E449 
 
 Copy 2 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 ; • ; ''■^••'}l^.^'^f4 
 
 0DDD1734702 
 
4 V * 
 
 3 " , ^ 
 
 ^^" 
 
 
 y^^^ 
 
 * o 
 
 
 ^( 
 
 
 
 
 •5^ ^"^ 
 
 .^"^ :mm\ ^.^-i^ i 
 
 V^.!i« 
 
 
 .4,^ 
 
 "K 
 
 o V" 
 
 .<^*^ .V'^m^^ ^^ 
 
 
 
 if. * • - * " 
 
 4^^ V 
 
 
 4< 
 
 A^=J'fl'n l£>- .^, 
 
 V .%. 
 
• , • • , u 
 
 
 c ♦' 
 
 ^M^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 V/ .*«'•' \/ :MMx %.^* .-a&v "\./' 
 
 • <*' 
 
 
 
 wV^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <> *'t: 
 
 o««. '<i>. 'i^"..^'.*# "^^ * J>^ .e'JL**?"^ ,0*" , 
 
 
 .♦ O 
 
 ^^^V %'^^*/ \*^-V 'o^'^^*/ 
 
 ^ «^-;^-\ **'•:%>';%% «''\';is^-\ / ••' 
 
 
 4j^ • 
 
 v*^ ' • • • ^VJ ^^ 
 
 
 
 
SLAVERY 
 
 SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE. 
 
 THE FIKST TAKT OF A 
 
 GENERAL TREATISE ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN RICHTER JONES. 
 
 Hie niger est: liunc tu Romanc caTcto. — Hosace. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 
 J. B. L I P r I N C T T .*c CO 
 
 186L 
 
^n 
 
 t- 
 
 <^ 
 
 Entered, according to Act of Congress, iu the year 18G1, by 
 JOHN RICHTER JONES, 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern 
 District of Pennsylvania. 
 
DEDICATORY rREFACE. 
 
 TO THE CLERGY OF NEW ENGLAND, 
 
 THIS ATTEMPT OF A LAYMAN TO "SEARCH THR SCRIPTURES" ON THE SLAVERY 
 QUESTION IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED. 
 
 Thus far, my clerical friends, you have been more like the men of 
 Thessalonica than those of Bersea. With no other scriptural war- 
 rant than yoifr mere assumption of the meaning of the word of God, 
 you have preached a political and moral crusade against slavery. 
 With facts from novels and campaign documents, and with principles 
 furnished by infidel sophists, you have misled yourselves and the 
 flocks intrusted to your charge. If you had searched the Scriptures, 
 you could not have been misled, and would not now have the respon- 
 sibility of this terrible national crisis. 
 
 It is your work — the result of your teaching — that large portions 
 of the North regard slaveholders generally as heinous transgressors 
 of the law of God, with whom no Christian fellowship is admissible, 
 and no political compacts binding : your work, that recrimination 
 has driven the South into feelings equally unchristian, and into 
 measures even more unconstitutional : your work, that countrymen 
 and brethren are mutually exasperated, and ready for the signal of 
 fratricidal war : your work, that a land but yesterday the most 
 prosperous the sun shines on, is suddenly visited by a fearful 
 pouring out of "the vials of the wrath of God." And if the end 
 is not yet ; if — after the rivers of blood which must flow in the 
 civil strife of our warlike race — the great Republic, divided and 
 broken, shall float down the course of time in jarring fragments, until 
 united again by anarchy and despotism ; if this home of freedom — 
 
 1 (3) 
 
4 DEDICATORY PREFACE, 
 
 home of the oppressed of all nations — become itself a house of 
 bondage ; if the grand experiment of self-government, with the po- 
 litical progress and general evangelization of man, be irretrievably 
 blasted: the work will be yours, the responsibility yours. 
 
 Oh men of God ! men of God ! it is a terrible responsibility. 
 The responsibilities of those churchmen who extinguished the reli- 
 gious light of the Netherlands in blood, or of those who ordered 
 the massacre of St. Bartholomew's, were a feather's weisrht to 
 yours. They stood on the same plea of conscience as you do 
 now: just as you do now, they thought themselves serving the 
 cause of God and religion : if told that their conscience was erro- 
 neous, they would have mocked at the admonition — as y<ou do at 
 mine. They will be fearfully wakened up in that "day of wrath," 
 when all of us shall stand before that "great white throne" of Him, 
 from whose "face the earth and the heaven flee away." God in 
 his mercy grant that your wakening up may not be in eternity ! 
 
 Has it ever struck you, my clerical friends, that possibly, only 
 possibly — but the merest possibility is enough to make the stout 
 heart quake — possibly your conscience, in regard to slavery, may be 
 erroneous? possibly you may have mistaken the "law of God" and 
 "the spirit and principle of the Gospel?" If I can rouse you to 
 this possibility, and lead you "to search the Scriptures" fiiithfully 
 and prayerfully for "the mind and will of Christ," I shall have 
 done a good work in the "Master's" service. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 YOUR LAY BROTHER 
 
I 
 
 SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE lUBLE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 anr position defined. 
 
 As a "tract for the times," I propose niakinc: a calm, logical examina- 
 tion of the slavery question. The times do indeed require something of 
 the kind. 
 
 A question which is breaking up our nationality; rendering the Amer- 
 ican people what Mexico is, and Italy has been ; exposing us as feeble, 
 separate States, to the contempt of the world; and which at the same 
 time is putting in hazard and doubt the very experiment of self-govern- 
 ment itself: a question the most momentous that ever agitated a com- 
 munity, has not been discussed at all, or discussed with angry passions 
 and reciprocal abuse. The harm is incalculable. A just exhibition of 
 facts at an early stage, with a full discussion of principles, might have 
 scattered the storm harmlessly before it came to a head. 
 
 The cloud at first was "no larger than a man's hand." But human 
 nature afforded ready elements of cumulation. Those generous impulses 
 of the heart, which revolt at oppression everywhere — impulses which 
 sympathize blindly in a tale of woe, alike moved whether it be real or 
 fictitious — were appealed to by a single emissary of foreign fanaticism, 
 and a single fanatical press in the capital of New England. Cases of 
 cruel treatment of Southern slaves, real or fictitious — if real, isolated and 
 anomalous; if fictitious, of course highly colored — were kept continually 
 before the public. Principles of liberty and equality, so dear to the Amer- 
 ican heart, were persistently invoked. No one in the North felt interested 
 in discussing, much less in defending, slavery. Fictitious facts and unjust 
 inferences passed unchallenged; inapplicable theories — and the theories 
 of the Declaration of Independence are practically applicable only where 
 men are capable of self-government — were not scrutinized : thus judgment 
 against slavery went by default. Through assumptions of fact and mis- 
 applications of theory, the public opinion of the North was gradually led 
 to regard slaveholding as inconsistent with Christian morality and Amer- 
 
R SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE. 
 
 ican republicanipm. Such was especially the case in New England, and 
 with the men everywhere of New England blood or affinities. 
 
 This general antislavery sentiment — which unquestionably pervades 
 more or less the whole North, and also the English, French, and German 
 races abroad — is the quiescent element of abolitionism. Special causes 
 concurred to raise a storm ; or the element might have remained possibly 
 harmless, ^irst, I may mention politics: the Democratic party was 
 strong in the South, and blackening the South and its institutions was 
 damaging the Democracy; thus the partisan press came into the field and 
 turned its energetic batteries against slavery. Next, the church : the 
 clergy of New England enlisted almost unanimously in the antislavery 
 ranks; for the same reasons, perhaps, that arrayed them with similar 
 unanimity against Jefferson. Next, literature: that one work, "Uncle 
 Tom's Cabin," touching with consummate artistic power those impulses 
 which were already vivified, was a most potential agent; more so than 
 any other singly. Politics, religion, and literature were causes more 
 than sufficient. Abhorrence of slavery grew at length into hatred of 
 slaveholders. Christian charity and gentlemanly courtesy toward those 
 who were held up as "those oppressors of their fellow-men, the cruel task- 
 masters of the down-trodden slave," ceased to be a duty. Terms of re- 
 proach and abuse, such as are seldom resorted to, even for the lowest and 
 worst of mankind, were unsparingly used by the press, in sermons and 
 lectures, and even in the halls of Congress. The compacts of the 
 national constitution, with "men worse than pirates and murderers," 
 were pronounced " a league only fit for devils," and in defiance of the 
 clearest stipulations for the rendition of slaves, personal liberty laws were 
 passed. Finally, the "irrepressible conflict" — an unceasing war on 
 slavery everywhere — was inaugurated as a moral and political duty. 
 
