumniate or provoke. He exposes with calmness, 
 and firmness, the suffering and vice which in his judgment are 
 the necessary result of Slavery, and which we all know to 
 have been the actual result of it in our Southern States. The 
 expression "that a slave-country reeks with licentiousness," 
 is a strong one, perhaps too strong. Yet what man, at all 
 acquainted with the state of society in the Southern part of 
 our country, does not know that the morals of the Slave-hold- 
 ing States are horribly corrupted by licentiousness. But in 
 the opinion of the author, these accusations, whether true or 
 false, are alike objectionable. "General accusations," he 
 remarks, "are never true." This assertion, like others which 
 we have before noticed, is entirely unfounded. Examine it 
 by instances. — That the inferior clergy of the church of 
 Rome, a century ago, were licentious, idle, and ignorant, is a 
 general accusation, and is true. That the courtiers of Charles 
 II. were extremely profligate, is a general accusation, and is 
 true. That we are a money-getting people, and that intem- 
 perance was with us a national vice, are general accusations, 
 and are true : but am I therefore to be up in arms, whenever 
 these last charges are brought forward, as if I individually had 
 been called drunkard and penny-splitter ? " The national char- 
 acter, real or imputed," say the Remarks, " is felt to attach 
 to every individual, whether he himself be or be not a 
 partaker of the national vice." This is indeed a strange 
 declaration. Why should it be so ? Why is a charge of 
 licentiousness brought against a people, felt to be made against 
 an individual who has in no way contributed to give that charge 
 foundation ? There is, we all know, a foolish national vanity, 
 which resents whatever may be said in disparagement of one's 
 country's perfections, from which our people are not free, and of 
 which the Remarks, it seems, attribute to the Southern gentle- 
 men no common share. But what possible foundation for a 
 personal application of impersonal strictures ? Read the pas- 
 sage quoted from Dr. Channing, on the ninth page of the pam- 
 phlet. Is there any thing there which ought to offend the 
 virtuous, the pure, the honorable of our Southern States ? The 
 people of the South must be held in very low estimation by 
 those who believe that " scarcely a husband or father there 
 
21 
 
 can fail to consider it a personal affront." Those only will so 
 consider it, to whom the charge, even if it were personal, 
 would be no affront. 
 
 The attempted exposition of the irritating tendency of Dr. 
 Channing's statement of the evils of Slavery, with which the 
 first chapter of the Remarks concludes, is a remarkable in- 
 stance of extravagance and bad logic. We find in this expo- 
 sition unsound principles and incorrect assertions. The wri- 
 ter seems not to have taken pains, as was his bounden duty, 
 to understand the book upon which he has commented. This 
 is the more inexcusable, as he evinces no such want of capa- 
 city as would have prevented him from comprehending the 
 main points of so simple a work. Every attentive reader 
 must be struck with his misrepresentation of the positions 
 which he attacks. He represents Dr. Channing as charging 
 the whole Southern population with degrading vice, whereas 
 that gentleman does not enter at all into the consideration of 
 the morals of any particular people, but confines his attention 
 to the tendencies of Slavery, and to the corrupting influences 
 which, in a greater or less degree, must always flow from it. 
 And even supposing that Dr. C. had stated, what we all know 
 to be true, that Slavery at the South had corrupted the public 
 morals, how little foundation would such a statement afford 
 for the sweeping application in the pamphlet, where we are 
 told that "the charge is so general, that no one may consider 
 himself exempted ; " that "it is not made against the obscure, 
 the low, the ignorant, the vulgar ; but attaches to whatever 
 in that country is deemed to be noble, elegant, refined, dig- 
 nified, or accomplished," &c. ; or for that indignant exclama- 
 tion, in favor of the " educated, chivalrous, and high-minded " 
 Slave-holders, the punctuation of which hints to the reader 
 twice to admire, — " Their wives and daughters by their own 
 impurity satiate the Slave's revenge, for the ignominy which, 
 in the common course of events, taints his domestic joys ! ! " 
 We have but an indefinite conception of the meaning of this 
 passage ; but we feel confident that, in so far as it means any 
 thing, it means what Dr. C. has neither written nor implied. 
 
 Our pamphleteer is, in a degree, right in his anticipation of 
 the probable effect of the work which gives occasion to his 
 
22 
 
 Remarks. It will undoubtedly irritate ; as Avhat fearless ex- 
 amination of the subject of Slavery would not? Most men 
 have at heart the honor of their country, and it is, to say the 
 least, exceedingly disagreeable, if not offensive, to hear impu- 
 tations of vice brought, even by implication, against that por- 
 tion of it in which we live. Besides, in the nature of things, 
 there must be some at the South who will think themselves 
 abused and insulted, by any assertion of the rights of the 
 Avretched beings whom they have the misfortune to hold as 
 property ; and there are probably some, upon whose conduct 
 we could bring no severer criticism than is implied in an ex- 
 position of the duties of man to his fellows. There are those 
 who think that we are bound on this account to refrain from 
 discussing the question of Slavery. Many more, and it is 
 trusted the great majority of New England freemen, think 
 otherwise. It is time the question should be settled. Am I 
 to close my lips upon the subject of Slavery, from fear of the 
 irritable temper of the Slave-holders? Am I to be told — Be- 
 ware of oflending these gentlemen ; you know their quick and 
 resentful character; you know how exceedingly sensitive they 
 are upop this point ; you know with what distrust they al- 
 ready regard us of the North ; they will be very angry at any 
 reflections upon their character and institutions ; they will 
 answer you with threats of violence and of rebellion ; do not 
 dare to say a word in behalf of the Slave : there is nothing 
 the master will resent so quickly ; breathe not an imputation 
 upon their morals : nothing comes more home to them than 
 this ? Am I to be told this ; and am I therefore to be silent ; am 
 I therefore to cease from my enquiries into this great subject 
 of national concern ? No ! If the gentlemen are irritated, 
 we are sorry for it. But we cannot help it. Let each take 
 heed that he speak no word of which an honest man can com- 
 plain. Here is a question of unspeakable interest to our peo- 
 ple ; a question of policy, of humanity, of morals, of religion. 
 It should be fully understood, and felt in its truth, by all. To 
 this end, discussion must be free and fearless. And it will be so. 
 The cries of selfishness will no longer scare it away. 
 
 It is to be observed, that, in this first chapter, no position of 
 Dr. Channing's is attacked, nor argument answered. The 
 
23 
 
 writer wanders into general considerations and discursive 
 reasonings, upon the impracticability of doing away Slavery, 
 and the danger of discussing it. But what has he showti ? 
 Has he demonstrated, or in any way made evident, iha truth 
 of the proposition, which was to form the subject of the 
 chapter, ramely, that Public Sentiment in the free States in 
 relation to Slavery is perfectly sound, and ought not to be 
 altered? Has he established any definite position ? No. His 
 remarks, indeed, inacurate and loose as they are, may have 
 some force, more or less, according to the reader's peculiar 
 habits of mind. But tlie subject has not yet been grasped. 
 
 We now proceed to the second chapter, entitled " Power 
 over Slavery," in which the author comments upon the 
 remaining tenets of what he calls "our doctrine," endeavours 
 to show their soundness, where it is necessary, cind examines 
 the work of Dr. Channing in reference to them. 
 
 We do not read far, before finding flagrant misrepresentations 
 of his author. 
 
 " The means proposed are moral influences. To have any effect, they must 
 find their way into the mind and heart of the Slave-holder. That which we call 
 abolition, the Slave-holders consider a request to give up, waste, anniliilate, what 
 they estimate to be worth about live hundred millions of dollars." 
 
 "The moral influence, which is to work this stupendous miracle in their hearts, 
 is first to commence by persuading them, that they are guilty of atrocious crime, 
 &c. Stc." 
 
