■■''!«fM''^.."<.'v;'i'^ 'm ,5 °-.. v;^'^ ^ ^^,^. ^>^ \ '^m' %.<^^ o > 0' ;<^^ .^r -1 > ^^ ""'^ fv ■/-t-t^ 4 ..v-v^/K- #t (/ (jVi 10'^ '^~^, ^--^'"^ W^ ^''' » THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN REV. JOEL PARKER, AND REV. A. ROOD, ON THE QUESTION WHAT ARE THE EVILS INSEPARABLE FROM slavery;' WHICH WAS REFERRED TO BY MRS. STOWE, IN UNCLE TOM'S CABIN/' Reprinted from the Philadelphia Christian Observer of 1846. IS^EW YORK : S.W. BENEDICT, 16 SPRUCE ST, PHILADELPHIA : H. HOOKER. ISo:?. 5 Iittoittit&ii. It is proposed in the publication of this pamphlet to afford the public an opportunity of judging of the merits of the unhappy controversy which has grown out of a para- graph from the pen of the Rev. Joel Parker, D.D., and referred to by Mrs. Stowe on page 191 of " Uncle Tom's Cabin." The facts, concisely stated, are the following. In the autumn of 1846, the Rev. Mr. Rood, in his weekly cor- respondence to the New York Evangelist^ wrote an article reviewing the action of the Synod of Virginia on the sub- ject of Slavery. The Synod saw fit to animadvert with some severity upon the resolutions passed by the General Assembly at their session in Philadelphia, May preceding, reprobating the system of Slavery, and urging all those connected \Wth it to make prompt and strenuous efforts to " unbind the heavy burdens " and to secure liberty to " those who are bound," Mr. Rood, in a kind and tem- perate article, as will be seen by its perusal, defended the course of the General Assembly, and used the following language : " The mass of Northern Christians will sustain the itrhwiples embodied in the Declaration of the last Assembly on Slavery. On this subject there is not the slightest doubt, and it is but kindness and honesty to our iv INTRODUCTION. Southern brethren to say so." Dr. Parker, in view of this paragraph and some others which he regarded as excep- tionable, shortly alter addressed a communication to Mr. Rood through the columns of the Philadelphia Christian Obse7%'cr, with the caption, "The Philadelphia Correspond- ent of the Evangelist on the Synod of Virginia's resolutions on Slavery." This opened a discussion between these gentlemen which ran through a period of sixteen weeks. Dr. Parker took the signature, " O. R. Meridionus," and Mr. Rood, "The Correspondent of the N. Y. Evangelist." In Dr. Parker's second Number is found the famous paragraph which was copied in the public prints exten- sively in this country, and found its way to England, and everywhere was subjected to severe criticism and unspar- ing censure. The interpretation which Dr. Parker's re- spondent in the controversy put upon it will be abundantly apparent to every reader. It will not be denied too that Dr. Parker was fully aware that he was very extensively understood in that paragraph as uttering a sentiment which grieved and offended a great multitude of good people, and that he never took one step to modify or explain his statement till eight weelis after tb.e publication of " Uncle Tom's Cabin." The introduction of the paragraph embodied in Mrs. Stowe's work was in good faith, and without the slightest suspicion that they were not the exact imrds used by Dr. Parker in his controversy. How, wlun, or loMre the alter- ation was made, we have no means of ascertaining. That the public may understand the exact state of the case, we put in parallel columns the language quoted by Mrs. Stowe and the language really used by Dr. Parker. INTEODUCTION. V UNCLE TOM'S CABIN. BR. PARKER. Slavery has "no evils but " "What, then, are the evils in- such aa are inseparable from separable from Slavery? There any other relation in social and is not one that is not equally in- domestic life." separable from depraved human nature in other lawful relations." It is due to Dr. Parker to state that he claims that the language used by him is so modified and explained by its connection that it does not convey the sentiment which has been attributed to him. The correspondence now spread before the public will enable them to form a correct judg- ment on the merits of the case. THE PUBLISHER. New York, Nov. 9, 1852. isassioii on ^hkq. -n -■ [mR. rood to the new YORK EVANGELIST.] SYNOD OF VIRGINIA ON SLAVERY. Philadelphia, Nov. 23, 1846. Mr. Editor : — It is a coincidence that cannot fail to at- tract observation, and furnish matter of grave reflection, that the " friendly address from British Christians to the ministers and elders of the American Presbyterian Church, who bore a faithful testimony against slavery in the late General Assembly at Philadelphia," should be spread be- fore the public almost simultaneously with the " action of the Synod of Virginia," in which the subject of slavery, as treated and disposed of by the General Assembly, is pro- nounced " wrong in princii^le, wrong in measure, and violent action upon a subject over-pressed." In the "Address from British Christians," it is said, " Ardently do we desire your encouragement in your praiseworthy career ; most sin- cerely do we appreciate your Christian testimony to the essential sinfulness of slaveholding." In another part, " We beseech you, dear brethren, to persevere in your righteous agitation, till the object be achieved. Cease not to expose the enormity of the crime of buying and selling a fellow- creature ; of reducing a human being endued with an im- mortal soul, to the level of an ox or an ass. Stand fast by that clause of your declaration which asserts that Ame- 8 DISCUSSION OX SLAVERY. rican slavery is intrinsically an unrighteous and oppressive system, opposed to the prescriptions of the law of God, to the spirit and precepts of the Gospel, and to the best in- terests of humanity." In the action of the Synod of Virginia, it is said, " We are sorry to be compelled to say, that in our judgment no spirit of our day bears the stamp of fanaticism more broad and deep, than does the abolitionism of our times.'' In another part, " In our judgment, our abolition brethren should forthwith abandon their violent and dicta- torial bearing. They possess no moral right to teach us. They have no moral power to carry out their counsels. The efforts of the abolitionist will but blind and beat back the mind he seeks to instruct and advance." These paragraphs sufficiently indicate the whole tenor aud spirit of the document sent forth by the Synod of Vir- ginia. The fact that the late action of the General Assem- bly was the thing aimed at by the Synod, indicates, be- yond mistake, their meaning of the term " abolitionism." It is the testimony borne against slavery as " an unright. eous and oppressive system," against which they publish their protest. They say, " though much disputed, various expressions in the resolutions of the Assembly clearly in- dicate the doctrine of the essential sinfulness of the relation of master and servant, while the general bearing of the re- solutions as clearly establishes this interpretation." The question is thus pressed to an issue, not whether the great body of Christians at the North sanction the violent mea- sures and vituperative denunciations of a few, who are re- presented as saying, " We have exhausted the argument with the slaveholder, and must now try the virtue of cold steel r'' On this point there can be no mistake. Our Southern brethren must know that the great mass of Chris- tians in the non-slaveholding States give no countenance to the mad projects of a few who would " call down fire from heaven " upon those who will not submit to their dicta- DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 9 tion. Identity with them is not the question forced upon us by the action of the Synod of Virginia. But it is this — whether the mass of Northern Christians will sustain the principles embodied in the declaration of the last Assembly on the subject of slavery. On this point there is not the slightest doubt, and it is but kindness and honesty to our Southern brethren explicitly to say so. The Assembly would jeopard its existence if it should take one retrograde step. They will never say less than that American slavery is " opposed to the prescriptions of the law of God, to the spirit and precepts of the Gospel, and to the best interests of humanity." Deeply do I regret the action of the Synod of Virginia. I fear its stupefying influence upon the conscience of slave- holders. A body of Christian ministers and elders ought not, by implication^ to throw their influence into the scale of oppression. I know they intended no such thing, but their earnest remonstrance against the action of the Assem- bly will, I fear, have this eflect. Those who are determin- ed to maintain the system of slavery will be encouraged in their efforts by what they will claim to be the support of our good brethren of the Synod of Virginia. Apart from the raving of mad fanatics, there is a deep and growing con- viction of the unutterable abominations of slavery, and an increasing determination not to rest until this foul blot is wiped away from the church, and a jubilee is proclaimed throughout the land. These are the views, the feelings, and the purposes of a great majority of the wisest and best men in the non-slaveholding States. Our brethren at the South ought to be apprised of this as settled^ unchanging truth. Yours, . 10 DISCUSSION ON SLAYERY. [DH. PARKER'S FIRST LETTER.] THE PHILADELPHIA CORRESPONDENT OF " THE EVAN- GELIST'' ON THE SYNOD OF VIRGINIA'S RESOLU- TIONS ON SLAVERY. Mr. Editor: — The correspondent referred to at the head of this article, has assumed to speak for " the mass of Northern Christians on the subject of shivery." He says that they " will sustain the priii- ciples embodied in the declaration of the last Assem- bly on the subject of slavery. On this subject there is not the slightest doubt, and it is but kindness and honesty to our Southern brethren to say so." Has the Philadelphia correspondent counted the cost of such a declaration as this ? By the principles referred to, I understand him to mean all the principles embodied in the declaration of the last Assembly. If he saj'S that all he means to allege is that Northern Christians will be content to see a resolution passed declaring that " American slavery is opposed to the prescriptions of the laAV of God, to the spirit and precepts of the gospel, a,nd to the best interests of humanity," for one, I shall not dispute him. But why are they content with this ? Because nothing more is meant by this wordy sen- tence, than to declare that slavery, as a political in- stitute, is a bad thing, and that Christianity tends to induce a better state of society than can consist with slaver}' . The greater portion of thinking minds will cheerfully admit this and more too. The gospel will probably one day introduce such political and social DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. H arrangements into existence, as "vvould cause us to look on every government now existing, as dark and sinful — as very far gone from original rigliteoasness. But the correspondent means more than this. He quotes from the paper issued by tlie Synod of Vir- ginia, the clause in which they say, " Though much disputed, various expressions in the resolutions of the Assembl}^ clearly indicate the doctrine of the essential sinfulness of the relation of master and ser- vant, while the general bearing of the resolution as clearly establishes this interpretation." From the connection in which the correspondent has quoted this, and from the part which he has quoted in the language of the