 In the storm which is tearing our nationality to pieces, the masses of 
 the people have been passive elements carried along by the angry pas- 
 sions of the few. Of Pennsylvania, my own State, I can say positively 
 that we have very little active abolitionism. And in the more Northern 
 States, if the antislavery cause could be separated entirely from politics, 
 I do not believe that one-twentieth of the voters would countenance in any 
 way the irrepressible conflict. The present storm is thus like popular tem- 
 pests generally, one of those blasts which speedily blow themselves out. 
 But the antislavery sentiment of the North generally is deeper seated, and 
 more dangerous, and likely sooner or later, unless corrected, to destroy 
 the National Union of the American people. While Northern Chris- 
 tians regard slaveholders as unworthy to worship at the same altars, 
 there can be no real cordiality ; while Northern legislators regard slavery 
 as at variance with those fundamental principles of liberty on which our 
 
SLAVERY SANCTIONED 15 Y TIIK HI 111. K. 7 
 
 nationality is founded, they will nut heartily enforce tin; ehiiises of llie 
 Constitution for the rendition of slaves; while Northern philunthropisi.s 
 see in slaveholding only brutal oppression, humanity and relij^'ion — hi^'her 
 authorities than human laws — will be enlisted in the cause of disorf^aniza- 
 tion. Until Northern men ,2:enerally look on slaveholders, not as enemies 
 of morality, religion, and liberty, but as fellow-citizens and countrymen, 
 whom peculiar circumstances oblige— runfortunately oI)lige — to ad(jpt 
 peculiar institutions, which are neither immoral nur barbarous, there can 
 be no permanent hope for the Republic. 
 
 To contribute something toward a sounder pul)lic opinioii — to relieve 
 slavery from a false position, which is vastly detrimental to the national 
 weal — is the purpose I have in view. My tract for the times is a sober 
 appeal to the " sober second thought" of the people of the North, and I 
 appeal to them as men who are not willingly unjust, though under the 
 influence of human passions, (humanum est errare,) lialjle to be often 
 temporarily wrong. Appeals to the South against the secession frenzy, 
 which is pulling down the pillars of the Union on their own heads and 
 on ours, will be made I trust by Southern men ; nothing from any Northern 
 source would be of any use now. 
 
 Whether my discussion can effect any change of public opinion, or 
 change even a single individual, I do not know. I know this, however, 
 my own views have been changed by examining the question; and con- 
 siderations which have changed the opinions of one man may change 
 those of others. I shall hope so at least. All I ask of my readers is a 
 fair hearing : " strike, but hear." 
 
 I am not the advocate of slavery. I regard it as a great evil, and so 1 
 do despotism : both are evils, but both under certain circumstances prefer- 
 able to worse. The despotic government of Napoleon the Third is better 
 than the republic of Robespierre; the slavery of South Carolina is better 
 than the freedom of Dahomey or St. Domingo; better for the present 
 happiness of the negro, better for his progress in civilization, better for 
 his religious hopes, and moral condition. If men were as they ought to 
 be, there would be no slavery, nor despotic government. As men actually 
 are, both have existed in all ages as far back as history runs, and will, I 
 fear, continue more or less generally, until man's fallen nature be changed. 
 The stubborn fact being so, and governments and institutions being in- 
 tended for men as they actually are, not as they ought to be, we must 
 organize or tolerate what suits their actual condition. Establishing a 
 republic prematurely among a people unfit for self-government is idle 
 mockery, and ends eventually where it were better to have begun. So 
 the abolition of slavery among negroes prematurely only renders their 
 condition worse. Meanwhile I cannot consider those who exercise des- 
 
8 SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE. 
 
 potic powers — and all powers not derived from the consent of the governed, 
 even those of the queen and peers of England, are despotic — nor those 
 that hold slaves, as violating the laws of God ; though I do admit that 
 using those powers unrighteously, in either case, is sinful. Speaking not 
 as the advocate of slavery, but as the exponent of sound principles of 
 political and social organization, I regard the antislayery sentimentality 
 of the North as a political and moral mistake. 
 
 On this basis I lay down the following propositions, which I propose 
 to discuss and to maintain: 
 
 1. That slavery, so far from being prohibited, is sanctioned by the 
 Bible. 
 
 2. Slavery is not in antagonism with the Declaration of Independence. 
 
 3. Property in slaves rests on the same title as any other property. 
 
 4. Slaveholding is not inconsistent with humanity and civilization. 
 
 As I have already virtually said, I intend my arguments for those 
 moderate antislavery men who are open to conviction, and willing to 
 change their opinions when convinced of error.. That class who never 
 change, because they never are wrong, I do not hope to move, and I 
 shall not try. 
 
 Before I commence my discussion, however, I will define and explain 
 my terms. 
 
 The term slavery is as vaguely used as any word in our language. 
 Some understand by it an unlimited power of life and death, such as the 
 Roman paterfamilias exercised ; others transfer the atrocities of Daho- 
 mey to our Southern States ; others are satisfied with the milder, though 
 still inhuman scenes of " Uncle Tom's Cabin." But the slavery of foreign 
 lauds, and of fictitious literature, and of the New England imagination, 
 have been before the public more than sufficiently already, being iu fact 
 the main element of abolitionism ; and my subject is the slavery of actual 
 life. The slavery which I propose to discuss is the political and social 
 condition of the uegro bondmen of our Southern States ; that condition 
 which is recognized by the real laws and actual usages of the South, and 
 brought into contact with the North in the rendition clause of the Consti- 
 tution, a clause which not only presents us the only aspect of slavery 
 which our positive constitutional obligations require us men of the non- 
 slaveholding States to recognize, but also affords an accurate definition 
 of it. Let us examine the clause : — 
 
 "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws 
 thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regula- 
 tion thereof be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be de- 
 livered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor shall be 
 due." 
 
SLAVERY SANCTIONED RY THE nilM.K. 9 
 
 According to this definition a slave is a "person held to service or labor'' 
 under the laws of any State. He is called a permn: so he actually is by 
 the laws of the Southern States : he is under many disaljilities, l)ut ho 
 has also many personal rights; the right to life for instance, as fully as tho 
 master himself lie is a person to whose service or lal)or another man 
 has a legal claim, and over whom that other man exercises such legal 
 authority as is necessary to enforce his claims. Our Northern rhetoric 
 calls the slave a thing. Southern laws do not make him such, any more 
 than our Northern laws make the indentured apprentice a thing ; in fact, 
 there is considerable analogy. The master has a claim to the service or 
 labor of his apprentice ; he has legal authority to enforce his claim by 
 corporal chastisement, and he derives his claim from the same source as 
 the Southern master — the law. 
 
 I am well aware that some Southern law books call the slave a chattel. 
 The phraseology is inaccurate. The slave is not a chattel in the common 
 law sense of the word ; though the claim to his service or labor may 
 perhaps be called a chattel interest. If we analyze Southern legislation, 
 we find that the property is only in the slave's service or labor, with lim- 
 ited powers over his person. In fact no human laws can give one man 
 unlimited powers over the person — which involves not only the body but 
 the whole moral responsibilities — of another man ; and the South has not 
 attempted it. The distinction, that slave property is in the service or labor, 
 not in the person, is not more refined than many we are accustomed to in 
 questions affecting rights. 
 
 My definition presents the abstract form of slavery, and my right to 
 place myself on so narrow ground will probably be questioned. I must 
 take into the argument, it will be said, all the consequences of giving one 
 man arbitrary powers over another. I am perfectly willing to do so as 
 soon as we can agree on those consequences; agree from the facts, I 
 mean; not the facts of "Uncle Tom's Cabin," or of sensation sermons, 
 or of campaign documents, but the facts of actual life. At present, I 
 fear, we are not ready for a case stated. In my belief, on the evidence — 
 partly my own observation, twenty-five years ago, for I have not been 
 south of the Potomac since— slaves are as well treated generally as 
 Northern apprentices; I even believe them to be better off, generally, 
 than our Northern free blacks — always excepting a few abolitionist pets. 
 I also believe their religious and moral condition not only vastly better 
 than if their race had remained in Africa, but, judging from the number 
 of professing Christians, as good comparatively as the rest of mankind. 
 You, my abolitionist friend, do not agree with me, of course ; for if you 
 did you could not be an abolitionist ; and you will refer me to your view 
 of the facts. All very well, when we have the evidence; but meanwhile 
 
10 SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE. 
 
 I must be allowed to stand on my own belief. Still there are some facts 
 which I am willing to concede. During my own visit to the South, I did 
 not see a single slave actually whipped, though I saw many who ought 
 to have been ; still I am willing to concede that individual cases of cruelty 
 — equal even to the treatment of " Uncle Tom " — have occurred in the 
 South. I believe it, not because you tell me so — for I do not believe any 
 of your facts could be verified satisfactorily to a Pennsylvanian jury — but 
 on the evidence of human nature. There must be mean men in the South 
 as well as elsewhere. In the North we are obliged occasionally to annul 
 indentures of apprenticeship on account of cruelty : I have done so my- 
 self judicially, even in Philadelphia ; and I am not willing to believe 
 Philadelphia masters worse than those of the South. Of course there is 
 cruelty in the South ; for men are of like passions there as everywhere. 
 I concede the individual cases of cruelty, but I believe them exceptions : 
 it would be just as unreasonable to condemn the whole class of Northern 
 masters from isolated instances of cruelty toward their apprentices, or 
 Northern parents generally, on the brutality of that father who kept his 
 child naked in an outhouse for several years, as to anathematize all slave- 
 holders because there may be among them one monster like Mrs. Stowe's 
 model villain. 
 
 While the facts remain as they are, disputed and unsettled, we must 
 discuss slaveholding in the abstract, if we have any logical discussion at 
 all. It is the attempt to argue from disputed facts which has made the 
 bitterness of this controversy. In truth, however, my definition covers 
 the whole ground. Slaveholding in the abstract, without reference to 
 local exigencies, or extenuating circumstances, is held up as a "gross vio- 
 lation of the most precious and sacred rights of human nature," and 
 " utterly inconsistent with the law of God." To meet and confute this 
 abstract denunciation involves the substance of the controversy. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT SANCTION. 
 SECTION I. 
 
 THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 " Slaveholding, so far from being prohibited, is actually sanctioned" 
 by the Bible. 
 
 So stands my first proposition. With rare unanimity the clergymen of 
 New England, who diflfer so widely on most points of scriptural reading, 
 have decided this point in the negative. The prima facie case being so 
 overwhelmingly against me, it is adventurous — presumptuous I might say 
 at once, for so " the sisters" will regard it — for a single layman to under- 
 take to reverse the decision. But I have known the judges of our courts, 
 who study the law as carefully as our clerical friends do the Gospel, to be 
 clearly mistaken; to own their mistakes; and even to correct them. 
 Whether " the cloth" have equal magnanimity — not being so well acquainted 
 with them as with my own profession — I cannot confidently say. I trust, 
 however, that St. Taul (2 Cor. iii. 15) was not hitting them over the 
 heads of the Jews. Being on clerical ground, however, where my foot- 
 steps are necessarily not so firm as in the neighborhood of the forum, I 
 shall principally let the Book itself argue the question. It is not pre- 
 sumption — in our Protestant land at least — for a layman to " search the 
 Scriptures;" nor to note down the passages he finds; nor, if he do not 
 understand the meaning himself, to ask his clerical friends ; nor in all 
 humility to mention his own opinions, even in respectful dissent from their 
 better knowledge. In this deferential way I begin with the Book of 
 Genesis. 
 
 The first passage of Genesis — and of the Bible, of course — which has 
 any reference to slavery, is Noah's curse of Canaan, the sou of Ham 
 (Gen. ix. 25) : 
 
 "And he said, cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be 
 unto his brethren." 
 
 Of course you "gentlemen of the cloth" know better than I do what 
 authority Noah had over the children of Ham. Judging from his words, 
 without reference to his authority, it looks very much like an intention to 
 
 (11) 
 
12 SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE 
 
 enslave that unfortunate race ; and, if the negroes belong to it, as some sup- 
 pose, accounts for that perpetual bondage which has always been their 
 lot. But, my clerical friends, what is your opinion of the passage ? 
 
 "It means," answers some representative D.D., "the national subjec- 
 tion of Canaan's posterity to the descendants of his brethren : I have 
 preached from the passage, and shown satisfactorily that this is the proper 
 construction. Of course it is. Slavery being inconsistent with the law 
 of God is certainly not referred to." 
 
 Excuse my interrupting you ; but assuming slavery to be inconsistent 
 with the laws of God, and proving the meaning of the passage from this 
 assumption, logicians would call a petitio principii ; it is logic we are 
 not used to at the bar ; in fact, my friend — with deference for your cleri- 
 cal habits — it is really not available out of the pulpit. Suppose we take 
 a more scholar-like course. You have a Hebrew Bible lying on your 
 table ; if you will allow me to trespass on the manor lands of the Church 
 so far as to dig after a Hebrew root, I will find the passage. The orig- 
 inal reads, ngabed ngabadim; excuse my poor pronunciation, but I 
 taught myself the Hebrew, in order to study more thoroughly the word 
 of God, and I know nothing about the pronunciation of the schools. Now 
 let me have your lexicon ; I see you have a Boston edition of Gese- 
 nius, and little faith as I have in Yankee school books generally, I accept 
 its authority. Let us read the definition : " ngabed, a servant who among 
 the Hebrews was also a slave, whether born in the house or bought with 
 money:" Ngabadim, being the plural of ngabed, the passage ought to 
 be translated, according to the Boston lexicon, "a slave of slaves." 
 
 " No, sir, never !" exclaims my D.D. somewhat warmly; "the patriarch 
 never meant slavery 1 never, sir I never 1 Such a construction is totally 
 irreconcilable with the benevolence of God ! Ha ! I thought not !" 
 Here my clerical friend brightens up. " Look further down the page ; 
 ngabed is also used in the complimentary address of subjects to their 
 prince, such as, I am your majesty's humble servant." 
 
 Excuse me again, my friend, but we are back once more to our old 
 assumption of premises. However, you are right in one respect ; ngabed 
 is sometimes used in a complimentary sense ; but, deferentially of course, 
 Noah's curse looks to me very little like paying compliments to the chil- 
 dren of Ham. On the whole, our understanding of the passage is so very 
 wide apart that there is one only point of harmony between us : it is not 
 a condemnation of slavery. 
 
 So ends my colloquy with the representative D.D. In fact, he has been 
 so long used to assumptions that he regards them as legitimate premises, 
 and is unwilling or unable to argue on any other footing. Still it is suffi- 
 cient for my present purpose, that in the earliest passage of the Bible, 
 
SLAVERY SANCTIONED RY TIli: III HI. K. 13 
 
 where slavery is mentioned, it is not proliil)itc(l. I may niM, however, to 
 my eriticisra on the word iK/dbrd, that it is transhitccl in the Septua^^nnt 
 oikeles, a house shive, so that the proper renderin<^ of the (Jrei*I< vcr-iiin 
 is, "a house slave of house slaves shall he be." 
 
 Tlie next reference to the subject which we find is the enumoratiun (jf 
 the pro})erty acquired I^y the patriarch Abraham in Kgypt ((Jen. xii. Ifi): 
 "And he [Abraham] had sheep, and oxen and he-asses, and inen-servanlH 
 and maidservants, and she-asses and camels." 
 
 Were the men-servants and maid-servants thus sceduled with the other 
 property of the patriarch, bondmen ? The word "had" of our En<,'li.sh 
 version implies possession. The original of " man-servants" is nrjahadim, 
 the plural of nyahed, which we have already defined ; of maid-servants, the 
 Hebrew is sliJphalcot, translated in the Se})tuagiut -Tzawi^xat, (paidiscai,) 
 and defined in the lexicons, female household slaves. No critic disputes 
 the meaning of either word : a philanthropist possibly may ; but witli a 
 philanthropist who is not a critic, there being no common ground on which 
 we can meet, I can have no argument. One point, however, even jjliilan- 
 thropy will concede : the passage certainly does not prohibit slavery ; and 
 this concession is all I ask at present. 
 
 Next in order is Genesis, xiv. 14, the rescue of Lot by his martial rela- 
 tive, the patriarch Abraham. 
 
 "And when Abraham heard that his brother was taken captive, he 
 armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and 
 eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan." 
 
 Who were these trained servants born in the patriarch's own house ? 
 Some philanthropists say subjects; others set them down as hired men. 
 Common sense, from the reading of the passage, says they were certainly 
 slaves, and philology and the lexicons agree with common sense. The 
 original words for "servants born in his own house" are translated 
 into one Greek word oixoysvsc!; (houseborn,) by the Septuagint, and 
 defined in the lexicons as vernos, houseborn slaves. The meaning of 
 the passage will not be disputed by any one acquainted with the words. 
 But even the all-powerful assumption that so good a man as Abraham 
 could not possibly have been a slaveholder, cannot construe this narrative 
 into a prohibition of slavery. 
 
 My next reference is to Abraham's circumcision of his household — 
 Genesis, xvii. 12. 
 
 "12. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, 
 every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or 
 bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed. 
 
 " 13. He that is born in thy house, aud he that is bought with thy 
 money, must needs be circumcised. 
 
14 SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE. 
 
 " 23. And Abraham took Ishmael, his son, and all that were born in 
 his house, and all that were bought with his money." 
 
 "All that were bought with his money" is certainly as significant of 
 slavery as the Anglo-Saxon could make it, and the Anglo-Saxon is a 
 faithful translation. How would you translate it, my clerical friend ? or, 
 if you are satisfied with the present version, how do you interpret it, so as 
 to avoid the conclusion that the patriarch bought his fellow -man with his 
 money? 
 
 The other passages of Genesis I shall refer to without comment, as 
 they are merely cumulation of evidence on a point already more than 
 sufficiently established. 
 
 " Now Sarai, Abraham's wife, bare him no children ; and she had a 
 handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar." — Genesis, xvi. 1. 
 
 Ch. xxi. " 9. And Sarah saw the sou of Hagar the Egyptian, which 
 she had born unto Abraham, mocking. 
 
 " 10. Wherefore she said unto Abraham, cast out this bondwoman and 
 her son: for the son of this bonchvoman shall not be heir with my son, 
 even with Isaac." — xxi. 10. The Apostle Paul also speaks of Hagar as a 
 bondwoman. 
 
 "And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house that ruled 
 over all that he had." — Gen. xxi v. 2. 
 
 After the days of Abraham, the next notice of slavery we find is in the 
 history of Jacob ; besides the mention of Zilpah and Bilhah as hand- 
 maidens, (Gen. 30,) it appears from a schedule that his property, like his 
 grandfather's, included men-servants and maid- servants. 
 
 "And the man (Jacob) increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, 
 and maid-servants and men-servants, and camels and asses." — Genesis, 
 XXX. 43. 
 
 The same enumeration is subsequently repeated, Gen. xxxii. 5. "And 
 I have oxen and asses, and flocks, and men-servants and women-servants." 
 
 The last reference to slavery which I find in the book is the case of 
 Joseph. 
 
 " Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen ; and they drew and 
 lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for 
 twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt." — Genesis, 
 xxxvii. 28. 
 