 It is not SO. Dr. C. does not accuse the Slave-holders of atro- 
 cious crime. He takes pains, although the reader may perhaps 
 think the precaution unnecessary, to guard against being so 
 understood. He maintains indeed, that the Slave suffers an 
 unspeakable wrong, in being held as property, but he, at the 
 same time, states, as a principle, that the guilt of the Slave- 
 holder, if he be guilty, is not in proportion to the wrong 
 suffered by the Slave, but to the violence done to conscience. 
 " The wrong is the same to the Slave," he writes, " from what- 
 ever motive or spirit it may be inflicted. But this motive or 
 spirit determines Vv' holly the character of him who inflicts it. 
 Because a great injury is done to another, it does not follow 
 that he who does it, is a depraved man." " Slavery is an evil, 
 not through any singular corruption in the Slave-holder, but 
 
24 
 
 from its own nature, and in spite of all efforts to make it good." 
 So prominent does he make his views on this point, that to 
 falsify them is inexcusable ; for they cannot be mistaken, 
 without wilful blindness. 
 
 We object very much to the spirit of the next paragraph to 
 the one we have quoted. But we leave it to the judgment of 
 the reader. A little farther on, we read: 
 
 " An Unitarian clergyman goes on a desperate enterprise, when he attempts to 
 awe men or frighten them into a compliance with his will. He may deride, if he 
 pleases, the arrogance of the Slave-holder, and describe it as the consequence of 
 power habitually maintained over one or two hundred dependents ; but what will 
 the Slave-holder say, in return, of that temper of mind which ventures to intimi- 
 date five millions of freemen, by menace, denunciation, and indignity ? " 
 
 This passage is to be utterly condemned. Who, that has 
 read Dr. Channing's work, does not feel that the imputations 
 here made are entirely groundless ? You find there no menace, 
 no denunciation, and, we think, no indignity. The author 
 arrogates no power, but that of truth and right. He makes 
 use of no means, but those of persuasion. He fully states his 
 own views, without fear, or shuffling, and leaves them to 
 have such effect as they justly may. He does not presume to 
 judge men, of any class.' Much less does he threaten any. 
 He appeals not to men's superstitious fears. Dr. Channing, 
 recluse though he be, knows full well the folly of endeavouring 
 to ''intimidate " the Southern gentlemen into accordance with 
 his views ; and would be as sensible as any to the quixotic 
 character of such an enterprise. He does not attempt it. 
 His work is calm, full, energetic, and as inoffensive as it could 
 be, in being true. 
 
 " If indeed," say the Remarks, '•' we mean to fight the 
 Slaves free, it is of no moment how angry we make their 
 masters ; " but if our object be to persuade the Slave-holders, 
 we should be careful not to irritate them. We reply : Our 
 object is or ought to be, not by any means to fight the Slaves 
 free, nor to induce any violent measures, on a subject exacting 
 so much calmness and honesty, nor absolutely to persuade 
 Slave-holders, but to persuade in so far only as persuasion can 
 be effected by a manly, charitable exposition of truth. No 
 honorable man can wish that we should lie, for the sake of 
 soothing the feelings of our brethren of the Carolinas. And 
 
25 
 
 what is it better than falsehood, to represent Slavery other 
 than as a dreadful wrong, and its effects upon public morals 
 and public principle, other than as exceedingly lamentable. 
 It must be felt that we have something higher to do, than to 
 assuage the irritation of Southern pride, that, in the discussion 
 of this momentous question, — momentous to all men, to all 
 nations, to all ages, and formidably so to ourselves and our 
 posterity, — it is quite a secondary consideration, whether 
 those, whose interests are concerned in the decision of it, are 
 angry at what we say, or not. Needless irritation should by 
 no means be caused. In the present excited state of public 
 feeling, every man is bound to endeavour to smooth down, 
 as he best may, consistently with other duties, the asperities 
 of passion ; to use, as much as possible, a calming and soften- 
 ing influence upon the community. But it cannot be expect- 
 ed that all irritation will be avoided ; for the wrong and the 
 evils of Slavery must be thoroughly understood and felt by 
 our people, and in the discussion of these, — even in the most 
 mild and prudent discussion of them, — facts must be re- 
 ferred to, and truths must be told, the statement of which 
 some will choose to regard as injury or insult. The spirit of 
 inquiry is daily increasing. It will not be repressed by vio- 
 lent threats. Slavery must be viewed in its true light. 
 
 The Remarks proceed to the consideration of the third 
 tenet of the " Doctrine " of the Free States. 
 
 " 3. It is a breach of our highest political contract, and a violation of good faith 
 and common honesty, to disturb the internal condition and domestic arrangements 
 of the Slave-holding States." 
 
 " I assume this position to be self-evident." 
 
 We repeat, what we have before said, that literary criticism 
 is not our office. So, without questioning the propriety of 
 the epithet "highest," or asking how "common honesty" 
 differs from honesty, or expressing a doubt whether a " posi- 
 tion " can be said in any way to be "evident," or whether 
 this proposition be of a nature to be termed "self-evident," 
 we allow what the gentleman takes for granted, interpreting 
 it, however, according to our views, not according to his. 
 
 " The first open question is, does this book and its doctrines interfere with the 
 internal condition and domestic arrangement of the Slave-holding States ? " 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 " First, I say, they are intended to do it. Slavery is established by law ; and 
 the object of this publication is to abolish it. If, in the opinion of our author, his 
 book will not, and cannot disturb the existing relations of Slavery, it was a work 
 of gratuitous folly to pubhsh it." 
 
 We here see how the writer construes the proposition, which 
 he has affirmed, and in this sense, far from being evident, it is 
 false. According to this interpretation, every thing written 
 on the subject of Slavery, in which the right of holding man 
 as property is denied, or the policy of abolition advocated, or 
 the laws of the Slave-holding States criticised, or cruelty on 
 the part of Slave-holders censured, is affirmed to be a viola- 
 tion of the Constitution, and of good faith and honesty ; nay, 
 in truth, every moral or philosophical work, every publication 
 which tends to spread in society a knowledge of the natural 
 rights of man, must be subject to the same charge ; for, it can- 
 not be denied, that with the progress of intelligence and mo- 
 rality, the security of Slavery is growing daily less, and that 
 an extension of the knowledge of truth and right among the 
 people, particularly among the Slaves, tends '^ to disturb the 
 internal condition and domestic arrangements of the Slave- 
 holding States." Slavery cannot stand before advancing civ- 
 ilization. Every thing, of gain to the public mind, is hostile 
 to it; and it is true, that Dr. Channing's book, among others, 
 is of this character. But the assertion, that it therefore vio- 
 lates the Constitution, (for this we understand the writer to 
 mean by "our highest political contract,") and good faith 
 and common honesty, is quite unfounded. It does not stand 
 to reason. 
 
 It is surprising to find from what insufficient premises, is 
 drawn the declaration which we hear, not unfrequently, that 
 Slavery is guaranteed by the Constitution. The word Slave 
 does not stain the recorded Constitution of the United States ; 
 and the subject is referred to only twice ; — once, in the sec- 
 ond section of the first article, where it is provided, that 
 " Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among 
 the several States, which may be included within this Union, 
 according to their respective numbers, which shall be de- 
 termined by adding to the whole number of free persons, in- 
 cluding those bound to service for a term of years, and exclud- 
 ing Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons," and 
 
27 
 
 again, in the second section of the fourth article, where we 
 find — "No person held to service or labor in one State, under 
 the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence 
 of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such 
 service or labor ; but shall be delivered up, on claim of the 
 party to whom such service or labor may be due." How fool- 
 ish an extravagance, to charge Dr. Channing with having vio- 
 lated either of these sections, by what he has written ! If 
 the publication of his book is not in violation of either of these 
 sections, it is not in violation of the Constitution ; it is not in 
 violation of "our highest political contract." 
 