Assembly itself, it is evident that he means to assert that the mass of Northern Christians will sustain this censure on slave-holding as being in it- self a sin. There is an expression in the Assembly's document which implies that the holding of a slave is a sin. It is this. " We would not undertake to determine the degree of moral turpitude on the part of individuals involved by it," (slavery.) This language implies that the Assembly has judged every man who holds a slave as being thereby rendered culpable. So the Synod of Virginia under- stand this expression in connection with the state- ment quoted by the correspondent of the Evangelist^ and cited above. The fact is, the Assembly both maintains and de- nies that slavery is a sin in itself. In the passages above referred to, if taken together, it maintains it. In the following passages it denies it. They say, " We cannot pronounce a judgment of general and promiscuous condemnation, implying that destitu- tion of Christian principle and feeling which should 12 DISCUSSION ON SL AVERT. exclude from the table of the Lord, all who stand in the legal relation of masters to slaves ; or justify us in withholding our ecclesiastical and Christian fel- lowship from them." Again, " AYe have no right to institute and prescribe tests of Christian character and church membership, not recognized and sanc- tioned in the sacred Scriptures, and in our stand- ards," &c. This language plainly implies that the Scriptures and our standards do not treat the hold- ing of slaves as a sin. Allow me, through your col- umns, to ask the correspondent of the Evangelist one or two plain questions : — 1. Do you assert that the great mass of Northern Christians hold that it is a sin for a man to own a slave ? Please take notice that my question is not, whether it be a sin to oluse a slave. On that point, you well know that there is no difference between yourself and your Southern brethren. Nor is it a question whether a master is bound benevolently to seek the good of his jooor slave, as truly as it is your duty to seek the good of your poor neighbor. But do Northern Christians hold, that it is a sin for a man to own a slave ? 2. Dare you, or any of your brethren, who agree with you, in the city of Philadelphia, maintain in the presence of " the mass of Northern Christians " in your own churches, that " the owning of a slave is a sin ".^ I am sure you dare not. You can talk about *'the abominations of slavery" — " that horrible sys- tem," &c., &c., because you know full well that no Christian people. North or South, love slavery. But *'the great mass of Northern Christians" believe that our Southern brethren are unjustly censured, that while men like the correspondent of the Uvan- DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 13 gelist, do not descend to tlie billingsgate abuse of Garrison, they cautiously and gently insinuate the same doctrines, thus condemning the righteous and justifying the wicked. I assert, then, without the least fear of contradiction by " the great mass of Northern Christians," that while they would be glad, almost as glad as their Southern brethren, to s^e slavery removed from our land, yet they "will \iiot] sustain the principles embodied in the declaration of the last Assembly," so far as those principles teach that the holding of a slave is a sin^ " and it is but kindness and honesty to our Southern brethren to say so." I am, Mr. Editor, your obedient servant, 0, R. MERIDIONUS. 14 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. [MR. rood's reply.] REPLY TO " 0. R. MERIDIOFUS:' Mr. Editor, — The communication of your cor- respondent fell under my observation in good time. I need make no apology in furnisliing a reply. I had a perfect right to review "the action of the Synod of Virginia, on the subject of slavery," and " Meridionus" had an equally perfect right to pen his strictures, which 3^ou have published. I am a strong advocate of the doctrine of free discussion ; and if I am unable to maintain my positions, I have no foolish pride in abandoning them. I said in my letter to the Evangelist^ "the mass of Northern Christians will sustain the principles em- bodied in the declaration of the last Assemblj^ on slavery. On this subject there is not the slightest doubt; and it is but kindness and honesty to our Southern brethren to say so." " Meridionus" asks, "Has the Philadelphia correspondent counted the cost of such a declaration as this?" This much I can say, that nothing has as yet appeared, which in- duces a suspicion of the correctness of the sentiment I advanced. I do not say that the mass of Northern Christians will sustain the doctrine which "Meridio- nus" claims is taught in the action of the Assembly, to wit : that ^^ slave-holding is itself necessarily a sinJ^ He travels beyond the record, and draws unwarranted inferences, and then endeavors to hold me responsible for the creations of his own fancy. Hence, he says. DISCUSSION ON SLAYERY. 15 "the great mass of Northern Christians believe that our Southern brethren are unjustly censured — that while men like the correspondent of the Evangelisi do not descend to the billingsgate abuse of Garrison, they cautiously and gently insinuate the so.me doc- trines ; thus condemning the righteous, and justifying the wicked." I trust I shall be able to show, that this is quite gratuitous, and without any just founda- tion. Can nothing be said in opposition to slavery, without incurring the charge of fanaticism, and joining hands with reckless men, who glory most when they are most abusive and denunciatory ? Is there no conservative ground on which the opposers of slavery can stand, and fearlessly exhibit its enor- mities ? Are Wilberforce and Clarkson to be iden- tified with George Thompson, in England ; or Dr. Hawes and Mr. Barnes to be charged with the indis- cretions and sins of Wm. L. Garrison, in this country ? Cannot men of prudence and piety bear their testi- mony against slaverj^, without being held responsible for the fierce denunciations of those to whom they give no countenance, and with whom they have no fellowship ? There is a foundation on which all good men can stand, in their war against slavery, that is entirely exempt from the charge of fanaticism, and proscription, and denunciation. These are not the weapons which my views of the teaching and the spirit of the gospel lead me to select. And yet, ac- cording to your correspondent, my principles would place me in the same category with men who are distin- guished chiefly for the use of vile epithets and bil- lingsgate abuse. I protest against a representation so unfounded and unjust. I plant myself on the broad position of the General 16 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. Assembly, that tlie system of slavery as it exists in this country, ^' is opposed to the prescriptions of the law of God, to the spirit and precepts of the gospel, and to the best interests of humanity." By the system of slavery, I mean an assemblage of things pertainiug to it, adjusted into a regular whole — or the whole plan or scheme of human servitude, con- sisting of many parts, and connected in such a man- ner, as to create a chain of mutual dependencies. The working of this system is proved, by an expe- rience of more than half a century, to be fraught with the most disastrous consequences — socially, politically, and morally. If a tree is known by its fruits, it is quite certain that this is a deadly Upas, sending forth putrid and poisonous exhalations in every direction. All good men ought to unite in " hewing it down, and casting it into the fire." But are there not good men so environed with the difficulties which this system throws around them, that they cannot, at once, extricate themselves from its blighting influence? Are there not men, who hold the legal relation of masters, in conformity with the great law of love ? I have no doubt of it ; nor have I ever said any thing to the contrary. The General Assembly do not teach any doctrine at war with this sentiment. The representation of your cor- respondent, that the '' Assembly both maintains and denies that slavery is a sin in itself," is entirely erro- neous. Their action is consistent, and no mystifica- tion or special pleading can show it to be otherwise. They did, indeed, intend to discriminate between the system, and those Christian brethren who are, of ne- cessity, involved in its evil workings, and deplore its bitter fruits, and are sincerely laboring and praying DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 17 for its subversion. In regard to these, they say in the spirit of kindness and benevolence which the gospel requires, " we cannot pronounce a judgment of general and promiscuous condemnation, implying that destitution of Christian principle and feeling which should exclude from the table of the Lord all who stand in the legal relation of masters to slaves ; or justify us in withholding our ecclesiastical and Christian fellowship from them." This is perfectly consistent with the declaration, that "American slavery is opposed to the prescriptions of the law of God, to the spirit and precepts of the gospel, and to the best interests of humanity." Good men are placed by it in circumstances of great difficulty and trial. But if they hold the system in righteous ab- horrence, and labor in the best way they can for its subversion, I do not withhold from them Christian sympathy and fellowship. I have never advocated such a sentiment, nor " cautiously and gently insinu- ated doctrines which condemn the righteous and justify the wicked." The "one or two plain ques- tions" of your correspondent are thus, I trust, an- swered to his satisfaction. If there are those who teach that "the holding of a slave is necessarily a sin," I am not of the number. And yet I have no doubt of the entire truth of my remark, on which your correspondent joins issue, that " the mass of Northern Christians will sustain the 'princrples em- bodied in the declaration of the last Assemblj^, on the subject of slavery." Why should they not ? Every new development of the system fastens the stamp of reprobation more deeply upon it. The more good men see of it, the more settled and determined is their opposition to it. 18 DISCUSSION ON SLAYEIRY. And tlien, we have occasional testimony from the South, confirming ail our impressions of the mischief and misery induced by its prevalence. In a recent conversation with an intelligent educated gentleman from a slave-holding State, whose permanent resi- dence is there, he said, (I give his exact language,) " The system of slavery is most unquestionably a leaden weight upon all the institutions of the South, political, civil, and religious. It is an incubus that broods over, and to no inconsiderable extent, para- lyzes the energies of both Church and State, and in its domestic relations, it is a fearful evil." Testimony like this, it will be very difficult to invalidate, for it is given with a personal knowledge of the working of the system, and under strong motives to bear counter testimon}^ I was amused at the adi'oitness of the i-emark of your correspondent, that the mass of ISTorthern Christians Avould be glad, almost as glad as their Southern hretJiren^ to see slavery removed from our land." I suppose he intended this as a playful, ironical suggestion, in view of what he regards the over-zealous efforts of some Northern Christians in relation to this subject. I am well aware that our Southern brethren are placed in exceedingly trying, embarrassing circumstances. But they are not re- lieved b}^ such action as that taken by the Synod of Virginia. The aid proffered by your correspondent, does not meet the emergency of the case. The diffi- culty must be manfully met — not by checking and removing the evils which are said to be incidental to slavery, but by a resolute, united effort to subvert the system itself The incidental evils are ^jar/^ and parcel of the thing^ and can never he separated from it. DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 19 I admit this is the appropriate business of our Southern brethren, and it was because, as it seemed to me, they were diverting themselves from the grand object which should engage their attention, and urging a false issue, that I ventured to pen my stric- tures, of which " Meridionus" complains. THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N. Y. EVANGELIST. 