 Ch. xxxix. 1. "And Joseph was brought down to Egypt ; and Potiphar, 
 an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of 
 the hands of the Ishmaelites." 
 
 "5. And the Lord blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; 
 and the blessing of the Lord was on all that he had in the house and in 
 the field." 
 
SLAVERY SANCTIONKI) \l\ THK IMHI.K. 15 
 
 So much for the Book of Genesis, the startinj^^-point of our rolifrion. 
 There is not a word in condcinnation of shivery, aiiti there is inucli which 
 may fairly be construed as a sanction. 
 
 SEQTION II. 
 
 THE JEWISH COMMONWEALTH AS nEClDEni.T PRO-SLAVEIIV AS SOrTII CAIIOMNA. 
 
 After a thorough examination of tlio Book of Genesis, I proceed to the 
 other books of Moses, and to the rest of the Old Testament. Tlie pas- 
 sages which relate to slavery are principally, if not altogether connected 
 with the constitution and laws of the commonwealth of Israel. Slavery 
 was a "peculiar institution" of that commuuwealth, just as unquestion- 
 ably as it is of South Carolina or Yirginia. This fact, of course well 
 known to our clerical friends, completely nullifies the inferences against 
 slavery which some of them are so fond of drawing from the deliverance 
 of the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage. My proof of the fact is the 
 slave law itself. (Lcvit. xxv. 44.) 
 
 " 44. Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have, 
 shall be of the heathen, which are round about you ; of them shall ye buy 
 bondmen and bondmaids. 
 
 " 45. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among 
 you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which 
 they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 
 
 "46. And ye shall take them as an inheritance, for your children after 
 you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever : 
 but over your brethern, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule, one over 
 another, with rigor." 
 
 I shall not ask you, my clerical friend, to preach from these verses, but 
 I shall ask you to point me to any laws of our Southern States, which 
 more unequivocally establish slavery. 
 
 In addition to the laws, which made strangers and heathen the "bond- 
 men forever" of the Israelites, and the "inheritance" of their children, 
 the legislation of Moses went a step further ; a step further even than any 
 of our slaveholding States. Under certain circumstances which are laid 
 down, the Jews are allowed to hold as slaves their own brethren of the 
 Israelitish race : a condition of servitude common enough in ancient 
 times, and in Africa now, but unknown among us. This legislatioa we 
 find in the Book of Exodus. (Ex. xxi.) 
 
 " 2. If thou buy a Ilebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and in 
 the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 
 
 " 3. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself : if he were 
 married, then his wife shall go out with him. 
 
 "4. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons 
 
16 SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE. 
 
 or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall 
 go out by himself. 
 
 " 5. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife and 
 my children, I will not go out free, 
 
 "6. Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also 
 bring him to the door or unto the door post : and his master shall bore 
 his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him forever." 
 
 This passage, is, of course, familiar to my clerical friend ; perhaps his 
 ingenuity has before now interpreted it into a prohibition of slavery ; but 
 if he can point me to as harsh a phase of slavery in any regions of the 
 South, I will surrender my case at discretion. 
 
 In the Books of Exodus and Leviticus, there are so many passages 
 referring to slavery, and legislating for it as an established institution, 
 that to quote them all would be idle cumulation. There are some, how- 
 ever, which my subject requires me to cite. Leviticus (xxv. 39-40) 
 shows how well the distinction between bondmen and hired servants was 
 understood in the Israelitish community : — ■ 
 
 " 39. And if thy brother, .that dwelleth by thee, be waxen poor, and be 
 sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant, 
 
 " 40. But as a hired servant, and as a sojourner he shall be with thee, 
 and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee." 
 
 In another verse of the same chapter, we find an additional recogni- 
 tion of the distinct condition of the hired servant: — 
 
 " 53. And as a yearly hired servant shall he be with him, and the 
 other shall not rule with rigor over him in thy sight." 
 
 This passage refers to the case of an impoverished Israelite selling 
 himself to a rich "sojourner or stranger;" who could not hold the 
 Israelite in perpetual servitude, but only as a hired servant until the year 
 of jubilee. 
 
 In the Book of Exodus (chap. xxi. 20) we have legislation on the 
 power of chastisement which the Jewish master might exercise over his 
 heathen bondman ; more conformable to the rigor of ancient servitude, 
 and more extensive than any now allowed. 
 
 " 20. And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he 
 die under his hand ; he shall surely be punished. 
 
 " 21. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be 
 punished ; for he is his money." 
 
 None of the laws of our Southern States exempt a master from punish- 
 ment under similar circumstances. The reason also which is given for 
 the exemption will, I fear, shock not a little our Northern sensibilities ; 
 "for he is his money;" stronger certainly than calling a man a chattel ; 
 so strong, indeed, that I must remind our philanthropists that the expres- 
 
SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BinLE. 17 
 
 sion is not mine, and ask them to visit Moses ami not me with their "just 
 indignation." 
 
 In the same chapter of Exodus (xxi. 10) we find tlie law against "steal- 
 ing a man;" which shows how full the Jewish legislation on slavery was. 
 
 " 16. And he that stealeth a man, and sclleth him, or if he l)f found in 
 his hand, he shall surely be put to death." 
 
 The best illustration of the utter poverty of antislavery logic I can 
 point to, is the curious fact that this passage is the main scriptural 
 authority which is cited against slavery. So far from being against 
 slavery, it shows clearly its legal existence in the Jewish CDmmuiiity ; for 
 if property in slaves had not been recognized, the prohil)itiiig the "steal- 
 ing a man " would have been very useless legislation. You cannot steal 
 a man, so that he be found in your hand in Pennsylvania ; in a slave 
 State you may. If, therefore, the other Jewish laws, which I have quoted, 
 ■were swept away, this provision would be sufficient for my argument. 
 
 To complete my digest of the Mosaic legislation on slavery, I shall 
 mention only the law prohibiting the rendition of bondmen who escape 
 within the borders of Israel from the surrounding nations. (Deuteronomy, 
 xxiii. 15.) 
 
 "15. Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant who is 
 escaped from his master unto thee. 
 
 " 16. He shall dwell with thee, even among you in that place which 
 he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best : thou shalt 
 not oppress him." 
 
 This passage has been the text of thousands of sermons against the 
 fugitive slave laws, and is probably the foundation of tliat erroneous 
 Northern conscience which appeals to "the higher law" against the ren- 
 dition clauses of the Constitution. If the higher law has no better 
 foundation than this, it is certainly built on the sand, and some day, great 
 ■will be its fall. 
 
 The passage refers to bondmen who escape from masters in surround- 
 ing nations ; otherwise it is in conflict with those laws which I have cited, 
 as well as with the settled historical facts of Jewish history. If it referred 
 to Jewish masters— if a servant who escaped from his Jewish master 
 became virtually free— bondmen would have been a very unprofitable 
 "possession," and a very mean "inheritance;" and the Jews would not 
 have remained, as they undeniably were, always slaveholders. No one 
 can read the sixteenth verse carefully without acknowledging that the 
 "thee, even among you," and the "one of thy gates, where it liketh him 
 best," refer to the Jewish people and not to an individual. On the whole, 
 if this is the text of the " higher law," our Northern conscience is a 
 baseless fabric ; as long as the Union continues, at all events, and we re- 
 main one nation. 
 
18 SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE. 
 
 I have but one point left in connection with the Jewish commonwealth, 
 the Decalogue. That great code itself contai-us a recognition of prop- 
 erty in slaves. (Exodus, xx.) 
 
 "10. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord: in it thou 
 shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man- 
 servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is 
 within thy gates. 
 
 " n. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet 
 thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his 
 ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's." 
 
 You have read these commandments a thousand times, I presume ; but 
 has it ever struck you, my clerical friend, that thy neighbor's man-servant 
 and maid-servant are enumerated as his property ? If not, the vail has 
 been on your heart, while you were reading the very moral code which it 
 is your business to teach. You will take, perhaps, the old ground, that 
 the maid-servant and man-servant mean hired servants. The original 
 Hebrew is the same word ngabed which we have already examined ; you 
 know better than I do — at least it is your business to know better than I, 
 a mere lawyer — that there is another Hebrew word for hired servant. 
 
 The recognition which the Decalogue makes of property in slaves, I am 
 using now merely as cumulative evidence to show the pro-slavery charac- 
 ter of the Jewish commonwealth. This is all the present stage of my 
 argument requires. Hereafter perhaps, if I judge it necessary, I shall 
 refer to these commandments as the moral code of all generations of men, 
 as binding on us now as on the people of Israel — a position my clerical 
 friend will not dispute — and their sanction of slavery as a just foundation 
 for modern conscience, and a just rule of modern morality. 
 
 There is nothing in the Old Testament contradictory of what I have 
 cited, and additional references would overload, without strengthening my 
 argument. No evidence would establish more conclusively than I have 
 already done, that there is no prohibition of slavery. Next, it is equally 
 clear, that the man who stands in high moral r.elief among the men of 
 those early generations — the "father of the faithful," in whose seed all the 
 nations of the earth were to be blessed — was a slaveholder; and that the 
 institutions of God's chosen people were pro-slavery. To the extent of 
 the ground which the Old Testament covers, I have now a right to say, 
 that my proposition is sustained, and that the Bible sanctions slavery. 
 This is all I claim at present. I do not claim the defective institutions of 
 the Jews — to whom so much was conceded on account of the "hardness 
 of their hearts" — as modern standards. But whenever in the slavery 
 controversy any reference to the Old Testament is made, I have a right to 
 the vantage ground of having shown it to be unequivocally pro-slavery. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 SECTION I. 
 