 The Constitution does indeed recogniss Slavery as estab- 
 lished by law, and it is admitted on all hands, that the Free 
 Slates would break their obligations by attempting to disturb 
 the domestic arrangements of their Southern confederates ; 
 but, it is not admitted, that it is either illegal, or faithless, or 
 in any way bad, to discuss freely and without reserve, the 
 policy, or the humanity of any of our institutions, or the 
 equity of any of our laws. 
 
 The North is under no other political compact with the 
 South, than that of the Constitution. We violate it only when 
 we act illegally. No sane man will maintain that Dr. Chan- 
 ning has done so in the publication of his work. 
 
 As to our moral obligation, it is but tautology to say, that 
 this is only the obligation of conscience. We are morally 
 bound to conduct ourselves towards our Southern brethren, 
 not only with good intention, but with good judgment, in so 
 far as reason is subject to will. Show that the consequences 
 of Dr. C.'s public expression of his opinions are evidently in- 
 jurious and he stands liable to your censure, — for his bad feel- 
 ing, if he foresaw those consequences, — for his folly, if he did 
 not. We regard Dr. C. as a public benefactor. 
 
 We have said that it is by no means to be admitted, that our 
 compact with the South is such, that any thing which tends, in 
 the remotest manner, to disturb the existing relations of Slavery 
 is wrong. Carry out this principle, and you forbid the publi- 
 cation of the Declaration of Independence, of the Massachusetts 
 Bill of Rights, of the first chapter of Genesis ; nay, of every 
 improved spelling-book or primer, and of every magazine for 
 
28 
 
 the diffusion of useful knowledge ; for whatever diffuses 
 information, strikes a blow at Slavery. Our political obliga- 
 tions are defined by the Constitution. We must not protect 
 runaways, and we must permit the Slave population to be 
 represented in Congress. For the rest, we are under no other 
 obligation than that which binds us to act aright, with regard 
 to every other object of public concern. The freedom of the 
 press remains to us unabridged. We must firmly assert and 
 maintain our rights in this respect. 
 
 Supposing it to be true, that the work, upon which the 
 Remarks have been made, is of a character to make those 
 Slaves who read or hear it more uneasy in their bondage ; is 
 it therefore to be condemned? It would be so, indeed, if there 
 were means of addressing the white portion of our population, 
 without at the same time being heard by the black. But there 
 are no such means. What is printed therefore on this subject^ 
 must, always, so long as Slavery lasts, be- perilous. Men, to 
 be secured in bondage, must be held in ignorance — a heavier 
 chain than any their bodies can bear. To hold them in this 
 intellectual bondage will be daily growing a more and more 
 difficult task. Rights understood and maintained by the^'rest 
 of the community, will at last begin to be understood by the 
 Slaves, and an imperfect understanding of them will be likely 
 to lead to impolitic and barbarous violence. But does this 
 tendency of things make it our duty to fetter our minds from 
 all free action, and so seal our lips, that we may not utter a 
 word of complaint, that our fellow man is made the degraded 
 instrument of another's gain or pleasure ? No. The time has 
 come when it is for the highest interest of our people, as well 
 as of humanity, that this matter should be publicly discussed; 
 not that hot-headed, brainless men may be encouraged in their 
 declamation and pseudo-philanthropy, but that the minds of 
 our citizens may be cleared of those mists, which cloud their 
 understanding of some most vital truths, and be brought to 
 that prudent foresight, and firm energy of purpose, and power 
 of will, which will ensure their final deliverance from the 
 great national pest. 
 
 The pamphlet tells us that Dr. Channing "disavows the 
 conclusions directly, plainly, irresistibly deduced from his 
 
29 
 
 own positions, and appears to be oppressed with the horror, 
 which no human being can escape from, who looks with 
 steadiness and constancy on the immense moral evil, which, 
 in the character of a Christian moralist, his doctrine is bring- 
 ing on the country." 
 
 Our office, again let it be remembered, is not that of a lit- 
 erary censor. We ask, therefore, no question about the 
 immense moral evil which comes to us " in the character of a 
 Christian moralist," but proceed to discover what is this plain, 
 direct, irresistible deduction from the Doctor's premises. " I 
 charge him," continues our author, " in spite of his disclaimer, 
 with the doctrine of insurrection. He inculcates the right of 
 insurrection on the whole Slave population of the United 
 States ; " and we are next told, that this is not only a fair 
 deduction from the argument, but the only proper deduction, 
 — not only that, by all the rules of sound reasoning, insi#rec- 
 tion is the end and aim of his book, but that all rational men, ay, 
 even the stupidest Slave, must understand it to be so. Observe 
 the generality, the full extent of this assertion. Every man 
 in the possession of reason, as well as the stupidest Slave, 
 must understand Dr. Channing to inculcate the right of in- 
 surrection on the whole slave population of the United States! 
 Therearemen, understanding him differently, who would fain 
 not be ranked among the irrationals. 
 
 " The whole doctrine of his book," says the pamphleteer, 
 "is that man under no possible circumstances can be rightfully 
 made a Slave." We do not understand how a whole doctrine 
 differs from a doctrine. Such is undoubtedly the doctrine of 
 the book. And if it be, as the writer so forcibly asserts, the 
 plain direct, and irresistible deduction from this, that all 
 Slaves have a right to rebel, why does he not show the falsity 
 of the premises, which lead necessarily to the conclusion 
 which so revolts him ? Nay, why does he class those premises, 
 in the first part of his book, among the long-established truisms 
 which nobody denies? Here we might expect from the 
 author, some clear statement of the grounds of his argument, 
 some consideration of the main matter, some attempt to 
 controvert the position upon which the work, which forms the 
 subject of his remarks, rests. But nothing like this. The 
 
30 
 
 great, all-important question, whether man can be rightfully 
 owned, he leaves without any definite answer. He does not 
 enter into a consideration of its merits. The reader remains 
 in doubt as to his opinions on that point. His expressions 
 are contradictory. On one page, that is said to be an undenied 
 truism, which on another is declared to be the plain and 
 irresistible proof of a dangerous falsity. How can a man 
 presume to write on a subject of such vital importance, with 
 a mind so entirely undecided on its chief point ? Such shuf- 
 fling compositions insult the public. They gratify the author's 
 vanity at the expense of truth and honesty. They should be 
 frowned upon. 
 
 The writer does not succeed in his attempt to show that his 
 author preaches insurrection. Dr. Channing does not maintain 
 that " acts of legislation, which have for their object to hold men 
 in SHvery, are already made void by a power superior to all 
 human constitutions and governments;" bnt that they are 
 declared unjust and oppressive by that superior power. Like 
 other unjust laws they are to be obeyed, so long as we are 
 subject to that government which enacted and executes 
 them. All good men, however, should use their influence to 
 change them. Every voice should be raised against unholy 
 and oppressive legislation, not with clamor, but in the tones 
 of dignified and urgent expostulation. Still we are subject to 
 government and must obey government, until revolution 
 breaks our bonds. 
 