20 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. [dr. PARKER.] THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N. Y. EVANGELIST AGAIN. Mr. Editor : — I am exceedingly gratified with the reply of the Correspondent of the Evangelist to my communication. I think any one who will read carefully his review of the action of the Sjmod of Virginia, on slavery, and my former strictures on that review, will clearly see that the Correspondent did convey the idea that ^^slave-holding is itself neces- sarily a sin^ But as he disclaims all intention of ad- vancing such views, I am bound to receive his ex= planation. I thank him for so frank a statement of a truth of such fundamental consequence. In a more recent communication to the Evaiigelist, the correspondent says, — " The abstract doctrine that slavery is per se sinful, ought never to have been broached. It is untrue, indefensible, and has done no good, but a vast amount of mischief" Let me say, then, to the " Correspondent," I con- gratulate you, my dear Sir, for the bold stand you have taken for the truth. You will not maintain a false principle even to emancipate slaves. That is right. Truth is of more worth, than any thing that can be gained by its perversion. But let me assure you that you will be persecuted, for this. You will be called " an apologist for slaver3^" Still, I beg of you to go right on, and concede every thing that is true. If it seems to make against emancipation, still remember that truth is better than victor3^ Yield DISCUSSION GN SLAVERY. 21 nothing to the charge that you are the friend of op- pression. Assert your own freedom, at least, as be- ing worth using when God has given it to you. " If thou mayest be free, use it rather." In the last part of your reply to me, you say that "The incidental evils [of slavery] are 'part and par- cel of the thing, and can never he separated from itP Be so kind as to review this statement. I know that the assertion makes against slavery with tremendous power, if it he true. But, still, it is not worth main- taining, if it be not true. AYhat are these incidental evils ? They are things like these. Cruelty in pun- ishing — insufi&cient provision of food and clothing — separating families by sale — neglect of instruction — disregard of marriage — and holding the relation for the purpose of gain to the master without any re- spect to the interests of the slaves. Now how does it appear that these things are in- separable from slavery ? Slaves are punished by their masters. Free blacks in Philadelphia are pun- ished by the police. Take a thousand slaves in a district containing that number in Virginia, and a thousand free blacks in a district in Moyamensing, and which suffer the greatest amount of penal evil in a year ? Look at both and then judge. Then, again, I ask, ai^e there not a great many humane masters who never ahuse their servants ? What is to prevent others from doing the same thing? — Insufficient food and clothing. What can prevent improvement in this respect ? Many years ago, it was usual in Louisiana to furnish slaves with a peck of corn a w^eek. It was poor fare, scarcely superior to the fare of their ancestors in Africa, and then' brethren there to-dav ; and not much better than the living of our 22 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. American Indians. Now, probably there is not a planter in Louisiana that does not furnish meat for his servants. What is to hinder further improve- ments till they shall live as well as the Pennsylvania farmers ? Many do. It is in the power of masters to promote the comfort of their slaves, and every good man does it conscientiously. — And is separating families by a sale a part and parcel of the thing thai can never he separated from slavery? But it is separa- ted from it just in proportion as men are disposed to do their duty. A southern Christian no more thinks of selling a slave without his consent, than a north- ern Christian does of failing in business as a means of defrauding his creditors. Men that are wicked, do wickedly in both cases. But, besides all this, a change in the law itself is possible. Slavery has ex- isted and does exist, where, while men have a right to hold slaves, they have no power to sell them. This is at least a possible amelioration of Southern slavery. The domestic slave-trade is not inseparable from slavery. — The disregard of the marriage relation is not inseparable from slavery. The laws, it is true, do not enforce matrimonial obligations, nor protect the rights of the married. But there is nothing to hin- der the religious celebration of marriage and a reli- gious inculcation of conjugal duties. The slaves of the South understand the relations and duties of husband and wife, and are more strongly influenced by mar- riage vows, and their purity is better protected than it was before they were in bondage among a civilized and Christian people. Thousands of families of slaves are entirely secure in the enjoyment of all the privileges of married persons, except there is a bare possibility that through the insolvency of a master DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 23 they may be separated in the settlement of his estate. Even, then, they will ordinarily be purchased by family friends and removed by whole families. Yet this evil is not inseparable, for the law may be modi- fied. Is neglect of instruction inseparable from slavery ? Whole plantations are better taught, more tho- roughly catechised in the elements of religious truth, than an equal number of hired servants, taking a street in course in the city of Philadelphia. Was not a man bought out of bondage, and all his family, in Alabama, a short time since, because he was a good Latin, Greek, and Hebrew scholar, and a well read theologian? Did not many Eornan slaves become the teachers of youth, and even authors of works, whose classic beauties delight our Universities to- day ? The truth is, slaves can be taught to an indefi- nite extent in all those things that are of most con- sequence to a degraded people. If the money that has been expended in embittering the South by an ill-timed and ill-natured and unjust censuring of hon- est men, had been employed in preaching the gospel in the Southern country, there would have been no complaint of the neglect of the instruction of slaves. — But is it insepar able from slavery^ that men hold the relation for the purpose of gain to the master, with- out any respect to the interests of the slaves ? You have yourself conceded that it is not. You " grant that some masters retain their slaves, not for the sake of pecuniary gain, but from motives of benevolence" — that " one man in a hundred or a thousand holds slaves in ha,rmony with the great law of love." Then, certainly, a had intention is not ^Mseparahle from slave- ry — apart and parcel of the thing itself Every 01 iris- 24 DISCUSSION OX SLAVERY. tian that holds a slave, holds him in harmony with the great law of love. If j'ou take all the rulers, from Nimrod to Nicholas of Russia, that have go- verned without a written constitution, you will not find more than one in a hundred or a thousand, that have governed in harmony v/ith the great law of love. Still the holding of absolute power is not sin- ful in 5e, nor has Christianity ever aimed at the sub- version of a despotic throne, as its direct object. It has aimed to enlighten, raise, and purify the people, and left the improved mass of mind to assume a new political form, corresponding with its improved char- acter. If we had aimed directly to change the external structure of society in the Sandwich Islands, we should not have succeeded. True, the people were all enslaved. But their depravitj^, the intrinsic de- gradation of the race, had placed them there. They and their despotic masters were sinners together. We began to act on individual character. Our Christianity has wrought a change in individual character. This change is naturally expressing itself in laws, and a written constitution, trial by jurj^, &c. &c. What, then, are the evils that are inseparable from slavery ? There is not one, that is not equally in- separable from depraved human nature in other law- ful relations. It is possible for any other master to treat his slaves as well as Abraham did his. It is possible that a master and his slave may be both de- vout people. It is possible that the one may be as rich as Joseph of Arimathea and as devout, and the other may be as pious as Lazarus, and less poorly DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 25 provided for, though as helpless and as full of sores, and a slave. Recollect, jou have maintained that the subver- sion of the system is the only thing that can be done. Then, is it nothing to convert and save a poor slave ? Is it nothing to instruct whole plantations in elemen- tary religious truth ? Is it nothing to secure the preaching of the gospel to the black population? But you say, '' The incidental evils are part and loarcel of the thing itself and. can never he separated from it J'' What vice is there that cannot be repented of and abandoned — what virtue that cannot be cherished and cultivated, both by slaves and their masters ? Not one. I am sure you will recall this position, for you love truth better than any wrong position, though it should seem to favor a good object. Whether the Assembly's document has both mam- tained and denied that slavery is a sin in itself, I leave to any unprejudiced reader. If the intimation, that a '' degree of moral turpitude" belongs to " the individuals involved" in slavery is not a maintaining that slavery is a sin in itself, then I confess I do not understand plain English. That it is denied after- wards, is equally, clear. I am sure, it is not obvious to me why you were amused with my saying, that the mass of Northern Christians zvould he glad, almost as glad as our South- ern hrethren^ to see slavery removed from our land. I meant it certainly as a very serious statement.; and whatever those may think of it, who fancy they have philanthropy to boast of, you, at least, are too modest a man, to claim that you feel an^^thing like the degree of zeal for removing slavery, that the Rev. Mr. Stiles, of Richmond, the Rev. Dr. Hill, of 26' PISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. Winchester, and their associates, feel in the same work. In conclusion, I have one word to saj about '^ cau- tiously and gently insinuating the same doctrines." I think, that the maintaining that slavery is a sin in itself, which still appears to me to be implied in your statement in the first article, you did maintain the same doctrine — and if I understand the assertion, that " The incidental evils are "part omd 'parcel of the thing ^ and com never he separated from it^'' this is also the same doctrine. It is a maintaining that slavery is a complication of principles so combined, that no moral chemistry can decompose it, and qn^^^ man that holds a bondman does, of necessity, while he holds him, inflict an enormous wrong. This, I think^ is condemning the just. At any rate, it is so under- stood by Southern men, 0, R, MERIDIONUS, DISGUSSIOX ON SLAVERY. 