 NO EXPRESS rROnilllTlON OF SI.AVKRY. 
 
 Up to the point we have now reached, there has been properly nothing 
 to discuss. It has been a trial by the record ; and the record which I have 
 produced shows conclusively that the law of God, as far as the Old Testa- 
 ment legislation goes, does not prohibit slavery. There is no getting over 
 the clear language of Moses, unless we are in the condition of those 
 spoken of by the Apostle, (2 Cor. iii. 15,) "Even unto this day when 
 Moses is read the vail is on their heart;" or unless, like the infidel 
 sophists, who are the only consistent antislavery logicians, we repudiate 
 his authority altogether. 
 
 But now we are on debatable ground. The position of shivery under 
 the Gospel dispensation is not so clear that much cannot be said on both 
 sides. There is room for difference of opinion, which cannot be said in 
 reference to the Old Testament, but at the same time the weight of the 
 argument seems to me vastly in favor of my proposition. 
 
 As a first point, I take the position that the moral code of the New 
 Testament contains no express prohibition of slaveholding. I do not 
 think this position will be disputed. If there is any such law, I cannot 
 find it; and if you, my clerical friend, will find it for me, I will haul down 
 my flag and turn abolitionist. I have before me now a resolution of 
 some ecclesiastical body — General Assembly, or Presbytery — which em- 
 bodies so fully the aspect of the question, as I find it among antislavery 
 Christians, that I extract it as evidence that no such positive law is 
 claimed to exist. 
 
 "We consider the voluntary enslaving of one part of the human race 
 by another as a gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights of 
 human nature, as utterly inconsistent with the law of God, which requires 
 us to love our neighbor as ourself, and as totally irreconcilable witii the 
 spirit and principle of the Gospel of Christ, which enjoins, that all things 
 that ye would that men should do to you do ye even so to them." 
 
 In this exposition of antislavery Christianity, the law of God, which 
 
 2 (19) 
 
20 SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE. 
 
 slaveholding is said to be inconsistent with, is the precept "to love our 
 neighbor as ourself." The founding an inferential condemnation on this 
 general precept, is a concession that no specific law against slavery exists. 
 Such is certainly the case. The opponents of slavery are obliged to de- 
 pend exclusively on what the above resolution calls "the spirit and prin- 
 ciple of the Gospel of Christ." How utterly fallacious that dependence 
 is — how perfectly inapplicable those general precepts are — I shall show- 
 hereafter. At present I ask attention to the important fact, that slavery 
 is not expressly prohibited by the legislation of Christ. 
 
 My clerical friends know better than I — is it not their proper business ? 
 — that the moral laws of the New Testament are full and definite. Mur- 
 der, and theft, and perjury, and fornication, and hypocrisy, and countless 
 other moral offenses, down to grades as light as "evil speaking one of 
 another," are expressly prohibited by the lips of the Divine Lawgiver, or 
 the pens of his inspired representatives. None of those offenses are left 
 to the vague jurisdiction of "the spirit and principle of the Gospel of 
 Christ." To place slaveholding on that footing is totally irreconcilable 
 with the whole character of the Gospel code ; especially if it be I'egarded, 
 in the lurid light of abolitionism, as a combination of murder and many 
 other henious offenses. For my part, if I thought as badly of slavehold- 
 ing as some of my clerical friends do, and could find no express prohibi- 
 tion of it in the Cible, I would renounce the moral code of the book and 
 go over straight into the infidel camp. But, my learned friends, with all 
 deference to your biblical studies, I must tell you frankly, you have mis- 
 taken the character of scriptural legislation. 
 
 When we consider, that slavery was an institution of the Jewish nation, 
 established by Moses, recognized in the Decalogue, handed down through 
 all the changeful fortunes of their national history, in full vigor at the 
 coming of our Saviour, it is impossible to believe that he would not have 
 prohibited it expressly, if he had regarded it as you do. However, these 
 considerations belong properly to a future stage of my argument. All I 
 wish at present to lay down is, that there is nowhere in the New Testa- 
 ment an express prohibition of slavery. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 "THE SPIRIT AND PRINCIPLE OF THE GOSPEL." 
 
 It being settled — conceded, I may say — that there is no express pro- 
 hibition of slavery in the New Testament, and that the prohibition, if any, 
 is by "the spirit and principle of the Gospel of Christ," our next step is 
 to define that " spirit and principle." Terms so general and indefinite can 
 not profitably be used in any discussion which has certainty and truth for 
 its object. 
 
SLAVERY SANCTIONED IIV TIIK BIIILB. 21 
 
 In my clerical antislavcry resolution I find a (Icscription wliirh I am 
 willinf^ to accept as a definition : "The spirit and principle of the (JoHpel 
 of Christ, which enjoin 'that all thinf^s which ye would that men should 
 do to you, do ye even so unto them,'" if extended to inchidc tlie other 
 precepts of the Sermon on the Mount — and of course my clerical friends 
 do not object — it will place tlie legislation which is called "the Spirit of 
 the Gospel" on definite ground. 
 
 Those exalted precepts of ITim " who spake as never man spake" may 
 be called the laws of the kingdom of (Mirist; which he says is "not of this 
 world," and which necessarily implies legislation not for the things of this 
 world. Moses, Lyeurgus, and Justinian legislate for the outward actions 
 of men ; Christ for the feelings and impulses, and for "the thought of the 
 heart." He does not repeal their laws — those against theft, murder, and 
 other ordinary crimes — for he did not come "to destroy but to fulfill," 
 and he fulfills by rendering unnecessary — unnecessary because his sublime 
 legislation, literally carried out by all men, would render all other laws 
 superfluous. If every man loved his neighbor as himself, and did to other 
 men what he would have them do to him, all the ends of human laws and 
 human government would be answered without legislatures, courts, or 
 magistrates. Truly the sublime legislation of Christ does not destroy, 
 but fulfills the law and the prophets. 
 
 The laws of the kingdom of Christ are not among "the things which 
 are Ccesar's." Those laws cannot be administered by human hands; and 
 the attempt, whether by Spanish inquisitor or New England clergy- 
 man, while it usurps Christ's prerogatives, violates man's " most sacred 
 and inalienable rights." The only earthly jurisdiction is the individual's 
 own conscience. In fact, even if the right existed, those laws could be 
 administefed practically in no other forum. For illustration, consider the 
 law: "All things Avhatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do 
 ye even so to them." No one but the individual himself can apply it to 
 the practical duties of life, because no one else can know what he would 
 that others should do to him. We, who are outside of his feelings and 
 thoughts, may imagine and conjecture what he would have others do, but 
 it would, after all, be only our vague conjecture. So of the other great 
 law : "Love your neighbor as yourself," we may infer what love for one's 
 self would lead another tliau ourselves to do, but we can have no cer- 
 tainty : for instance, we might infer that it would prevent a man from 
 taking another's life, and yet in the case of a man bent on suicide, the 
 inference would lead astray. However, I do not think this point will be 
 disputed at the present day ; at least until we are prepared for the inquisi- 
 tion and other means of sustaining the kingdom of Christ by external 
 coercion. 
 
22 SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE. 
 
 My next point is that these elevated precepts or laws stand on peculiar 
 ground. They were primarily enacted for the moral government of those 
 persons who are called from darkness unto light, who are born again from 
 above, ("ye must be born from above,") who have new hearts given 
 them, (" a new heart will I give you,") and who are the proper citizens 
 of the kingdom of Christ. But they seem too elevated even for them : 
 one might almost say they were enacted for man in a more advanced state ; 
 either the millennium on earth or that hereafter, which is the inheritance 
 of the "blessed made perfect." Certain it is, at present, even those that 
 profess to love Christ do not live up to these his peculiar laws. This is 
 my next point. 
 
 It is an unfortunate truth, my clerical friend, that none of us, not even 
 yourself, T am afraid, live up to these laws, which form "the spirit and 
 principle of the Gospel of Christ." For myself, I make the confession 
 sorrowfully but in sober truth : I confess I do not love my neighbor as 
 myself; if I did, I would follow the construction put on this law in the 
 days of the. Apostles: "For as many as were possessors of lands and 
 houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold 
 and laid them down at the Apostles' feet; and distribution was made to 
 every man according as he had need." I confess I do not obey that 
 other great law : "Resist not evil ; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy 
 right cheek, turn to him the other also." My conscience allows me to 
 defend myself against evil men, to the extent even of the death of an 
 assailant, or of half a dozen assailants — their blood be on their own 
 heads. There are so many of these laws, however, which I do not live up 
 to, that I omit the recapitulation. So much for my confession. Now 
 for yours, my clerical friend. Read over the Sermon on the Mount, and 
 answer faithfully, how many of those sublime precepts you fairly keep : 
 one-half? one-fourth? If one-fourth, I shall stand rebuked before you 
 and humbly own that your "manner of living is more reconcilable than 
 mine, with the spirit and principle of the Gospel of Christ." May God 
 in his grace enable us to keep all these his commandments ; but our chance 
 of heaven will be poor indeed if it depend on our present obedience. 
 " Oh wretched man that I am," says St. Paul, "who shall deliver me from 
 the body of this death I" 
 
 If these principles are sound, they reverse our clerical condemnation 
 of slavery. It is not for New England clergyman or infidel sophist to 
 decide that any man's act — slaveholding even — admittedly not condemned 
 by any express law of Scripture, is "totally irreconcilable with the 
 spirit and principle of the Gospel of Christ:" that decision is for his 
 own conscience : " who art thou who judgest another man's servant ?" 
 To apply the law of God, "Love your neighbor as yourselves," to any- 
 
SLAVERY SANCTIONKD BY TlIK 1!I1U.^:. 23 
 
 body's case l)nt one's own, is a " p;ross vidlatidii <if the most saortMl arnl 
 precious riglits of human nature" — the rights of conscience. It is tho 
 same principle exactly which influenced the inquisition ; and which, begin- 
 ning on the hope to save men's souls, ended with tlic Imniing of their 
 bodies at the stake. In like manner the elVort to coerce sliivdioMcrs to 
 love their neighbors as themselves, may end in bringing the horrors of 
 St. Domingo on "Virginia and Carolina. 
 