 The writer of the Remarks draws a parallel between the 
 condition and the rights of Slaves, upon the supposition of 
 their being unjustly held in servitude, and the condition and 
 rights of white men in like manner unjustly enslaved. We 
 cannot understand Avhether he means to say that it is permis- 
 sible to hold blacks in servitude, while to enslave whites is in 
 the highest degree wrong, or that the rights of the two races 
 are equal in this respect. If the former, why does he not 
 point out to us what there is, in or about the negro, whether 
 his complexion, or his present condition, or his character, 
 which makes slavery to him no wrong. If the latter, then he 
 it is that " inculcates the right of rebellion," he is himself "the 
 preacher of insurrection." For he writes : 
 
31 
 
 " Could we doubt a moment about this, if the law of Carolina should propose to 
 detain every white traveller passing through its territory, and turn him out on a 
 plantation as a slave ? In sucli case, the law would be no more invalid iind unjust 
 than Dr. C. represents the laws about negro Slaves. But is there a heart in New 
 England that would not beat high with sympathy for the abused white man .' Is 
 there an arm that would not reach him a dagger if it could .' Is there a tribunal on 
 earth, or any law of Heaven that would not excuse, — excuse did I say ? — that 
 would not command him to watch for his opportunity, and make himself free .■"' 
 
 Here we all feel with the writer. We should be unspeaka- 
 bly indignant, if one of our fellow-citizens were enslaved in a 
 foreign country, because those who had him in their power 
 expected to profit by his labor, and should hold him blameless 
 in attempting to deliver himself from bondage by any means 
 which afforded reasonable prospect of success. Now it cannot 
 be admitted for a moment, that the rights of the African in 
 like circumstances, would be at all less than those of the New 
 Englander. And here it is necessary to be explicit. There 
 is danger of being misunderstood, and any misunderstanding 
 on this point would work mischief. Still the public welfare 
 demands that the truth should be told. 
 
 Our slaves are oppressed, wronged men. Their right of 
 self-defence remains undiminished. Like all other men under 
 the weight of despotic power, they have a right to rise in 
 rebellion against their oppressors, whenever they can better 
 themselves thereby, whenever they have power to effect a 
 revolution in government, and the chance of benefits to 
 result from such a revolution outbalances its certain evils. 
 The Slaves in the United States, however, have not power to 
 revolutionize government. They cannot free themselves by 
 force. In their situation, rebellion is utter madness. It can 
 but increase their woes. Such superiority have their masters 
 in numbers, in knowledge, in power, in situation, that insur- 
 rection on their part can but produce misery, alarm, and closer 
 bondage. Their right then of self-vindication by arms 
 ceases. No people, however oppressed, can rightfully rebel, 
 when rebellion would afford them no relief. Such is the 
 plain state of the case. The oppressor's safety lies always in 
 his might. The Slave's condition is at present hopeless. He 
 must wait to be helped to freedom by the humane and influ- 
 ential. 
 
32 
 
 Dr. Channing inculcates the right of insurrection in so far 
 as the right of insurrection is an inherent right of man. Un- 
 doubtedly Dr. Channing does not hold it to be on account of 
 our complexion, or any physical trait, that we have liberty to 
 use those means, which God and reason have put into our 
 hands, to defend ourselves in the enjoyment of those goods, 
 which God has bestowed. The right of self-defence is uni- 
 versal. To African, American, and European, it is alike 
 given, and every where it is subject to limitation. Fortunately 
 for the master, the slave in our country cannot defend himself. 
 Let the philanthropist compassionate him in his feebleness, 
 and endeavour to gradually prepare the way for his liberation. 
 And may God help him ! 
 
 Our Saviour did not forbid Slavery in so many words. He 
 did not attempt to restore the bond to liberty; for the minds 
 oi men were not then prepared for so great a change. He 
 gave his religion to the world, to work the subversion of all 
 wrong. The spirit of that religion has wrought many revolu- 
 tions in the opinions and institutions of men, while yet but in 
 the beginning of its operations. It will effect many more. 
 By the light which it has thrown upon the character, the 
 rights, the destiny of man, it has now prepared society for the 
 removal of this greatest outrage upon that character and those 
 rights, the degrading of our fellow to the condition of servile 
 instrument of another. Slavery is now indignantly frowned 
 upon by the civilized world. It is regarded as the great blot 
 on our national institutions; and the apathy, which is sup- 
 posed to exist among us with regard to it, as a dark stain on our 
 national character. It cannot stand. It must fall. Society will 
 not go back. Its course is ever onward. That Slavery should 
 sustain itself in our country for a century, before the reason 
 and refinement and humanity, which are pressing upon it with 
 a daily increasing host, would be a miracle in the history of 
 man. Our children's prospect will be less gloomy than ours. 
 
 The author of the Remarks now bids fair to come to a con- 
 sideration of the main points of the work which he reviews. 
 
 " The argument of Dr. C," he says,'" is as unsound in its logic, as it is refined, 
 extravagant, and dangerous in its morality, and horrible in its consequences." 
 
33 
 
 " His fallacy is one very common to enthusiasts. He assumes a proposition to 
 be universally true, which is true only with important qualifications and many 
 limitations." 
 
 " His conclusion is based on the premises, that no property can be made to exist 
 in a human being." 
 
 By no means. Dr. Ohanning's premise is, that " man can- 
 not be justly held and used as property." This correction 
 made, the gentleman's argument comes to nothing. The 
 force of his Remarks, for several pages, depends wholly on a 
 misrepresentation of his author's views. He argues : man is 
 in fact owned as property, and therefore property can be made 
 to exist in a hnraan being. This conclusion is correct, but 
 has nothing to do with the question. "Who is fool enough to 
 dispute that Slaves can be and are owned by planters at the 
 South ? — But does it therefore follow that they are justly 
 owned ? — What a miserable expedient, when reasons fail and 
 wit is exhausted, to falsify arguments which ought to be fairly 
 met ! 
 
 " This is but partially true even in Massachusetts," continue the Remarks. " We 
 admit a limited property in human beings. A father has a property in his child ; 
 a master in his apprentice ; a ship- captain in his mariners; a general in his sol- 
 diers. Their labor belongs to him, and their services, like those of the slave, may 
 he enforced by stripes." 
 
 And if it be so, what follows ? Suppose Slavery were com- 
 pletely, as well as partially, established in our State^ does it 
 follow that Slavery is just, that man can be rightfully held as 
 property? — But it is not so. The parent does not own the 
 child. The ship-captain does not own his sailors. The 
 tradesman does not own the apprentice. We understand by 
 property, something held, not for its own good, but for the 
 good of its owner, — something transferable, — something 
 that may be bought and sold. The child is not held as prop- 
 erty by its father, but restrained for its own good, on account 
 of its helplessness. The mariner and the apprentice do not 
 owe service to their respective employers, on account of a 
 right of property claimed by them, but by contract, made for 
 mutual benefit. Their submission is for a definite term, at 
 the expiration of which, their right to their own labor, which 
 they had partially resigned, returns to them. 
 
 m 
 
34 
 
 That there is such a thing as legal Slavery, every one will 
 admit. From the fact, the writer of the pamphlet attempts 
 to prove the right ; and uses these extraordinary words, 
 
 " Propei'ty is the creature of municipal law. It exists nowhere without law ; 
 and every where, is inherent in every thing which is made property by law." 
 
 This is by no means correct. Property is not the creature 
 of municipal law, but precedes it ; and to protect men in the 
 enjoyment of property is one of the chief reasons for the estab- 
 lishment of law. Were there but two individuals on the 
 earth, and they should meet for the first time, the one would 
 feel that he had exclusive right to the fish which he had 
 caught, to the animal which he had killed, to the fruit which 
 he had plucked, to the utensil which he had made, — and would 
 defend himself in the enjoyment of these, against the encroach- 
 ments of the other. All men feel thus. And it is upon this 
 universal sentiment, that the right of property is founded. By 
 nature, we own what our strength and our wit have procured 
 for us. Municipal law protects us in the enjoyment of that 
 which is by nature ours. 
 
 The proposition, then, that "property is the creature of mu- 
 nicipal law," does not stand, and with the failure of this 
 premise, falls the whole train of remark by which our dispu- 
 tant thinks to strengthen his position. 
 
 " Where is the authority," he asks, " for the declaration, that there can be no 
 property in a human being ? In the Bible ? Slavery is recognised under the 
 Mosaic and Christian dispensation, without censure. In History ? Slavery has 
 existed, in all time, in the fairest regions of the earth, and among the most civilized 
 portions of mankind." 
 