27 [MR. ROOD.] REJOINDER TO '^ 0. R. MERIDIONUS." Mr. Editor : — I have a natural aversion to con- troversy of any sort. My disposition, training, and habits, make me shrink from a "war of words" with any class of men. Phrenologists tell me that the "bump of combativeness " is but feebly deve- loped in my cranium. I think they must be right in that, however defective and erroneous their general theory may be. In my review of the " action of the Synod of Virginia on slavery," I had not the slightest anticipa- tion of calling into the field an antagonist of so much shrewdness and ability as "Meridionus" proves him- self to be, nor indeed of provoking a reply from any source. But I have no reason to complain of the course of things thus far. If I must engage in con- troversy, give me for opponents such men as your correspondent, who well understands the proprieties of life, and is better pleased with hard arguments, than the calling of hard names. I am fairly in for a controversy, without suspecting it, and I shall sus- tain the positions I have taken, in the best way I can, till I am convinced they are erroneous, and indefen- sible by sound reasoning, and the precepts and prin- ciples of the incorruptible Word. Whenever this conviction shall be fastened on my mind, they will be abandoned without the slightest hesitation. I have no great respect for the intellect or the integrity 28 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. of a man who will maintain a position, which is proved to be untenable, simply because he has plant- ed himself upon it. Truth is the only thing worth an effort to sustain and defend. If "Meridionus" has truth on his side, I can heartily sny I wish him full success, and a triumphant issue in this correspond- ence. But if his reasoning is shrewd rather than sound — if he teaches error, the more dangerous on account of its plausibility ; if he " gently and cau- tiously insinuates doctrines," which do violence to the fundamental principles of Christian benevolence, and nullify the golden rule laid down by our Savior, as universal in its obligation and application — then surely I do not wish him success, but better views on the subject of human rights. I have no disposition to recall, or to qualify my re- mark, that " the abstract doctrine that slavery is^er se sinful, ought never to have been broached. It is untrue, indefensible, and has done no good, but a vast amount of mischief" If, as " Meridionus " thinks, I shall be persecuted for this, so be it. I will not hold what I regard as a mere dogma, for the sake of conciliating the good-will of any class of men, however wise they may think themselves to be. I have seen enough of certain self-stjded reformers, not to feel any apprehension that wisdom will die with them. The world will stand, and its affairs be very judiciously conducted, when their light shall be put out. " Meridionus" Vv^ell understands, that I care as little for the vituperative abuse of the class to whom he alludes, as he does himself But I will not reject truth, because indiscreet and reckless men hold it. The cause of emancipation has been sadly retarded bv the mad zeal of some, who have forced DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 29 themselves before the public as its prominent advo- cates. What, then ? Shall the cause be abandoned, because it has fallen into unskillful, or, if jou please, into unscrupulous hands ? Ought not greater efforts to be made to separate truth from error, and to give it that prominence before the Christian community, which its intrinsic importance demands ? I come now to the main design of your corre- spondent, in his last communication. It is to sub- vert and prove untrue the following statement of mine, to wit, that " the incidental evils of slavery^ as they are called^ are part and parcel of the thing ^ and can never he separated from ity He says, "be so kind as to review this statement." I have done so, with all the caution and candor of which I am capable ; but I still believe that the statement, as I intended it should be understood, is true, and can be successfully vin- dicated. I do not den}^, that cruelty of treatment, where it exists, may be corrected. Those poorly clad and fed, may be comfortably supplied. There are 7nany modifications of slavery induced by huma- nity and the promptings of Christian kindness, while the thing itself remains, in its withering, blighting power. There is slavery, whenever a human being, luithout crime alleged^ is robbed of his inalienable rights, such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of hap- piness." A Southern planter, some time since, made the following honest avowal. He was walking over his grounds with a friend, and when they came in sight of the huts occupied by his slaves, he stood for a brief space gazing at them in mute silence. His friend supposed he was planning some alterations or improvements. At length he said with deep emo- tion, ^^ I have no right to hold those human beings in 30 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. servitude. I know it, I feel it — but what can I do F" The plan which I advocate, the subversion of the sys- tem, will aid such men, who are struggling with dif- ficulties which they are unable to surmount. It will furnish them with an opportunity of practically ex- emplifying their abhorrence of oppression. What is Slavery f It is not merely '' the subjec- tion of one person to the will of another." My child is thus under my control. He does my bidding. He is in subjection to my will. But is this slavery ? Is it not rather a wise and wholesome restraint, to be ex- ercised for the accomplishment of important and benevolent ends ? I define slavery to be this,, to wit, the right of prajjerty in a human being. I use this phraseology in the largest and most comprehensive sense. It is the legal right of buying and selling men and women, as horses and cattle are bought and sold. This is a very different right from that which a mas- ter has over his apprentice, or the parent over his child. It is bartering away rights, which the law of God never gave to man. The will of the blaster, is the iron rule bj^ which the happiness and the destiny of immortal beings are controlled. Grant as many modifications as you choose, of the rigor of this sys- tem, prompted by Christian kindness and sympathy. Its main features stand forth in all their frowning and hateful aspect, so long as the right of property in man is recognized and conceded. This right may be exercised, at any time, in the violent disruption of the conjugal relations, the sundering of family ties, the wreck of hope, and the utter and the hopeless ruisery of those, whose only crime consists in a dark hue, which their Creator stamped upon them. Look at some of the legitimate fruits of this fearful power, DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 31 lodged in tlie liands of man. It has produced un- speakable mischief and misery in the domestic rela- tions. It has transferred parental authority to a source which God never designed. It has deprived the ignorant of knowledge, and taken from the de- fenceless the shield of their protection. It claims the right of deciding how much of the will of God, revealed to man, shall be communicated to the slave. It cuts him off from the hope of redress, if he has been wronged. It consigns him to toil as a beast of burden, without any just and adequate remuneration. The avails of his labor is the property of his master, and cannot be made his ov/n. He is himself property^ and of course, can ov/n none. Now, as to the question whether " the incidental evils of slavery as they are called, are part and par- cel of the thing, and can never be seuarated from it." I say— 1st. The nature of the sj^stem proves the truth of this assertion. Let the system be so modified and changed that the evils which now adhere to it shall no longer exist, and you have another thing. You may call it slavery, but it is not such in fact. Anni- hilate the right of property in man^ and I ask South- ern planters if they would feel oxlj zeal in perpetu- ating slavery ? 2d. As a matter of fact, the evils which are charged on slavery, never have been separated from the system. How was it in Greece and Eome? There was no recuperative energy in the system there. What was bad to-day was worse to-morrow, till the deteriorating process engulfed master and slave in one common ruin. In the case of the Jews, T admit there is an exception. But the entire Jewish economy contemplated the gradual abolition of Ber- a2 LUSCUSSIOJS ON SLAVERY. vitude, aud universal emancipation. The year of Jubilee at the latest, struck off the chains from every man, and made him free as the air he breathed. But so far as I know, this is the only exception I need to make, and the reason of this is abundantly obvious from the nature of the Jewish economy. Is there anything in American slavery that contemplates the extinction of the system ! Is there any year of Ju- bilee Jixed upon or desired by the mass of those, who claim propert}^ in their fellow-men ? Let the evils which "Meridiouus" himself sug- gests be thoroughly corrected, and it would amount to a subversion of the system of slavery. Let a law be passed prohibiting the separation of families, and the domestic slave-trade, and protecting inviolate the marriage relation, and making it incumbent on mas- ters thoroughly to instruct their slaves " in the ele- ments of religious truth" ; and slavery would as cer- tainly wither and die as it now exists in its blighting, demoralizing power. You cannot fairly and fully re- move the odious features of slavery without striking the axe at the root of the tree. I hold on to my posi- tion, therefore, without qualification, notwithstanding the exceedingly shrewd, ingenious argument of your correspondent. For popular effect, it is well adapted to make a strong impression. It will, I am aware, exert an extensive influence at the South. Thou- sands will rejoice in the comfort it affords to their burdened consciences, and will persuade themselves that they have been too scrupulous and concerned in regard to the exercise of rights which, after all, are clearly their own. Look at the following as an ex- ample. " What are the evils that are inseparable from slavery ? There is not one, that is not equally in- separable from dnvrored hurnan nature in other lan.fvl DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. $*S relations^ Slave-holders under teaching like this, may well resist all expostulations and apj^eals to adopt a course of measures to subvert a system which is brooding like a mighty incubus over them. K I were a slave-holder, and believed this represen- tation, I should make myself quite contented and let slavery work out its own redemption. One word in regard to " preaching the gospel in the Southern country." I have great confidence in the power of truth. The gospel