 Again, the "spirit and principle of the Gospel of Christ," is not lived 
 up to generally; not even, I venture to say, by the gentleman who wrote 
 the very resolution I have quoted; certainly was not l)y St. Paul — I have 
 his own authority for saying so. If not generally lived up to, if all of 
 us fall short in so many particulars, if none of us — not even our clerical 
 friends — love our neighbors as ourselves, why do we make slavcholding 
 an exception ? Why do we require of slaveholders a stricter ol)edience 
 than we ourselves yield? On our Saviour's rule — let him among you 
 who is without sin cast the first stone — if slaveholders are to wait until 
 some one who loves his neighbor as himself can be found to begin, their 
 condemnation will be sufficiently long postponed. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 AT.L THINGS WHATSOEVER YE WOULD THAT MEN SHOtT.n PO fNTO YOr PO VE EVEX «0 
 
 U.VTO THEM. 
 
 The considerations I have already presented are sufficient for my argu- 
 ment; yet a special examination of this memorable prcce[)t will cover the 
 ground more completely. In fact, the preceiit involves the very sub'^tance 
 of the supposed prohibition of slavery by "the spirit and principle of 
 the Gospel of Christ." If we would not wish to be bondmen of others, 
 we ought not hold other men in bondage. 
 
 By this broad construction, the precept certainly decides the slavery 
 question — and much more. It decides that no citizen can enforce a private 
 right, nor public officer execute an official duty, by compulsory means. A 
 judge is estopped in a case before him by the consideration that changing 
 places with the losing party he would not like a decision against himself; 
 the sheriif is in a similar predicament when he undertakes to arrest a 
 criminal ; and so every other public functionary. In fi\ct, this broad con- 
 struction supersedes legislatures, courts, and magistrates, and inaugurates 
 the millennium; millennium rules for good men, while the bad still live 
 under the code of Pandemonium. We are not yet quite prcpare<l f.-r 
 the "good time coming," when "the lion shall lie down with the laml), 
 and a child shall lead them;" when war and despotism, and slavcholding 
 even shall cease; wlien men will need no government, but the rule of 
 
24 SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE. 
 
 their own conscience. The absurdities to which the antislavery con- 
 struction of this precept necessarily leads, confirm — prove a jjosteriori I 
 may say — the soundness of the views I presented in my last section. 
 But enough has been said ; a construction which abolishes slavery, by 
 abolishing all law and all government, confutes itself. 
 
 The fact is — I am sorry to be obliged to say it, and I say it with great 
 deference — the views of our clerical friends on "the spirit and principle of 
 the Gospel of Christ" are exceedingly crude. Unless we confine those 
 spiritual laws to spiritual matters, and allow the administration exclusively 
 to the individual conscience, we place them in antagonism with human 
 government and make' them inconsistent with rights under human laws. 
 For illustration: "Love your neighbor as yourself," when not left to a 
 man's own conscience, is in collision with his right of property ; though 
 on this point the practice of "the cloth " is better than the theories; 
 few, if any being especially willing to divide surplus good things among 
 poorer neighbors. However, I recommend — if a layman's recommenda- 
 tion counts anything in such matters — as a part of the regular theologi- 
 cal course, a more thorough study of the whole subject from the Saviour's 
 command, "Render unto Ctesar the things that are Caesar's;" to St. 
 Paul's dictum, "The powers that be are ordained of God." Meanwhile — 
 that is, until our clerical friends become better acquainted with the question 
 than they are now — I lay down a proposition to guide them clear of absurdi- 
 ties ; the duties enjoined by " the spirit and principle of the Gospel of Christ " 
 are not inconsistent with rights vested under human laws, nor with the 
 duties imposed by human government, unless in extreme cases, where 
 human laws are violations of the clear, that is, the express laws of God. 
 The application of this principle to slaveholding carries us back to our 
 first question, whether or not it is expressly prohibited. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT SANCTIONS SLAVERY. 
 
 I have but one link more in the argument on my first proposition. I 
 have shown, incontrovertibly, that slavery was an institution of the com- 
 monwealth of Israel ; I have also shown, virtually by antislavery con- 
 cession, that there is no express prohibition in the New Testament. In 
 reference to the supposed condemnation of slavery by "the spirit and 
 principle of the Gospel of Christ," I have shown that the principle in- 
 voked is theoretically inapplicable to the question; is practically not 
 the standard of our ordinary morality; and if applied by any other author- 
 ity than a man's own conscience, begins with absurdity and ends with sub- 
 
SLAVERY SANCTION i:i) I',Y TIIK III III, K. 25 
 
 version of law and f^overnmeiit. Tliis la-^l position wi!l Ix' Htreiif^tliciied 
 by my argument on the next ]ioint; for wliutever shows that shivery is 
 sanctioned by the New Testament, also shows that it is not irn-cfincihihle 
 with "the spirit and principle of the Gospel of Clirist." 
 
 In weUling my last link, the first stroke — not a heavy one, I frankly 
 admit — is the reticence of the Saviour himself. 
 
 In his day slavery prevailed so universally that, as far as we know from 
 history, there was not a single nation of the earth which did not hold 
 slaves. The Jews, his countrymen after the flesh, availing thcinscivea 
 fully of their legal privileges, held numerous l)ondmen. TIk; Koinans, 
 the sovereigns of Judea and of the civilized world, were slaveliolders on 
 a scale which has never been rivaled. Slavery at that period was much 
 more barbarous than now. The Jewish master possessed almost the 
 powers of life and death. The Roman possessed them fully in the days 
 of the republic, and even under the more rigid government of the empire 
 was seldom limited except in such terrible cases as that of the epicure 
 who was punished for feeding his carp with the bodies of his slaves. 
 
 If slavery, at the present day, is "a gross violation of the most sacred 
 and precious rights of human nature, utterly inconsistent with the law of 
 God, totally irreconcilable with the spirit and principle of the Gosjiel," 
 much more was it all this in the days of the Divine Lawgiver himself; if 
 denunciation of slaveholding is a moral duty now, much more was it then. 
 But the Saviour does not denounce it. If a single word of the simi)lest 
 condemnation, much less denunciation, can be found in the four gospels, I 
 will join the crusade against slavery. That is a fair offer, certainly. Will 
 you, my clerical friend, take issue with me, and if you cannot find any 
 denunciation, let slavery alone? If this fair settlement of the question 
 involves the mortification of owning yourself to have been in the wrong, 
 and is more than I have a right to ask even from a minister of the Gospel 
 of peace, I may certainly ask some explanation of the reticence itself. 
 Why did not the Saviour condemn slavery ? Answer satisfactorily, or I 
 may certainly ask you, in the present disastrous times, when agitation of 
 the subject is plunging our country into civil war, not to make a point of 
 conscience of not following his example. Meanwhile I hold up his reti- 
 cence as an inferential sanction. 
 
 This sanction of slavery, inferable from the silent consent of the Divine 
 Lawgiver, I do not press as far as I am entitled to, because there is no 
 necessity. The positive sanction is too clear. If the Apostle Paul knew 
 "the mind and will of Christ," there can be no doubt. His exposition of 
 "the spirit and principle of the Gospel" is so decided as to leave my 
 clerical friends no resource but to class him, along with myself, as a 
 "Northern dough-face." 
 
26 SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE. 
 
 As a starting-point, I cite the Apostle's code of reciprocal duties for 
 masters and slaves, as we may fairly call it, which is found in chapter 
 sixth of Ephesians. 
 
 " 5. Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to 
 the flesh, with fear and trembling in singleness of your heart as unto 
 Christ. 
 
 " 6. Not with eye service as men-pleasers, but as servants of Christ 
 doing the will of God from the heart. 
 
 "7. With good will doing service as to the Lord and not to men. 
 
 " 8. Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall 
 he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. 
 
 "9. And ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threat- 
 ening : knowing that your master also is in heaven, neither is there any 
 respect of person with him." 
 
 In the Epistle to Titus, (ii. 9,) we find some additional laws: 
 
 " 9. Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to 
 please them well in all things; not answering again; 
 
 " 10. Not purloining, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adoin 
 the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things." 
 