 So has despotism. Despotism has been the calamity of the 
 fairest countries and the most civilized people. It is not ex- 
 pressly censured in the New Testament. Yet it is wrong. — 
 Correct the question, and the answer is easy. Where is the 
 authority for the declaration, that "man cannot he justli/ held 
 and used as property ? " We answer : Not " in a refined and 
 elaborate metaphysical subtilty," — not in history, — not in 
 any chapter and verse of the Bible, — but in the Christian 
 spirit, and in every man's own heart, in yours Mr. Pamphleteer, 
 in yours reader, in mine, in the Slaveholder's, in the Slave's, 
 We all feel that Slavery is essentially a grievous wrong, that 
 
35 
 
 man cannot be justly owned, that he has a right to his own 
 hmbs, to the employment of his own time, to the enjoyment of 
 domestic life. Our authority is nature, and reason, and the 
 spirit of revealed truth. And the civilized world almost unani- 
 mously testify for us. 
 
 What remains of this chapter is cant ; and does not bear 
 upon the question. In so far as it tends to any thing, it tends 
 to illustrate the position, that property is a creature of law ; 
 and whatever illustrates, must weaken, this position. The 
 writer wishes to show, that the question of Slavery is solely a 
 legal question. It is not so. The plain truth of the matter is 
 this. Whether man is or is not held as property, is a question 
 of fact. Whether man can or cannot be so held, is a question 
 of law. Whether man ought to be so held, is a question of 
 right. It is this last which Dr. Channing discusses ; and, 
 strange to say, his reviewer opposes to him legislative and 
 judicial authorities. There is a Law, which Courts affect not 
 to decide, and which they cannot change. To this all men 
 must bov7. the legislator and the judge, the governor and the 
 subject. Reason and conscience are its interpreters. God 
 is its constitutor. According to this law human legislation 
 should be squared. When once it is understood, man should 
 not hesitate to obey. It is the law of right. This is the law 
 which Slavery violates. 
 
 The author of the Remarks, however, acknowledges no 
 higher law than that of human enactment. " This idea of 
 going beyond and behind the law, he says, to find a rule for 
 human action in civil society, is getting to be somewhat alarm- 
 ing." Now what is this intended to mean? It is true, that 
 the law of the land is, in the sphere of its operation, supreme. 
 Whatever philosophy inculcates, or excuses infraction of it, 
 is extremely dangerous. Let our tribunals be despised, and 
 our government is not worth preserving. Still the man, who 
 has no higher rule of action than the law of the land, is a 
 degraded being. He is unv/orthy of the privileges he enjoys. 
 Obedience to the public authorities forms but a small branch 
 of our duty. A very large part of our actions are such as do 
 not come at all under their cognizance. If we would be 
 worthy, then, we must go farther than the law, and apply to 
 
36 
 
 our actions, stricter principles, than courts apply for us. We 
 must also go above, as well as beyond, the law ; for we, it 
 must be remembered, we the people, are, by means of our 
 representatives, the framers of laws ; we supply their deficien- 
 cies ; we correct them when they are unjust ; we, for whose 
 good they are made, are to see that they answer that end. It 
 is evident, then, that, as legislators, we must find some higher 
 rule of action than our own statutes. The citizen is not at 
 liberty to maintain that an existing law is made void by supe- 
 rior authority ; but he is at liberty to express freely and fully 
 his opinions as to the justice of that law, and, if he believe it 
 unjust, to use all his influence to have it changed. — There is 
 a tendency, always prevalent, but particularly so in our busi- 
 ness times, more dangerous than that to which the gentleman 
 has referred, — a tendency to slight Reason and Conscience. 
 We are deaf to the admonitions of our better spirits. We forget 
 our responsibilities, as citizens, as legislators, and as brothers, 
 to God, to the spiritual world. Legal right is getting to be 
 the only right generally recognised. Honor no longer tempers 
 selfishness. Chivalry, that noble, but imperfect, form of truth 
 and manliness, is fallen before more complete views of man's 
 relations, and with it have gone many of the charities, many 
 of the humanities of life. Those strict principles of religion, 
 which our forefathers brought with them over the ocean, are 
 disappearing with the narrow doctrines, with which they were 
 associated. All the influences, which have heretofore redeemed 
 us and made us what we are, have failed of their wonted 
 power. Times of skepticism, of coarseness, of prose, seem to 
 be coming upon us. Oh, let us do what we may, to avert 
 them ! Let Religion take her sceptre, and Justice sit at her 
 right hand ! 
 
 The necessity of making virtue our highest law, is allowed 
 by all unbiased men. The author of the Remarks himself 
 maintains, in his next chapter, (as what man can deny ?) that 
 we have higher duties than those of mere obedience to public 
 law. Here then we stand on common ground. Right is 
 supreme. The first question then is : is Slavery right ? This 
 question, the pamphlet we review does not discuss. 
 
37 
 
 The third chapter, entitled, " Right of Discussion," needs 
 little comment. It is no longer a question, whether Slavery 
 shall be discussed. The discussion has commenced, and it is 
 evident that it will continue. It remains to be seen, — it 
 remains to be decided, whether that discussion shall be tem- 
 perate and wise. If it be so, the result will be knowledge of 
 the truth, and right action. If, on the contrary, passion and 
 prejudice and selfishness rule, error and disorder will follow. 
 Let influential men strive to direct public sentiment aright. 
 Let them remind the citizens frequently of their duty to think 
 and speak rnd act conscientiously, and of the great calamities 
 resulting to a people from want of moral principle. Let us be 
 true to ourselves, and light will break in upon us. 
 
 There are some expressions, in this chapter, which need to 
 be examined before we leave it. We read : " Whatever is 
 clearly and palpably inexpedient, ceases for the time to be 
 morally right." The words "clearly and palpably," add noth- 
 ing to the meaning of this sentence. Either inexpedience 
 renders an action not morally right, which would otherwise 
 be so, or it does not. If it does, — then whatever appears to 
 us, on the whole, inexpedient, whether clearly or obscurely so, 
 is to us not morally right. For the rest, without expressing any 
 doubts as to the soundness of utilitarian ethics, suffice it to say, 
 that in order that this principle should be other than very 
 unsafe to act upon, the expediency or inexpedience of our 
 actions should be judged, by their effect, not upon the interests 
 of a small number and for a limited time, but upon all men, 
 and through all ages. Each man must regard himself as a 
 citizen of the world, and as having an influence upon the fate 
 of an unlimited posterity. 
 
 In this connexion, there is a phrase to be noticed, as telling 
 more of the writer's meaning, than appears at first sight. He 
 speaks of " the commands of honor, of conscience and of 
 duty." It is not uncommon to read " the dictates of honor 
 and conscience ; " and this expression is not perhaps to be 
 found fault with ; for although strictly it is pleonastic, 
 although what is right is always honorable, and the truly 
 honorable always right, yet actions are viewed in different 
 lights, according as they are regarded as the gentleman's, or 
 
38 
 
 as the Christian's. The same apology is not to be made for 
 lh' phrase which we have quoted from our pamphlet. " The 
 commands of conscience and of duty " are in every respect the 
 same ; or rather, the commands of conscience are duty. The 
 expression therefore is bad. But it is not as a rhetorical error 
 that we notice it. As such it is not remarkable in the pages 
 before us. We regard it as an indication of wrong ideas of 
 duty ; and we are supported in our construction by parallel 
 passages. One of the chapters is intitled " Moral Duties," 
 as if all duties were not moral ; and society is spoken of as 
 to be supported not by moral principle, but by " moral and 
 prudential principle." Now these expressions, and many like, 
 tell us that the author has fallen into the error, not infre- 
 quent among men who boast themselves practical, of regard- 
 ing duty as of two kinds, one of conscience, the other of 
 interest, — of regarding man as bound by two obligations, 
 of right and of expediency. Now this is an error, and a bad 
 one. Conscience has no divided empire. We must hold 
 ourselves in subjection to it, not partially and with certain 
 reserved rights, but fully and constantly. True it may be, 
 that the right is always the expedient, even in its immediate 
 results. True it certainly is, that, in the long run, right is 
 policy. But whether it be so or not, whether interest do or 
 do not seem, to our short-sighted vision, to coincide with 
 virtue, still to conscience, if we would be men, must we refer 
 every action and every word. It is a shame that this great 
 truism is not kept in view. 
 