fearlessly and faith- fully proclaimed, is my only hope in correcting the evils, and exterminating the depravity which abound in the world. But it must be preached in its fullness and in its discriminating energy, or it will fail of ac- complishing its glorious design. I do not say it is not preached in this way by our Southern brethren. But I will state a fact, and hold myself responsible for the proof. A clergyman now in this city, was travelling a few months since in Georgia. In an in- terview he had with a distinguished gentleman, the president of a literary institution, he said to him, " There are many things in successful operation that tend to the subversion of slavery, and among other things, I rely on the increased diffusion of Bible truth as the principal means." Now mark the reply. "You are wrong. Sir," said he. "The gospel will never remove slavery, while ministers hold slaves, and defend the system from the Bible. I do this, and my brethren do it, and we are honest and con- scientious in our teaching." The reasoning of this gentleman, I think, was logical and conclusive. No, no — the preaching of the gospel will never do away with slavery, so long as such views are inculcated and enforced from the pulpit. THE f'ORRKSPOyDKXT OF TrfE X. Y. KVANCl'TJ^T, DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. [dr. PARKER.] REPLY TO THE REJOINDER. Mr. Editor: — I confess myself disappointed in the character of the rejoinder of the correspondent of the Evangelist. I am not disappointed in the spirit it breathes. The writer is incapable of departing from the strictest Christian courtesy. But I am dis- appointed in witnessing the manner in which he has treated m}^ argument, which was designed to prove that " the incidental evils of slavery are not insepar- able from it." He refers to it as " the exceedingly shrewd, ingenious argument of your correspondent." Allow me to say, that while I thank him for his in- tended compliment, I should have been much more grateful for an attempt to answer my argument. Courteous allusions to an opponent are indications of a good heart, but it is anj^thing else than sound logic to pass over a strong point with complimenting its ingenuity. I dare not say that such was Xheinten- tion of the writer, but certainh^, in its effect^ it is ex- actly what, in those who contend for victory in de- bate, and nothing else, is termed " throwing dust.''^ I am not aware of the least ingenuity in my argu- ment. Its power lies in the simjDiest induction of particulars. I have merel}^ asked, what one inci- dental evil of slavery there is, that cannot be separ- ated from it ? I have specified such as occurred to me as principal evils — such as insufficient provision, severe chastisement, neglect of instniftion, and most DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY, 25 of tliose forms of evil which a selfish and Tinprinci- pled man would be likely to inflict on one who is entirely in his power. I have shown that every one of these have been laid aside by good masters. I also claimed that my opponent had conceded, that some masters, " one in a hundred or a thousand, hold slaves in harmony with the great law of love." I suppose he will not insist on that exact ratio. It may, peradventure, be one in fifty, and in some neighborhoods, where the gospel has most effect, it may be one in five, or possibly every individual. Yet he admits, that those who act in harmony with the great law of love, are slave-holders. Of course, slavery in these instances^ is not " whenever a human being, luithout crime alleged, is robbed of his inalien- able rights — such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ;" and if all slave-holders came to possess such a character, then they would all " hold slaves in harmony with the great law of love." He has made another beautiful concession, in his last communication. It is this : " Let the evils which Meridionus himself suggests, be thoroughl}' corrected, and it would amount to a subversion of the system of slavery." Exactly so. It is a luminous statement of the very truth for which I contend. It is like this. Mehemet Ali, a few years since, was doing, as it was said, many things for the improvement of his people. Suppose he had gone on in the exercise of his absolute power, removing one oppressive burden after another. He opens the highways of commerce by steam navigation, and the iron road. He pro- motes agriculture and manufactures. He encourages the cultivatioD of the soil, and diminishes the crush- ing taxation under which industr}^ is paralyzed. He 36 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. erects institutions of learning, and adopts a liberaliz- ing system of common school instruction. Thus he aims to remove those things which may be regarded as the ills of a despotic government in wicked hands. Under such a system, the people would be gradually raised, and despotism itself would ultimately give way, before those changes in the popular mind, that should prepare it for the beneficent influences of con- stitutional government, and enlightened popular in- fluence. Yet the gospel and the principles of sound wisdom do not allow me to condemn Mehemet Ali merely he- cause he has absolute power ^ nor to insist upon the sub- version of his government as the first step in the process of elevating the people and securing for them a higher exercise of the blessings of freedom. Yet he was a great slave-holder, and his government was analogous to that of a Southern planter, except that it was more absolute^ because over him there was no governmental restraint v/hatever. The Correspondent of the Evangelist has given a singular definition of slaver}^ He speaks of slavery as a " right.'''' That is very strange. Then he calls it a " legal rightP Let me quote his language — " I de- fine slavery (says he) to be this, to wit, the right of 'property in a humo.n being. I use this phraseology in the largest and most comprehensive sense. It is the legal right of buying and selling men and women as cattle and horses are sold." Why, Mr. Editor, slave- ry is not a right of any sort. The laws of the slave- holding states are statutes regulating the conduct of masters towards each other, and in some respects limiting the absolute power of masters over their slaves. Whether these are in all respects the best DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 37 laws is a question by itself. We are considering the subject ethically in its relation to individuals. I sup- pose it would not be denied that if a Southern planter and his three sons should take a hundred slaves and remove with them to a territory where no human go- vernment exists, and if they should stay there and treat their people just as they do now, they would be still slave-holders. Yet there could be no buying and selling of men and women there, till a state should be created. Slave-holding is the exercising of a power of one mind over another absolutely, and in certain circumstances. In the absoluteness of the power it differs not in any respect from the power that parents exercise over their children. In other respects it is certainly different. A parent does not make his child a slave. The parent's power, the master's power and the ab- solute civil ruler's power are all alike in this one thing. They are all absolute. The parental power is least liable to abuse, because it is softened continu- ally by natural affection. In the master and the civil despot there is less affection and greater liability to abuse and absolute authority. One word more. The Correspondent says : — " The abstract doctrine that slavery is per se sinful ought never to have been broached. It is untrue, indefen- sible, and has done no good, but a vast amount of mischief." What is a sin per se ? It is something that is in its own nature wrong — something that is inseparable from ill desert. Such a thing is blasphemy. Such a thing is robbery, and such is murder. Yet the Cor- respondent calls slavery something " where a human being is robbed of his inalienable rights." I ask, is ^S DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. not that a sin per se f And how much does it differ from the doctrine of the Garrison school ? — Except one calmly states the principle, and the other carries it out in denouncing our Southern brethren, as rob- bers and men-stealers. In conclusion, I cannot but express my regret that the Correspondent should intimate that he would do nothing to remove slaverj^, if the evils that are inci- dental to the system can be removed. I am certain that he cannot have considered fully the import of such a remark. I know his heart too well, to doubt that he would help to lift up the poor slave from his condition if he had not permission to blame any individual on earth for the existence of slavery. 0. E. MERIDIONUS. DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY [MR. ROOD.] EEPLICATION TO " 0. R. MERIDIONUSy Mr. Editor : — It seems that I disappointed my opponent, in my last communication. I regret this, as I should greatly have preferred to convince him that the ground he has taken in this discussion is un- tenable and false, and to have prevailed on him to come out boldly in defence of the truth, and to throw his influence into the scale of humanity, benevolence, and mercy. But if his representations are well founded, I have by honeyed phrases and a profusion of compliments attempted to " throw dust," and thus evade the strong arguments with which I was pressed. I had no such intention assuredly. It will be recol- lected, that the main design of " Meridonius" in the communication in which he intimates that his argu- ments were met by flattery rather than sound logic, was to subvert a position I had laid down, to wit, that "the incidental evils of slavery, as they are called, are part and parcel of the thing, and can never be separated from it." It would not be quite modest in me to insist that his arguments were fully met. I shall cheerfully submit the decision of this question to the judgment of our readers. But I did triumphantly show, so far as any attempt has yet been made to co7ivict me of error — 1st. That the nature of the system proves the truth of my position ; and 2d. As a matter of feet, the evils which are charged on slaverv never have heen separated frmn the system. Is 40 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. this nothing? On the ground that these positions were sustained, (and " Meridionus" has not attempted fo overthrow them,) 1 ask in all candor, if the foundation on which he has planted himself is not proved to be as "baseless as the fabric of a vision?" Why did not he manfully meet these positions, and show their irrelevancy or inconclusiveness, instead of intimating that I found it more convenient to pay a compliment, than to grapple with his logic ? It is easy for a dis- putant to say, " You wander from the subject, and ' throw dust,' and urge false issues," when he is pressed with facts and considerations, which hedge up his path. I think his argument was met as a whole, if not in the order and the manner that he anticipated. So much for this part of his communi- cation. Now for another point. The objection to my defi- nition, that " slavery is the right of property in a human being," I must regard as urged with the design of "throwing dust," without any conviction of its pertinence or force. " Meridionus," as well as every one who took the pains to peruse my article, must have known that I meant this and nothing