 If this short but complete code of the reciprocal duties of masters and 
 servants is not a sanction of slavery, I know not what can be called so. 
 The only door of escape is the assumption — a most unwarrantable one, 
 without any philological basis whatever — that the "servants" (o^ douloi) 
 are hired persons, and not bondmen. The resorting to such an argument 
 only shows the barrenness of the antislavery field. The mere reading 
 of the passage, especially the apposition of "bond" to "free," in the ninth 
 verse, negatives the supposition. But the meaning of the word Anuooa 
 is not doubtful. It always means slave, or bondman, or something which 
 implies a servile condition. The Helots were the douloi of the Spartans, 
 and there is the same reason for applying the term "hired persons" to 
 them as to the servants addressed by the Apostle. The word for hired 
 person is misthotes {/M/rOiorsg), as we find in the parable of the prodigal 
 son — "Make me as a hired servant." 
 
 In 1 Corinthians we have another exposition of the moral duties of 
 bondmen. (Chap. vii. 21, etc.) 
 
 "21. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou 
 mayest be made free, use it rather. 
 
 "22. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's 
 freeman : likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. 
 
 " 23. Ye are bought with a price : be not ye the servants of men." 
 
 "If thou mayest be made free, use it," says the Apostle. Our clerical 
 friends would announce, in the words of their resolution, thy master's claim 
 
SLAVERY SANCTIONED BV THE llini.E. 27 
 
 is "a gross violation of the most sacred and precions rights of human 
 nature, and inconsistent with tlie hnv of Gnd;"' than art free of course. 
 
 In the First Epistle to Timothy we have another exprtssion of the 
 Apostle's views. (1 Tim. vi. 1.) 
 
 "1. Let as many servants (douloi) as are under the yoke count tlieir 
 own masters as wortliy of all honor, that the name of (iod and his doc- 
 trine be not blasphemed. 
 
 " 2. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, 
 because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are 
 faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and 
 exhort. 
 
 " 3. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, 
 even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is 
 according to godliness ; 
 
 " 4. He is proud, knowing nothing." * * * 
 
 I do hope, my clerical friend, this passage is not in your copy of the 
 Testament. If it is, you do not consult the book as much as you ought, 
 or you would have seen it ; and certainly would have ended all fellowship 
 with the Apostle of the Gentiles. Xot only does he recommend "ser- 
 vants under the yoke" "to honor their masters," but he says that those 
 "who teach otherwise" — meaning you, my friend — "do not consent to the 
 words of our Lord Jesus Christ," and "are proud, knowing nothing." 
 After this you certainly would not admit the "dough-face" Apostle into 
 your pulpit. 
 
 With these passages of the Scripture — and others which might be 
 cited — all so clear and conclusive, staring them full in the face, it is one 
 of the curiosities of ecclesiastical literature that our clerical friends could 
 pronounce slavery "utterly irreconcilable with the spirit and principle of 
 the Gospel of Christ." The only plausible supposition is, that by some 
 confusion of identity they have mistaken themselves for the other division 
 of the antislavery army, that which marches under the infidel flag. 
 
 With an apology to one portion of my readers for overloading my 
 evidence, and a disclaimer of any wish to satisfy that other portion, who, 
 like the brethren of Dives, would not be convinced "though one should 
 rise from the dead," I shall end my references with the Epistle to Phile- 
 mon. I mean the whole Epistle, which I recommend, you to read care- 
 fully ; that is, unless you "search the Scriptures" only to confirm yourself 
 in your antislavery prejudices ; in which case, do not read it at all. 
 
 If it is possible to express facts clearly in words, it is clear : first, that 
 Onesimus was a slave, (doulos;) second, that he had fled from his mas- 
 ter, Philemon, but his views of duty being changed by his conversion, 
 that he was now willing to return ; third, that the Apostle, instead of 
 
28 SLAVERY" SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE. 
 
 considering the relation of master and slave as void, and aiding or even 
 advising the slave to escape, actually sent him back to his owner. With 
 such a case as this against you, my clerical friend, I will not press the 
 argument; I even offer you my condolence. Consider me as condoling 
 with you on your having to admit that the antislavery Christianity, which 
 you have been teaching for years, is "not according to godliness." 
 
 And now I close the argument on my first proposition. What say you, 
 gentlemen of the New England pulpit, is my proposition sustained ? If you 
 decide against me, I must appeal to the common sense of the lay community. 
 But let me tell you, gentlemen, you are damaging the authority of the 
 word of God itself when you interpret it, not on its obvious meaning, 
 but according to your assumptions of its supposed spirit and principle. 
 If you can construe the Bible into condemnation of slavery, you can con- 
 strue it to condemn any institution and any principles, and into any mean- 
 ing. But you are treading on dangerous ground. You are destroying 
 all certainty in the interpretation of Scripture. You are giving up to 
 the infidel sophists, your natural enemies, though at present your tempo- 
 rary allies, the very key of your position, which hereafter they will use 
 against you and all Christian believers. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 SLAVERY, A PHASE OF GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Before I leave the religious part of my subject I must answer tlie 
 question, why our Divine Lawgiver did not legislate on slavery. He an- 
 swers it himself when he says, "My kingdom is not of this world." His 
 legislation is moral and spiritual. His laws regulate our moral relations 
 with one another and our spiritual relations with himself He came on 
 earth to deliver us from the bondage of sin; to purify the impulses and 
 thoughts of the heart ; to elevate us, and render us fit to associate here- 
 after with the "just made perfect." 
 
 Forms of government — rights of person and property — regulation of the 
 legal rights and duties of husband and wife, parent and child, master and 
 servant — fell not within the scope, and are not the objects, of his legisla- 
 tion. He has prescribed no form of government, and he has proscribed 
 none. In his day, through the unjust laws of coiupiest, the Jews were 
 the subjects of the grand old Roman Empire, and the empire itself was 
 ruled unrighteously by imperial tyrants ; yet there is not a word of ob- 
 jection to that twofold despotism; and the memorable "Render unto 
 Csesar the things that are Ccesar's" even recognizes its sovereignty. 
 
 The absence of laws on these points in the New Testament legislation 
 is an illustration, if not an evidence, of its divine origin. The ^fosaic 
 laws, enacted for a single race, under peculiar circumstances, regulate the 
 political and social relations of men. The laws of Christ, designed for 
 all the races of men, under every variety of circumstance and every con- 
 dition of civilization, leave it to men themselves to adopt such institutions 
 as their various circumstances demand. With one race, utterly incapable 
 of self-government, despotism may be a necessity ; another may be capa- 
 ble of semi-self-government, and resort to constitutional monarchy; 
 another may be civilized enough, or adventurous enough, for a republic. 
 
 Nor does the omission of political objects render the legislation of 
 Christ in any respect defective. While he prescribes no forms of govern- 
 ment, his precepts prescribe moral duties on those who administer every 
 form ; while he organizes no domestic institutions, " the spirit and prin- 
 ciple 'of the gospel of Christ" extend to all, and regulate the duties of 
 all Slavery stands on the same moral ground as the rest ; not prohibited, 
 
 (29) 
 
30 SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE. 
 
 not established, but regulated. The development of this idea completes 
 what I have to say on the scriptural aspects of my question. 
 
 Analysis of slavery shows, that it is a phase of government; a phase of 
 government adapted to the special case of different races intermingled 
 together ; one capable of self-government, the other not. Such is the 
 position of our Southern States. The African race — if there is any faith 
 in the historical experience that a constitutional monarchy, much more a 
 republic, has always been above its civilization — is utterly incapable of 
 self-government. "Whether they are the children of Ham or not, the 
 curse of Noah has always been on them, and " servants of servants" 
 always have they literally been. Judging from fact and history, and not 
 from theoretic assumptions of what is supposed to be the benevolence of 
 God — but which is really the vain imagination of man — despotism and 
 slavery seem the normal condition of the negro race. At all events, their 
 present habits certainly do not practically fit them for self-government. 
 Such a race, in a country of their own, left to themselves, are necessarily 
 not freemen, and in our Anglo-Saxon community, allowing them political 
 privileges, at the best impairs, and when they are superior in numbers, 
 inevitably subverts, republican institutions. The great law of necessity — 
 which justifies despotic powers of government in preference to anarchy — 
 justifies the domestic institutions of the South, and places them, philo- 
 sophically, on the same moral platform with kings and parliaments, and 
 constitutional sovereigns generally. 
 
 The fact is to be remembered, however, though we men of the North 
 often lose sight of it, that we ourselves have settled the main points of 
 the slavery question on Southern principles. The political servitude of 
 the negro race is as complete in Pennsylvania, where the constitution 
 acknowledges none but free white citizens, as it is in Virginia. If the 
 negro's right of making the laws which govern him, is one of those 
 " most precious and sacred rights of human nature," which slavery grossly 
 violates, our own constitution is as inconsistent with the law of God as 
 those of the Southern States. In addition to our legislation, the South 
 only denies certain industrial and social rights, important undoubtedly, 
 but as mere rights entirely subordinate and secondary. 
 