 This, it is answered, is verbiage ; it has no practical bearing 
 upon the matter in hand. But no, it is not verbiage. These 
 words are full of meaning. What we have said is wholly 
 practical. It aims to make clearer the truth, that our first 
 question with regard to Slavery is, not whether the white 
 portion of our population will gain or lose by a continuance of 
 the poor negro's bondage, — but whether Slavery be or be not 
 right. And if it be decided that Slavery is an infraction of 
 man's Rights, vested in him by the Almighty, of inherent, 
 inviolable Rights, — if it be decided that Slavery is essentially 
 unjust, — then ask not whether it shall^ but how it can be 
 done away. A necessary injustice would be an anomaly in 
 the world. 
 
39 
 
 In the fourth chapter, we come to a consideration of the 
 second main proposition, that " public sentiment in the Slave- 
 holding States cannot be altered." 
 
 '• This arises from a very melancholy consideration, but one which should be 
 deeply considered. 
 
 " Domestic Slavery is, in the United States, so intimately connected with civil 
 society, that it can never be removed but by one of those tremendous convulsions 
 in which nations perish." 
 
 To the proof of this last, the author devotes many pages. 
 He calls our attention in a striking manner to the immense 
 difficulty of the task which the Abolitionist proposes to himself. 
 He shows that Slavery is connected by numberless ramifica- 
 tions with the interests of the South, and makes evident that, 
 in the opinion of the Slave-holders, the relinquishment of their 
 slaves would be an immense pecuniary sacrifice. From con- 
 siderations of this nature, he comes to the conclusion that 
 " Domestic Slavery is the perpetual and immovable condition 
 of our national existence." The question, why it should be 
 so, he thus answers. — 
 
 " Possibly as a balance in the operations of Heaven, for the unparalleled bless- 
 ings of our extensive and prosperous republic ; possibly as a trial for those virtues, 
 which need calamity as well as happiness ; possibly as the mode by which our 
 nation, like the mouldering empires of the elder world, shall come to its termina- 
 tion ; possibly for some mysterious reasons yet to be developed in the wisdom of 
 Providence ; possibly for some cause, like the minor evils of life, never to be made 
 manifest to human reason." 
 
 It is gratifying, in discussions of policy, to find reference to 
 our relations with the Author and Ruler of the universe, the 
 most important and the most afiecting of all in which we 
 stand. We cannot however agree with the spirit of this 
 paragraph. Viewing Slavery merely as a political evil, we 
 might believe that it was to us, for some reasons not fully to 
 be understood, a national dispensation ; but it is inconsistent 
 with true ideas of God's Justice and Benevolence, to suppose 
 that a wrong done to one class of men, is instituted by him to 
 discipline the virtues, or humble the pride, of another. It can- 
 not be that God makes injustice a means of his government 
 It cannot be, that he constituted millions of creatures with 
 aspirations after freedom, imbued them with a strong sense 
 of their right to this freedom, gave them faculties which 
 could find development, a soul which could find true life, 
 
40 
 
 only in freedom ; and then, giving the lie to his own work, 
 degraded them into a bondage, where the heart is blighted, 
 the intellect fettered, conscience perverted, — in order that the 
 calamities resulting from this disorder of nature might be 
 dispensations of his Providence to another portion of his 
 creatures. 
 
 The task of removing Slavery is indeed of immense diffi- 
 culty. Let our country bring to the work commensurate 
 forces. It is not impracticable to a great and good nation. 
 The accomplishment of it will not be despaired of, by those 
 who have faith in the wonderful efficiency of man, when in- 
 spired by moral principle with all the energy of resolute man- 
 hood. There is cowardice in despair. 
 
 Towards the close of this chapter, the writer shows us the 
 true ground of much of the opposition which is met with at 
 the North by those who attempt to make the public appreciate 
 the calamity under which they lie. Some of our people, we 
 hope not many, are unwilling that Slavery should be in any 
 way interfered with, lest their commercial interests should 
 suffer, lest they should have to pay more, than they now do, 
 for the produce of Slave labor, or be vmable to obtain it at all. 
 Such men boast themselves practical, and as a triumphant 
 response to all argument in favor of the Slave's rights, bring 
 forward tables of prices current of Southern produce and 
 Northern manufacture, and estimates in dollars and cents of 
 the value of the aggregate black limbs in the country. Dr. 
 Channing addresses such a one, — ' Brother, here are two or 
 three millions of our fellow men inexpressibly wronged, de- 
 barred from those enjoyments and means of improvement to 
 which God destined them, claimed as property by those who 
 have no right to a hair of their heads, and unable to defend 
 themselves from oppression. Let us all use our influence to 
 do away this injustice. The evil is great. The cure, though 
 necessarily slow, may be effected.' 'But, good sir, sweet sir,' 
 says the practical man, 'what is to become of our rice, our 
 sugar, and our cottons?' — 'Perhaps they will be less abund- 
 ant. It may be that Slavery adds to our riches ; but this is 
 no reason for continuing oppression. By raising your voice 
 in favor of the wronged, you may make yourself poorer : the 
 
41 
 
 commendation of your conscience will repay you.' — ' But my 
 sugar, my rice, my cottons! ' — 'I am trying to convince you, 
 friend, that these ought to be held trifles in a cause of virtue. 
 You must do your duty as the first thing ; and whatever en- 
 joyments are inconsistent with this, you must be willing to 
 relinquish.' — ' All this is very true,' rejoins the matter-of-fact 
 man; 'but it is not practical. You are a theorist, a closet- 
 mind; you know nothing of realities. You are dealing with 
 clouds. Duty ! why, my good Doctor, expediency is duty. 
 Utility is my standard ; and according to this standard, sugar, 
 and rice, and cotton are no trifles.' 
 
 To such spirits we do not address ourselves. We will not 
 descend to the grovelling task of convincing selfishness of its 
 narrowness, and showing that what we recommend as right, 
 recommends itself as gain. To do so would compromit the 
 dignity of a moral cause. 
 
 There is a paragraph in the introduction to the chapter upon 
 which we have been remarking, which we cannot forbear to 
 quote, as it leads to considerations which we have desired to 
 enter upon. The gentleman says : — 
 
 " I speak (o pi-ac(icnl, experienced business men, who know, by actual contact, 
 the force of human motives and the rage of human passion, and not to theoretical 
 and secluded scholars, who would give lessons in their study for the measure of a 
 whirlwind. I speak to the bold and vent-urous navigator on the great ocean of life, 
 who has heard the i-oar of the elements and felt the strain of the cordage; and 
 not to the little pilot of a pleasure-boat, who never ventures beyond the ripple of 
 a summer's breeze." 
 
 The last of these sentences is a very fine one. Strike out 
 the second epithet in the first clause, and it is faultless. The 
 words are well put together, and the images are striking and 
 illustrative. Where it stands, it is mere rhetorical embellish- 
 ment ; it strengthens no position ; it throws light upon no part 
 of the subject. It leads, however, to reflections which are 
 useful in this place. 
 
 Who are practical men? — As this phrase is generally re- 
 ceived, — those who are acquainted with the exceptions, and 
 ignorant of the rules, of human nature. We will make our 
 meaning plainer. 
 