more — to wit, an assumed right, a claimed right, a right which the statutes of slave-holding States wrongfully give to masters. Most cordially do I respond to the statement of my opponent, that " slavery is not a right of any sort," in fact and in truth. It is for this reason that I object to efforts which are confined to the removal of the " incidental evils of slavery, as they are called," while the prin- ciple, which lies at the foundation of this great system of oppression and wrong, is recognized and defended. I will go as far as " Meridionus" in mitigating the DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 41 rigors of this system — in alleviating the sufferings and woes of those unhappy men and women, who feel its ponderous, crushing weight, and a great deal farther than he is at present disposed to go, in drying up the fountain which sends forth these putrid streams. It is obvious, that the main difference be- tween " Meridionus" and mj-self, consists in a claim on his part, and a denial on mine, that " there are no evils in davery^ that are not equally insepa,rahle from dejyraved human nature in other lawful relations^ The system is well enough, in his judgment, if those who sustain it cautiously guard against the evils which ordinarily cluster around it. Here we are wide apart as the poles, and I pray heaven we may never come any nearer together, till he abandons a position which I deem so irreconcilable with the golden pre- cept, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them ; for this is the law and the prophets." It will be borne in mind, that " Meridionus" has not retracted or qualified the above statement, which has filled so many with grief and surprise. I called his particular attention to it, and jQi he has made no explanation and given no intimation that he is not walling to be understood according to the natural in- terpretation which would be put upon his language. I should hardly have believed there is a man north of Mason's and Dixon's line, who would have ven- tured to put forth such a statement, much less to manifest a determination to stand by it. I believe that most Christian men at the South, who see slavery as it is, would abjure the statement, as utterly un- founded and false. If Northern men can take this ground, and offer such palliations for the atrocities of 42 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. slavery, the prospect is indeed dark and hopeless for the poor slave. If the children of "Meridionus" were in bondage, subject to the brutality of ignorant and merciless overseers ; if he himself was liable to be torn away from his wife and pleasant home, and sold like a " brute beast" to the highest bidder, he might seriously question whether the " lawful KELATiONs" of slavery are not very unlawful and op- pressive. He might feel somewhat as a father and a husband did, who was sometime since torn from his family, and sold to the extreme Southern market. He was comparatively a young man, and was strongly attached to his wife and children. The price paid for him was nearly eight hundred dollars. A gen- tleman now in this city, happened to be in a town in Georgia, through which this colored man, with others, was driven. They arrived on Saturday night. The slave-dealer got his " gang of human cattle" ready to start early on Sabbath morning. The poor slave, of whom I have spoken, was exceedingly dejected and distressed. He thought of his wife and children, from whom he had been forced away by the merci- less cupidity of his new master. At length he be- came desperate, and declared, " The wretch who has bought me shall make no money by the purchase." In leaving the place, they were obliged to pass a ferry. He watched his opportunity, and plunged into the river, and with a death-grasp seized whatever he found at the bottom, and held on till life was extinct. He choose " strangling and death, rather than life," with the misery he endured, and a per- petual exile from those he loved. " Meridionus," in like circumstances, might exhibit an equal despera- tion. And yet slavery is a " lawful relation," DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 43 and needs only to be guarded against the evils inci- dental to it, to be a fair system, not to be rudely assailed, much less denounced as intrinsically turong, oppressive, and ivicked. Stop, stop, says " Meridionus," you are quite too fast. The traffic in slaves is a feature of the system I abhor, and it ought instantly to be corrected. So is cruel treatment, insufficiency of food and clothing, and the neglect to teach slaves their relations and their duty to God. Well, correct these, and a long catalogue of similar things, and render to servants, as "Meridionus" insists should be done, "that which is just and equal," and slavery no longer exists. The system is prostrated and subverted, as I have shown in my last communication, and you have an entirely different thing. The effort to convict me of inconsistency in saying that " the abstract doctrine that slavery is per se sinful, and ought never to have been broached," is, in my judgment, an utter failure. By this, I meant, as " Meridionus" well knows, that the laws of slave- holding States may force good men into a position which they deplore and abhor. They hold slaves not of choice, but by necessity. They are restrained from acting out the promptings of their humane, be- nevolent feelings by unrighteous and oppressive legis- lation. Now, if they do the best they can, in their circumstances ; if they remonstrate and petition for a change of those laws which environ them with diffi- culties ; if they truly desire to give freedom to their bonds- men ; then I say they are not chargeable with the guilt of oppression. Their condition is most unfor- tunate, but it is not one that deserves censure. How many slave-holders there are, who have these feelings 44 DISCUSSION OX SLAV^EHY. and pursue this course, I know not. But if there are five hundred, or even fifty, the statement that slavery is^jer 56, or in all cases sinful, is without foundation. But is this admitting that wrong, flagrant wrong does not lie somewhere in perpetuating slavery ? Is this the abandonment of any position I have laid down ? I think not. I will now, for a moment, contrast my definition of slavery with that given by '^ Meridionus." He says, *' Slave-holding is the exercising of a power of one mind over another absolutely, and in certain circum- stances. I think this is mere logomach}^ There is no such thing as an "absolute power of one mind over another." " Meridionus" is too familiar with the elaborate work of " Locke on the Human Under- standing," and Keid's "Inquiry into the Human Mind," and his " Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man," seriously to claim that this definition of slavery can be defended. There is such a thing as an " absolute power" over the body. This may be scourged and mutilated, and given as food to the fowls of the air. But the mind, thanks to Heaven, is unfettered and free. Men with all their malignity cannot reach it, or prevent those pious aspirations which prove that we are allied to angels and bear the impress of immortalit}^ Look at my definition. ^^ Slavery is the right of property in a human being J^ I have sufiiciently guarded the meaning which I attach to " rigM^ in this connection. Here, you have something tangible, something that every body can understand, something which is not, at least, ob- noxious to the charge of a contradiction and an absurdity. You have more. You have demonstra- tion perfect and complete, that the " right of property DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 45 in human beings" is the only thing about slavery that makes its boldest champions zealous in perpe- tuating it. Hence, the cry all over the South against abolitionists, " You would wrest from us our property and take away our means of living." Hence, so much is said about the five hundred millions invested in slaves, which would be sacrificed by a universal emancipation. I leave our readers to judge who is right on this point. In closing, will "Meridionus" please to state more explicitly what course, in his judgment, true wisdom demands in regard to this great subject ? I do not refer to the action of Northern Christians, but espe- cially to that action which our brethren at the South ought to take. Ought they not to do what they can to form a public sentiment against slavery? Ought they not to hold up the system as worthy of universal reprobation? Ought not ministers fearlessly to exhibit the wrongs of oppression, which prevail according to your own showing to such an alarming extent ? In a word, ought not the sys- tem of slavery to be represented as " doomed of Heaven," and worthy of the execration of all good men ? Ought not Christian men of every name to unite in effecting its subversion ? Or is it true, that " there is not one evil of slo.very that is not equally inse- parable from depraved human nature in other lawful relations^^ f " Meridionus" will excuse my seeming pertinacity, but I am resolved that this sentiment shall be retracted or re-afftrmed. THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N. T. EVANGELIST, 46 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. [DE. PARKER.] REPLY TO THE REPLICATION. Mr. Editor : — *' The Replication" is to my mind the most satisfactory of all the communications of the Correspondent of the Evangelist^ because it has brought out more fully the views of the writer ; and I am satisfied that it is only necessary that they should be understood, to be disapproved by all think- ing minds, that have not committed themselves to the doctrines of those technically called " abolition- ists." He admits that " it would not be quite modest for [him] to insist that [my] arguments were fully met." This concession is very liable to mislead the reader. One would think that the writer meant by it, that he had attempted to meet the argument, but that it would not be modest in him to say that he had/ii% met it. Whereas, it will be seen by any one, who will be at the trouble to read the preceding communications on both sides, that no attempt what- ever has been made to answer the argument by which I chiefly combated his position. I made an induction of the evils incidental to slavery, and showed that they could be, and that they were in many instances, separated from slavery, and of course that they were not a part and parcel of slavery, and inseparable frora it. This position, it is true, he has re-aflSrmed, and at- tempted to substantiate by an argument, but my ar- gument he has, for some reason, not seen fit to meet in any way. I mean, he has not attempted to meet it. DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 47 When he says afterwards, " I think his argument was met as a whole,^^ I do not suppose he intends any misrepresentation of the facts. He probably meant that he thinks he has overthrown the position which I had attempted to maintain — for certainly he could not meet my argument, without showing that the wrong facts had been adduced, or a fallacious appli- cation of them had been made. The argument by which he has attempted to maintain his position, shall receive attention in another part of my commu- nication. I feel myself called upon to notice in this place a mode of enforcing his views, which I am sure a man of so much native kindness and Christian urbanity as the Correspondent, will not approve in his cooler moments. I make a