 If it is conceded, or proved, that men have a moral right to adopt such 
 forms of government and such subordinate domestic institutions as their 
 necessities require, my moral question is settled. Slaveholding is a modi- 
 fication of that patriarchal government which was the earliest form, and 
 probably universal until the days of Nimrod, that hunter of men ; that 
 form which the Roman commonwealth recognized in the power of life and 
 death it allowed the paterfamilias ; which still survives in the limited 
 household powers of fathers over children, and in this form underlies all 
 the law and order of modern society. There is the same moral warrant 
 
SLAVKRY SANCTIiiNKI) IJV TIIK lUIII.K. 31 
 
 for tlic power of the master iis lliero is for that of tlic father over his 
 grown-up sons, whoso actions and imlustrial rights he controls : hoth are 
 given by laws founded on the same necessity. There is the same moral 
 warrant for slaveholding as there is for the non-representative powers 
 of czar, king, or peer. When necessity inaugurates those jtowers, to 
 treat them as a violation of the laws of (Jod, is to canonize anarcliy and 
 barbarism. Slavery itself, so far from being what the vain sophists of 
 New England call it, a barbarous institution, is the best means of bring- 
 ing barbarians under the blessed influences of civilization. 
 
 The true moral responsibility is in the exercise of those powers. King, 
 peer, or slaveholder, the man must some day give an account of the 
 deeds done in the body. It is a fearful responsibility to possess those 
 high powers of royalty or slaveholding, which charge one's conscience not 
 only with the temporal well-being of our fellow-men, but in a measure 
 with their moral interests. It is a moral responsibility which no thought- 
 ful man should take on himself lightly, but whicli, when imposed by the 
 exigencies of his situation, he should look fully in the face; with fear and 
 trembling, as the Apostle says, in singleness of heart as to Christ, knowing 
 that there is a Master in heaven with whom there is no respect of i)erson, 
 and before whose judgment-seat bond and free shall alike stand. The 
 slaveholder who meets his moral responsibilities conscientiously "flghts 
 the good fight of faith" against many temptations, above those which 
 beset us Northern Christians, and shall receive the more abundant reward. 
 
 The moral duties of slavemasters are laid down clearly in the Apostle 
 Paul's code, and by that "spirit and principle of the gospel of Christ" 
 which those "who are proud and know nothing" have erroneously invoked 
 against slavery itself. The specific application of those moral laws is 
 the affair of Southern conscience not of mine. There are one or two 
 points, however, which I shall allow myself to refer to. It is the moral 
 duty, I think, of Southern legislation, to provide against the separation of 
 slave families, and for the more formal recognition of the marriage rela- 
 tion. It is also a moral duty, if my principles of the moral basis of 
 slavery are sound, to establish some system I)y which the negro who is fit 
 for self-government should be allowed to purchase his own freedom — with 
 a provision of deportation, however ; the intermingling of negro freemen 
 without the right of suff"rage standing theoretically on the same ground as 
 slavery itself, and only justifiable from the same principle of necessity. 
 These suggestions are founded on principles and usages which already exist 
 practically in many parts of the South. If they were legalized every- 
 where, the moral duties of slaveholders would, in my opinion, stand on a 
 platform which ought to satisfy the tendercst conscience of Northern 
 Christians. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 The first part of my treatise has led me away from my ordinary 
 pursuits and studies. In fact, my acquaintance with the Scriptures 
 being such only as every educated layman ought to have, I would not 
 venture to discuss a doubtful point with those who make the word of 
 God their specialty. But my point is not doubtful. The anti-slavery 
 construction is like the old anti-Copernican clerical astronomy : once uni- 
 versally orthodox, now looked back to only as an illustration of humau 
 fallibility. 
 
 My other propositions place me on more familiar ground. In demon- 
 strating, as I think I can, that slavery is not a " violation of the most 
 sacred and inalienable rights of man," I shall be among principles which 
 are, or ought to be, the study of every lawyer. Perhaps, however, I shall 
 go more deeply than my case absolutely requires, into the consideration of 
 political and industrial rights. Independently of the present question, 
 some discussion of rights is greatly needed. We have Fourlh-of-Julied 
 liberty to death ; though from ignorance that the vital spark has left her, 
 we have not yet laid her in the grave. 
 
 In the North we have talked sentimentally over the rights of man, until 
 we have forgotten that he has duties also, and until we have lost sight of 
 his interests. In the South, pseans have been sung to State rights and 
 independent sovereignties and confederacy of republics — all very well when 
 subordinate to constitutional nationality — until public opinion is prepared 
 for secession : that rope of sand to anchor the ship of State with. 
 
 The evil is deep seated. Public opinion of both sections has gone 
 radically astray. Liberty does not mean license, but restraint ; the re- 
 straint of the laws of man's nature, and of those subordinate laws which 
 the knowledge of his own nature leads him to impose on himself With- 
 out such restraint there is no security for life, pei'son, and property ; men 
 take their own protection into their own hands ; anarchy follows ; and 
 finally some strong hand reduces the chaos to order : " order reigns in 
 Warsaw." Abolitionism, whether of the lawless mob, rescuing fugitive 
 (32) 
 
APPENDIX. 33 
 
 slaves from Federal officers, or in the more specious form of personal lib- 
 erty bills, is a step toward anarchy ; secession is a short cut to the same 
 fatal bourne ; both are derived from the same source — ignorance of the 
 true nature of liberty. 
 
 SECESSION. 
 
 Since my tract was written, the progress of secession imposes the most 
 pressing and solemn duties on every citizen. For one — one Christian citi- 
 zen — I can answer. I do not doubt of my duties ; I do not flinch from my 
 responsibilities. Those duties and rcsponsiljilities are, in my view, broader 
 than the slavery question ; broader than party affinities and politics. The 
 question is not now which party shall govern the country, l)ut whether we 
 shall have hereafter any country at all. 
 
 By the letter of the law, secession is treason ; but it is treason with "a 
 color of right :" that revolutionary right which underlies all laws and all 
 government. The people of the slaveholding States allege that their 
 rights have been violated ; that the National Government has been unable 
 or unwilling to vindicate those rights, and thus has failed in the objects 
 for which its high powers were intrusted. 
 
 Secession — the taking of the vindication into their own hands — is clearly 
 not founded on the Constitution ; is clearly not a political, much less a legal 
 right. It is an appeal from all ordinary magistracies and jurisdictions to 
 the people themselves in their ultimate sovereignty. To make such an 
 appeal is a moral right, but it involves the most solemn moral responsi- 
 bility before God and man which a human being can take. If the causes 
 are insufficient, the citizen who appeals to revolution has on his soul the 
 guilt of perjury, in disregarding his oath of allegiance, and the guilt of 
 the blood which may be shed in unrighteous civil war. Even on sufficient 
 cause, no thoughtful man will lightly make so terrible an appeal. 
 
 For the opponents of secession, whether in the North or the South, 
 there are responsibilities almost equally grave. We have to decide how 
 far it is our conscientious duty to sustain the National Government 
 against those whom the law regards as guilty of treason and rebellion. 
 
 The decision depends on the facts which are the ground of their appeal. 
 If their rights have really been infringed, we have no more moral right to 
 coerce them into obedience than George III. had to coerce his rebellious 
 colonies. 
 
 For myself— answering for my own belief and my own conscience 
 solely— I believe that their rights have been infringed. Whenever those 
 
 LVC. 
 
34 APPENDIX. 
 
 rights shall be fully assured — but not before — I am willing to take on ray 
 conscience all the responsibilities of co-operating to sustain the National 
 Government, and ready to answer to God at the great day for all the 
 consequences. This is my conviction of duty ; and my opinion of the 
 duty of all other citizens, North or South. On this platform, but on no 
 other, the Republic can be saved. Until these rights be assured, the 
 North, so far from being unanimous, wall receive no hearty support 
 from the men of that great party which is beaten but still powerful, and 
 still resolute in the cause of justice and right. But even if unanimous, 
 numbers and resources can no more subdue the South contending for 
 just rights, than the overwhelming power of the British crown could sub- 
 due the infant colonies. If political leaders make the attempt before every 
 just right be assured, they will sow the wind to reap the whirlwind. As 
 soon as rights shall be assured, secession will fall to the ground of itself — 
 as the Blue-light Massachusetts secession did at the peace of Ghent ; or 
 sink under the weight of public opinion ; or be crushed easily by the 
 armed hands of the American people — as our Pennsylvania insurrection 
 was by the armies of Washington. 
 
 Rights being first assured and justice fully done, I believe in the moral 
 duty of protecting the social organization, national and local, against the 
 bad passions of human nature and the treasonable measures of factious 
 men. As a corollary, I believe that " we, the people of the IJnited States 
 of America," have no moral right to dissolve our Union, but are morally 
 bound — as our fathers were for their Declaration of Independence, on 
 which the Union is founded — to pledge for it " our lives, our fortunes, and 
 our sacred honor :" and I believe it better for true liberty, progressive civ- 
 ilization, and genuine humanity, to save the Union at any present cost of 
 life, than to choose for ourselves, and as the inheritance of our children, 
 the vastly greater evils of secession, disintegration, and anarchy : and I 
 also believe — despite of puling sentimentality, which, by shrinking from 
 drops of blood in the present support of the laws, will open hereafter the 
 very arteries of the community — that there is manly patriotism enough 
 left, to bear the stars and stripes unflinchingly against all enemies, foreign 
 or domestic. If you, my brother citizen, believe as I do, we are on one 
 platform now, whatever our past politics may have been, and we will 
 exchange that cheering watchword, which rang in the Senate house of 
 Rome, and saved her, when Hannibal thundered at her gates — 
 
 "Never despair of the Bepublic P 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .■^■ 
 
 '^oi 
 
 .?o ^rf 
 
 
 
 '.V 
 
t o 
 
 <T -s. J, - • • » <v ■» 
 
 
 '«<i 
 
 •^ H BOOKBINDING