 6 
 
42 
 
 It is a common remark, tliat human nature is the same, all 
 the world over. It appears under different forms, in different 
 lights, and variously veiled. Still it is essentially the same. 
 Its great laws are of universal application. — The practical 
 man, — he who takes a busy part in active life, whose daily 
 employments carry him into contact with the multitude, — 
 sees mankind only in certain of these forms, and under cer- 
 tain of these lights. He wishes to influence men, to bend 
 them to his purposes ; and to effect this object, he studies the 
 peculiarities of the individuals, or famihes, or classes, with 
 whom he has to deal. Upon this study depends his success. 
 He therefore makes it his great employment. His whole life is 
 spent in discovering by v/hat motive this or that person is 
 most ruled, how the favor of this or that circle may be ob- 
 tained ; and his occupations are of such a character, that his 
 experience of man, which he so much values, is confined to a 
 comparatively narrow circle where his interests centre. Human 
 nature is to him the character of the inhabitants of the village, 
 city, state, where he has lived ; and he knows not that the 
 peculiarities of his kinsman are not essential attributes of the 
 human kind. Such a life does not make the man truly wise. 
 It begets indeed a certain shrewdness which receives great 
 credit in the world, and qualifies one to be a safe counsellor 
 with regard to measures of limited and temporary operation; 
 but its tendency is to narrow the mind, and to blind it to man 
 as man. The power of generalizing is lost or weakened. The 
 attention long confined to the peculiarities, the littlenesses of 
 individuals, is unable to grasp the great truths, the great in- 
 terests, the great motives, the great ends of humanity. 
 
 If it be true that there are certain universal truths, and cer- 
 tain universal laws of our kind, they are to be discovered, not 
 by the bustling, but by the meditative. He is best fitted to 
 discern, to understand, and to feel them, who having had 
 intercourse with his fellows in some of the ordinary occupations 
 of life, and having seen them under the influence of various 
 governments, institutions, and climates, retires to reflect on 
 what he has seen, mingling only enough withsociety, tokeephis 
 recollections and his sympathies fresh, and, through the medium 
 of history, viewing men in masses, and observing the changes 
 
43 
 
 which time, place, and circumstance work upon character. 
 He carries always with him the subject of his examination, in 
 his own breast. All the essentials of man's nature are there 
 to be found. Free from the trammels of petty particular cares, 
 he takes generous and impartial views of the race. Instead of 
 going forth in the morning to speculate in lands, cloths, or stocks, 
 endeavouring to anticipate the changes which are to take place 
 in the state of the market, — or betaking himself to the halls of 
 legislation to learn the art of detaching men from one party, 
 to tie them to another, — or bending his whole mind to con- 
 vincing a jury, and himself if necessary, of the justice of a 
 client's cause, — instead of going into the world and having 
 to deal with single and partial forms of humanity, — he sits in 
 his study, and looks widely over the face of society, past and 
 present, and acquaints himself with its generalities, with its 
 substance, with the constantly observed laws of its motions. 
 He rises in contemplation; the horison which formerly limited 
 his vision widens ; he sees man in all his vast relations, of 
 creature, brother, embryo angel ; and from his elevation he 
 casts a ray of light upon our otherwise benighted path. Such 
 men are the truly wise. These are the men who solve the 
 riddle and unravel the mystery of human life. They are a 
 people's safest guides. National prosperity is progress along a 
 narrow and difficult road, and in our journey, we cannot trust, 
 for safe conduct, fellow farers, who mingle in the crowd, and 
 are carried along with it, but must look to those who stand 
 aloof, in advance of the multitude, and see their way. 
 
 (And in fact, the quiet, retired, contemplative minds are the 
 most influential though the least credited of all. By changing 
 society itself, they in the end change all which society has 
 established. They prepare the way for all the great move- 
 ments. Bustling, practical men are their instruments. The 
 deep tones which come from their retreats are the commands 
 of genius. Their influence is the stronger, and the surer, for 
 being not immediately sensible. They do not change laws, 
 increase crops, nor regulate commerce, but addressing them- 
 selves to individual minds, they correct errors of judgment, and 
 awaken new aspirations and new principles of action. Public 
 Sentiment, — in contradiction to which, in a free country like 
 our own, institutions cannot long stand, — receives its tone 
 
44 
 
 from men, who are not felt jn the world, except by the elo- 
 quence they litter and the truths they tell.) 
 
 There :v.e then certain great principles, a knowledge which 
 is essential to practical wisdom, which are with difficulty 
 understood by him who is called emphatically a practical 
 man, by one whose attention is absorbed by transient interests 
 and limited operations. These principles, though universal, 
 are not universally recognised. He therefore who proposes 
 considerations founded upon them, often meets with unwel- 
 come reception, and is answered that what he propounds is 
 very good theory, but no rule o.' j ractice. The answ. is 
 absurd. What is theory ? It is a system of laws deduced 
 from observation of what has taken place. It is good, it is true 
 only so far as it conforms with facts. It is a rule for practice, 
 or it is nothing. Whatever is proposed to your consideration, 
 is either true, theoretically and practically, or false, theoretically 
 and practically. It is either good philosophy and good fact, or 
 it is bad philosophy and bad fact. " Truth is one." It is 
 the part then, not of a wise, but of a foolish person, to 
 answer to a proposition, that it is good theory, but not prac- 
 tical. This is merely a way of escape from the recognition 
 of truths, which you ought frankly to acknowledge or fairly 
 to disprove. By admitting it to be good theory, you admit 
 that it ought to be your rule of practice ; and by refusing to 
 make it so, you only exercise your right of acting as a fool, 
 while you judge as a sage. 
 
 And now apply what has been said, to the matter in hand. 
 The proposition, that Slavery is a great wrong, and that a na- 
 tion never prospers by wrong, are either true or false. Call 
 them theory or fact, prose or poetry, or Avhat you will, the 
 question still recurs : Are they true or not ? Tell us not that 
 they are the speculations of closet-minds. No matter who 
 found them. Are they true ? Talk not of the difference be- 
 tween abstract and matter-of-fact reasoners, and of the vague- 
 ness of these propositions. Apply what epithet you choose 
 to them. But are they true ? Yes, good friends, they are 
 true. And if true, not only are they practical ; but the fate 
 of our country depends upon their being blazed abroad. Sla- 
 very is a great wrong to the slave, and as such, not merely as 
 an evil to ourselves, it must be done away. Were this object 
 
45 
 
 to be attained only by sinking the half of our fair territory in 
 the Atlantic, still the national interest would demand that the 
 sacriuce should be made. 
 
 Retired men, we have said, are the best able to dit^cover 
 and to enforce the great truths whicli concern man. But with 
 regard to particular applications, they need the advice of those 
 who have made particulars their study. Dr. Channing woidd 
 be an indifferent legislator. Such men know only the great 
 ends of national existence, and the great rules of action, and 
 are unable to judge of the expediency of measures, the effect 
 of which depends upon circumstances, peculiar to the occa- 
 sion, which the general thinker cannot well Aveigh. 
 
 He cannot, for the same reason, be expected always to time 
 his observations well, or to assume, on all occasions, the most 
 effectual tone of persuasion. We think, however, that in the 
 publication of this work, he has judged well in these respects. 
 We wanted just such a book. We needed to be strongly 
 reminded of our duties to the Slave. Dr. Channing discusses 
 the question as a question of right, not of interest. And this 
 is Avell. There is more sense of justice in our community 
 than our so called practical men give credit for. 
 