great allowance for the influence of the cause which he has espoused upon his feelings. The abolitionists, as a class, have evidently depended greatly upon the influence of personal censure, to carry their cause. — When their arguments are re- futed, and their assumptions shown to be unsound, they are very apt to satisfy themselves by chai'ging their opponents with "offering palliations for the atrocities of slaverj^," and with entertaining the " design of throwing dust without any conviction of its pertinence or force." I know, Mr. Editor, that the Correspondent is my personal friend, and, (his doctrines and their influence apart,) one of the kind- est men in the w^orld — and I know he will regret the attempt to exert the least influence against my reason- ings, by intimating, that in taking " this ground,*' which I have taken, I " offer palliations for the atro- cities of slavery ;" and that he will be particularly 48 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. dissatisfied with speaking in the manner he has done of mj motive in objecting to his definition of slavery, where he says : " The objection to my definition, that ' slavery is the right of property in a human being,' I must regard as urged with the design of ' throwing dust,' without any conviction of its per- tinency or force." The writer knows me too well certainly, to think for one moment that I can be in- duced to Vv'aive my obiection to his definition, by a remark of such a character. I beg of the Corre- spondent to have patience with me, while I proceed to renew and substantiate my objection to his defini- tion. I repeat it, then. Slavery is not a right of any sort. It is not an assumed right, nor a claimed right. Slavery is a term, by which the relation of two parties is indicated. The slaves are one party, the masters are the other. The state is not a party in the relation. A State may hold slaves, but in the condition of things of which we speak, in this coun- try, individual citizens hold slaves. But whoever may hold slaves — slavery is neither a right^ nor an ^^ assu7ned right,^^ HOT Si "a claimed right." Slavery, as expressive of the condition of the subordinate party, is the absolute subjection of slaves to their masters. Whether it is consistent with their rights, that they should be under this subjection or not, is a distinct question. Slaves a?-e in absolute subjection to their masters. Slavery, as expressive of the con- dition of the superior party, is the holding of slaves, the exercising of the power that keeps slaves in abso- lute subjection. Whether it be right for a master to hold slaves, is a distinct question. If he exercises the 2>oiver of keeping slaves in subjection to the con- trol of his will, he is one of the parties to the relation DISCUSSION" ON SLAVERY. 49 which we call slavery. If the State aids him in exer- cising this power, he is a slave-holder. If the State does 7iot aid him. he is still a slave-holder. If he stands alone, where there is no State authority over him, as loDg as he maintains this control, he is a slave-holder. If you suppose it to be right for him to hold them in subjection, he is a slave-holder. If you suppose it to be lurong^ he is equally a slave- holder. If he assumes he has a right to hold them in this subjection, he is a slave-holder ; if he admits that he has no right, and holds them in subjection, even in violation of his own conscience, he is a slave- holder. If he acquires them by purchase, and holds them in this subjection, he is a slave-holder ; if he inherits them, and holds them thus, he is a slave- holder. If the government which the State extends over the master, legislates with regard to slaves, and calls them " chattels," the man that keeps them in subjection is a slaveholder; and if the State should amend its code, and take away from masters the power of selling their slaves — that is, if they were not allowed to regard and treat them as property — yet, as long as they hold them in this subjection, they are slave-holders. Slavery, then, as it respects the superior part}^ in the relation, is the possession and exercise of a power. I have called it an absolute power. The Correspondent thinks my language too strong, and refers to Locke and Eeid, to show that masters cannot exercise so high a power. I think he is entirely right. I only intend by the " absolute power of one mind over another," what is commonly meant by absolute power in popular parlance-— the power of governing by the will of the ruler alone. But the Correspondent has himself given up his ,30 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. definition, ?,nd called " the right of property in human beings, a thing ahout slavery, that makes its cham- pions zealous in perpetuating it." His language is very singular, after maintaining that the rights or the assicmed, or claimed right of propertj^, is slavery it- self. " You have (says he) a demonstration perfect and complete, that the right of property in human beings is the only thing about slavery that makes its boldest champions zealous in perpetuating it." Take, then, his defined use of the term slavery, and substi- tute for it the word itself and it reads thus, " Slavery is the only thing ahout slavery that makes its boldest champions, &c." He certainly did not mean to say this. He forgot that he had maintained that the word slavery, and the phrase '* the right of property in a human heing^''^ are synonymous. Well he might forget it, for the phrase is no description of the force of the term. He has admitted, then, the very dis- tinction for v/hich I contend. Slavery is one thing. The right to buy and sell slaves, as a right sustained by the State, is another. — They are as distinct from one another as the power of a parent to control his child, and the right to bind him out as an apprentice. God has given parents an absolute control over their children. The State has secured to a father a* right to bind out his son in an apprenticeship, till he is twenty-one years of age, and to receive a considera- tion for the father's advantage, if he choose to do so. There is no limitation in time for the continuance of parental authority. So says Paley. A child is as much bound by the fifth commandment at fifty years, as at five years of age. Suppose a large num.ber of parents were to abuse this power over their children, and suppose the most DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 51 seliisli of them should defend their conduct by say- ing, that the exercise of this power is profitable to them, would that prove that the possession of abso- lute power is "robbery?" and the truth of the doc- trine of the Garrison School, that we "had better emancipate our wives and children, before w^e talk of emancipating Southern slaves?" What does the Correspondent mean by asking me if I am willing that m}^ children and mj^self should be subjected to the cruelties of severe masters ? No, certainly. Let me ask if he would like it for himself. I presume he will say — no. Yery well, we are even on that score. Does he v/ish to imply that I am defending these brutalities ? If he does, I do not think myself called upon for au}' defence against such a charge. But I cannot suppose that he does. And yet I am at a loss to interpret his language. One word in reply to the arguments of the Corre- spondent, by which he attempts to prove that " The incidental evils of slavery are a part and parcel cf the thing and can never be separated from itJ^ 1st. He alleges that he has proved it from ^Uhe nature of the systemP The argument is, if }-ou take away the evils you have another thing. I deny this and allege that if you take away unkind treatment of every sort, you do not thereby take away slavery so long as the master governs absolutely. If he rules with the gentleness and benevolence of a .perfectly holy being, ^-et, if he rules absolutely over his ser- vant, the essential elements of slavery, are still there. 2d. He maintains that the evils have never been separated from the system. Does this prove that these evils are necessary from the nature of the sj's- tem ? Yv^hy, if this be logic, it proves that the mar- 5^ DISCUSSION ON SLAVEEY. riage relation is an enormous wrong. Time would fail us to recount the miseries of families. And they never have been separated from the system. — What a sin, a constitutional monarchy like that of Great Britain, must be according to thi- mode of reason- ing ! Read the extracts published in the Observer of the 15th in St., from a Boston correspondent, describ- ing the miseries of factory life in England, — read it, and weep over poor down-trodden humanity. Then, do not forget that such evils never have been, in fact, separated from the system. JSTo, Mr. Editor, I cannot allow my good friend, the Correspondent, to claim all the sufferings of poor slaves, as arguments for a theory by which he is, without intending it, binding the heavy burdens upon the poor. The truth is, there is no cjuestion whether we do not both, wdth equal sincerity, deplore the sufferings of slaves, and, though he may possess more philanthropy than his friend, and may know that he possesses more, yet I am not vvilling that any superiority over me, in this moral respect, shall be vreighed against proofs. I am glad, if he loves the poor black man. I thank him on behalf of my Master, for his sympathy with the poor. I wall repay him with the same in kind. But I am not willing to take his sympathy for suffering slaves, and his glowing descriptions of the injustice of oppressors, as proof that one cannot hold a slave, v/ithout oppressing him. The Correspondent wishes me to re- affirm my posi- tion. I certainly have no objection to try to make my meaning plain and to place my argument in a clearer light. From the fact that he had not noticed the ar- gument, made no analysis of it, nor as much as at- DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 53 tempted to point out any fallacy, I v/as beginning to think that it was too clear, and that, on that account, he preferred not to notice it. But it seems I am mis- taken, and my opponent does not fully comprehend it. The matter lies thus. The Correspondent of the Evangelist had said in his communication in your paper of Dec. 18th, that " The incidental evils [of slavery] are pari and parcel of the thing and can never he separated from itP I asserted that this proposition is not true. I attempted by an argument to prove that it is not. I first adduced a large number of these evils, such as cruelty in punishing — insufficient food and clothing — sep)arating families hy sale — neglect of instruction^ &c., &c. It was not my object to point out all the methods in which slaves suffer injurious treatment. But I supposed then, and do now, that it was this sort of evils that my opponent referred to in his proposition. That I was right in that supposition is obvious from the fact that he has not complained of being misun- derstood in this respect, as well, as from his repeated reference to this very class of evils as the things which render the system odious. Of course, there is no dispute between us as to the question whether Southern men are sinners, or whe- ther there, as elsewhere, there is a tendency in su- periors to seek their own aggrandizement by unjustly making a gain of the weak. Masters have great power over slaves — I have called it absolute power — the phrase is probably understood. I maintained that the possession of absolute power does not neces- sarily imply any wrong in the