 It is true, as our author remarks, that " he is a poor teache'r, 
 who, in estimating the operation of motives and the causes of 
 action, takes mankind as he would have them, and not as they 
 are." — It is true that conscience has not her rightful dominion, 
 and that those who go upon the supposition that men will never 
 knowingly do wrong, will be Avofully disappointed. Yet we 
 believe, that the sense of right can, in no way, be thrown 
 from the high place it holds in the minds of a people, and 
 that, by an appeal to it on questions of duty, the heart is 
 stirred much more powerfully, than by oblique and subtle 
 addresses to selfishness. W^e call our people a moral people. 
 We trust it is so, in a fuller sense than that which the phrase 
 generally receives. Show our citizens the course of duty, 
 and they will, in the end, pursue it. 
 
 Dr. Channing's work is not to be reproached, as not prac- 
 tical. It is practical in the highest degree. The subject of 
 Slavery is so treated as to be brought home to every mind. 
 His course is plain and direct ; his style simple, unpretending. 
 There is no mixture of any sort of pedantry. It is not at all 
 
46 
 
 in place, to say, with the author of the Remarks, that " he 
 argues out his positions with all the learning of the schools." 
 Dr. Chanuing is not a learned man. He does not affect learn- 
 ing in his writings. He has lived the life of a thinker, not of 
 a reader. His conclusions are those of a man, not of a scholar. 
 True, he is, in the author's sarcastic words, " a mere talking 
 clergyman." But in our days, the pulpit is, by no means, a 
 bar to influence ; and a " mere talking clergyman," so he 
 have a great soul to prompt his tongue, and have filled it, by 
 observing and meditation, with all wisdom and charities, is 
 an efficient practical man. With us, speech is action , and 
 though our logocratic sins are many, yet for that the more, is 
 well-spoken truth welcome and powerful. 
 
 The author concludes that '' all hope of exterminating 
 Slavery," — we use his words, — "is desperate by any other 
 means than civil war ; " and leaves us to infer that, since 
 Slavery is, intimately as he has represented, bound up with 
 the interests, domestic condition, and character, of the South, 
 — "Public Sentiment, there, cannot be changed." — We 
 notice, in passing, a want of logic in this implied inference. 
 The impracticability of removing Slavery, makes out the in- 
 expedience of attempting, not the impossibility of effecting, a 
 change in Public Sentiment. At any rate, one who differs 
 with the author in the premises, will come to a different con- 
 clusion. — Southern feeling, not only can be changed, but is 
 daily changing. What signifies it to tell us, that " the Slave 
 region has pronounced its decision," and that " within its 
 borders Slavery shall not be discussed " ? State decisions 
 cannot shut out the spirit of civilization. Let books be 
 printed, or suppressed ; let men be hung and flayed, or hon- 
 ored, for speaking the truth : still we are freemen ; we are 
 thinking men ; no part of our people will turn a deaf ear to 
 reason and right. 
 
 The fifth chapter of the Remarks is a more particular 
 consideration of " the modes of abolishing Slavery." The 
 manner, in which this subject is treated, is quite unsatis- 
 factory. There breathes through it, a cavilling, a petty, spirit, 
 which does no credit to the author, whoever he be ; and mis- 
 representations of the opinions which he opposes, are so 
 
47 
 
 frequent and gross, that the reader cannot refrain from believ- 
 ing them, in part at least, intentional, — since, as the work is 
 anonymous, there is nothing to forbid that unfavorable con- 
 struction. 
 
 The loss, which would accrue to the Slave-holders from 
 abolition, is much exaggerated by our writer. After giving 
 estimates of the aggregate value of our Slaves, ranging from 
 two hundred and fifty, to eight hundred, milHons, — he says: 
 " Before Slavery can cease in the United States, this vast 
 property must be annihilated." — This, we submit, is quite an 
 incorrect statement of the case. If the Slaves were liberated, 
 they would, from their very situation, be obliged to work for 
 reasonable wages. The only difference would be, that the 
 planter would then pay, for willing labor, a sum of money ; 
 whereas he now pays, for forced labor, clothes, food, and 
 shelter. — This, however, is not to our main point. 
 
 However the question of the apparent practicability of 
 abolishing Slavery may be decided, our duties remain, in 
 great degree, the same. Whether there can, or cannot, be 
 now pointed out any way of removing this evil, — still we 
 must call up all our intelligence, all our sagacity, all our 
 humanity and disinterestedness, in order to discover the path, 
 if it be not yet found. From the very nature of the case, the 
 impossibility of effecting our purpose cannot be shown ; and 
 our hopes receive so much .confirmation from general con- 
 siderations, — of the benignity of God, — and of the immense 
 efficiency of man, when acting from great motives, — that we 
 should be authorized, nay, commanded, — to summon all our 
 resources for the attempt, even if not a ray of light had come 
 to us from the dark cloud. To remove Slavery is not im- 
 possible. There is no excuse, then, for remissness or delay. 
 
 We must begin then from this point. Slavery is ivrong. 
 The Slave is an oppressed man. He must be freed. We are 
 not to believe the impossibility of giving him freedom, till it 
 shall have been proved by actual experiment. It has not 
 been so proved. Far from it. The impracticability of plans 
 already proposed, has by no means been made evident. — We 
 have, it is true, a great work before us. But, let it be re- 
 membered, there is a great nation to effect it. The extent of 
 the evil, the tenacity, with which Slave-holders cling to their 
 
48 
 
 property, and the other considerations which have ^een ad- 
 vanced, go to prove, not that it is impracticable, but that it must 
 be gradual and dilficult, — gradual, because so great, — diffi- 
 cult, because tiie soul which animates men, is so different 
 from what it should be. Our success is not only probable, — ■ 
 it is sure, — did there but breathe through our community, 
 the spirit of Christians, — the spirit of men, — the spirit of 
 true chivalry, a semblance of which is so often worn as a veil. 
 No prudent man expects or wishes immediate abolition. 
 The slave cannot yet be liberated with safety. He must still 
 be restrained. " He cannot, rightfully, and should not, be 
 owned by the individual. But, like every other citizen, he 
 belongs to the community." — Our author protests that he 
 does " not understand this nice distinction." He is ''sure 
 the slave would not comprehend it." He does " not perceive 
 how the slave can cease to be property and yet belong to the 
 community." How flimsy is this! — You, Mr Pamphleteer, 
 we presume, are not a slave : yet you belong to the community, 
 by the profession of your title-page. You are subject to the 
 restraints of law. If, in the opinion of our courts, the good 
 of the community shall require you to be confined, (which, if 
 you continue to publish " Remarks on Slavery," the public 
 weal, in our estimation, will ere long demand) — you will be 
 incarcerated. Yet you would not, we trust, in preparing an- 
 other edition of your pamphlet from your cell, entitle it, "lie- 
 marks, &c. By a Slave of Massachusetts." 
 
 Our humble work is finished. We have raked over this 
 heap of bad arguments and offensive allusions, and picked 
 out such parts as the public health required to be exposed. 
 To ourselves, the task has been anything but agreeable. To 
 point out the fallacy of palpable sophistry, is not a sufficiently 
 active employment, to be interesting; and there are works 
 with which one is reluctant, in any way, to meddle. Our 
 object has not been to counsel the citizens ; but only to attract 
 the attention of careless readers to the weak points of the 
 book we have reviev/ed, and by some considerations of the 
 main subject, to cancel the injurious effects which might fol- 
 low from a popular, and to a degree powerful and attractive, 
 defence of pernicious errors. 
 
 54 W 
 

 ♦ AT "^ • 
 
 
 
 j.'i-^ c o " " * ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 "°*^^'/ \-^^\/ %'^^-/ * 
 
 §i^'. •**. ../ ^^/i' u .^* y^i^'- V..** .*rf&/- 
 

 
 r %. 
 
 
 
 A^"^ 
 
 ;* ^ % 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^0^ 
 
 
 
 ^"-^^^ 
 
 
 • *o 
 
 .^'% 
 
 
 
 o M e 
 
 
 ■*i-<* 
 
 &^"-^