person that holds it. The wrong, if there be wrong, lies in the abuse of 54 DISCUSSION ON SLAVER1. power. THe flict that one man rules another with absolute swaj, does not prove that the master is act- ing wickedly. If he has exercised that power un- justly in inflicting those evils which are incidental to slavery, yet he is under no necessity of doing so. If he has punished with cruelty, Y^dlat can prevent the possibility of his repentance and reformation ? If he has overworked his poor servant, or v;ithheld from him the comforts that he needs, cannot he cease from this species of injustice? What vice is there that cannot be repented of and abandoned — what virtue that cannot be cherished and cultivated by both slaves and their masters ? What, then, are the evils that are inseparable from slavery ? I wish the Correspondent would answer this by pointing out bareh^ one. To express sentiments of grief for fear that tliese questions will cause slave-holders to be content to let slaverj^ remain for ever, is not meeting the question. If he is grieved with the tendency of my views, I am equally grieved with the tendency of his. We will let the tears on both sides balance each other. The truth is what Vv'e want. He has maintained that " slavery" is not a sin in itself — "and yet that it is robber}^ ;" — that " hundreds hold slaves in harmony with the great law of love," and " the relation is unlawful and oppressive," that "the rela,- Hon ought to be denounced as intrinsicaUy icrong^ op- pressive o.nd loichedV The Correspondent asks me to state what, in my judgment, our Southern brethren ought to do in re- spect to slavery ? I can answer this to my own satisfaction. I think their duty is clear. But I have not room in this communication. 0. R. MERIDIONLTS. DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 55 [ME. KOOD.] TO " 0. R. MERIDIO^IZ'SP Mr. Editor : — As I anticipated, *' Meridionus" apparently shrinks from tlie reiteration of the senti- ment, that " there is not one evil in sloxery^ that is not equally inseparable from depraved human nature in other lawful relations^ He says. '' I certainly liave no objection to try to make mj- meaning plain, and to place my argument in a clearer light." I asked for no such thing. I had no difficulty in apprehend- ing the statement ; but I did wish to knov^ if that position is one which, after due reflection, he is will- ing to endorse, and means to defend. The answer is somewhat doubtful. He does not directly re-affirm liis statement, nor does he admit that it is erroneous. The fair inference, however, from what he does say is, that he still adheres to it. If so, it would have been better frankly to avow it, and thus, at once, re- move all doubt and debate. " What then," he asks, " are the evils that are inseparable from slavery ? I v/ish the Correspondent would answer this, by point- ing out barely cneP " Meridionus" shall be gratified in his request. One evil inseparable from slavery is, hrutoMzing tlm niind^ and shrouding the enslaved in ignorance. I am aware that mau}^ slaves are instructed in the pre- cepts and principles of the gospel, and furnish evi- dence of piety. But the great mass of them are not instrncted — and those who are, for the inost part re- 5t5 DISCUSSION ON SiLAVERY. ceive oral instruction. They are not taught to read and examine tlie word of God for themselves. The plen, is, if thev are taught to read the Bible, they will read " incendiary publications," which represent them as an injured and oppressed peoi^le, and they will rise and revenge their supposed v/rongs. " Me- ridionus" will not deny, that a thorough system of elementary education would subvert the system of slavery. Everybody knows it would. So the sub- ject is understood all over the South, as is proved by the unrighteous statutes, making it a penal offence to establish schools to educate slaves. They are kept in ignorance, because it is urged they cannot with safety be instructed. The plea is unquestion- ably well founded. Grive to slaves, as a body, half the education that is obtained by the common classes at the North, and there is no earthly power that would prevent them from throwing oif the yoke of oppression, and claiming and gaining their freedom. Southern people understand this full well, and if *' Meridionus" denies it, they will not. Another evil inseparable from slavery, consists in the unlawful control lohicli slave-holders exercise over the children of the enslo/ved. The Apostle says, Col. iii. 20, " Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing unto the Lord." Let me ask " Meridionus" — Do not masters nullify this divine precept uniformly in the slave-holding states ? Will he pretend that children are permitted to obey their parents, as God has enjoined it upon them? Is not the law of the master, not the precept of the parent, the rule by which they are governed ? A child m.ay not minister to the parent in sickness, or wipe the cold sweat of death from his brovv-, if the master DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 57 chooses to forbid these last offices of sympathy and affection. A mother may desire the soothing in- fluence of a daughter's love, in her last hours, and be refused, if the cupidity of the master chooses to interpose, and drive her to the cotton-field. Will " Meridionus" please to inform me in what other *' LAWFUL relations" such inhumanity can be prac- tised with impunity ? The allusion to the evils in- cidental to the marriage relation, has not, I think, any great force. There are many unhappy husbands and wives, made such by their ill-temper, indiscre- tions, and sins, I admit. But mark : all that is ne- cessary to remove these evils, is to lead them to embrace the gospel in its transforming and purifying power. Chrysostom truly said — " Bring me a man as ungovernable as the storm, and sottish as the swine, and with a few words of this divine gospel, I will make him gentler than the zephyr, and purer than the translucent stream." But there are slave- holders professing to be, and, I doubt not, are really converted, who do not give to parents in bondage that control of their children, to which they are en- titled by the w^ord of God. Briog to repentance an intemperate husband or an irreligious v^'ife, and you remove their vices, and render them kind, affection- ate, and happy. But in the case of the slave-holder, you must do something more. You must bring hirn away from the influence of slavery, before he ca7i m all respects^ if I may so speak, fulfil the law of love. There is another evil inseparable from slavery. While the system is maintained, masters caiinot ren- der to tJteir servants " that I'-JiicJi is just and equaV The nature of the system forbids this, on the broad scale which Christianity requires. It cannot be done. •58 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. without awarding to servants a just compensation for their labor. But as soon as this should become the settled policy of the slave-holding States, there Yv'ould be no reluctance to adopt a course of judicious measures, Avhich would in a reasonable time result in a nniversal emancipation. There is still another evil, which, if not insepar- able from slavery, uniformly attaches to it, and it is one of no small magnitude. I refer to its blinding, blunting, hardening inflnence upon those who live in the midst of it. There is something quite remark- able in this feature of slavery. I have known Nor- thern men go to reside in slave-holding States, with clear views of human rights, and a conscientious purpose to exert what influence they could to subvert the system.. Bnt in a little time, they seemed to lose their zeal and S3mapathy in behalf of the slave, and to settle down in comparative indifference as to the appalling evils with which they were surronnded, and sometimes they have gone so far as to palliate and defend a system which they have always held iu abhorrence. I cannot tell exactly how or why this is, but I suppose the atmosphere is tainted, and they look at things through a haz}-, distorted medium, and are insensibly led to a modification and change of their views, and sometimes to the utter abandon- ment of long cherished principles. I could point to some affecting examples, where this metamorphic as- pect has been exhibited. If this is not an " iniquity" to be punished by the judges, it is certainly an evil greatly to be deplored 1 AY hen " Meridionus" shall dispose of these things in due order, and by sound logic, I will name some other things for his consider- ation. DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 59 I pass now to the main topic of his last commu- nication, which consists of a labored argument to substantiate the truth of his positioD, that ''slave- holding is the exercise of a power of one mind over another, absolutely, and in certain circumstances." It seems to me that this is " darkening counsel by words -vvdthout knowledge." It is, at best, a mere abstraction, as I hope to be able to sliow. According to this doctrine, every popular, powerful preacher, who has the esteem and confidence of his hearers, is a slave-holder, and his people are slaves. "Meri- dionus" admits that " absolute power of one mind over another," is, in the nature of the case, impos- sible. He intended, "what is commonly meant by absolute power in popular parlance." I know clergy- men, vfho have what amounts to nearly this control over a portion of their hearers; but they vvould think it very strange, if they should be represented as slave-holders. There are parents who exert a still more unlimited control over the minds of their chil- dren. Are they slave-holders? Mark especially the following paragrajDh: "If he [the master] rules with the gentleness and benevolence of a perfectly holy being, yet if he rules absolutely over his servant, the essential elements of slavery are there." Does " Me- ridionus" really suppose this statement v/ill be re- ceived as truth ? Is he willing to abide by it, and commit himself to its defence? What being pos- sesses such absolute control of mind, as the blessed God ! " The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water ; he turneth it vfhither- soever he vfill." Good men and angels are under the absolute control of God ; but according to this doctrine, instead of being the " freemen of the Lord," 60 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. they are bond slaves. An argument tliat leads to such revolting conclusions, is worse than a mere ab- straction. I leave our readers to give it a name. In this discussion, we are professedly looking at slavery as it is, — not as it xn.2i.j possibly exist, in circumstances unknown in real life. Slavery is entirely different from the parental rela- lion. There is scarcely a feature in it that bears a resemblance to this relation. In all divinely estab- lished social relations there is a native element of love, which softens authority, and cheers obedience. But slavery is an unnatural, forced relation, where the subject has no natural love to prompt cheerful obedience, nor the master any parental feeling to restrain wrath and tyranny. Parents never speak of their children as '' chattels," or put them up in the market to the highest bidder. Slavery differs in oil its essential elements from the system of apprenticeship. So the planters of the West Indies understood it ; so it is universally conceded except by those who have some favorite theory to sustain. The master has the avails of the labor of the apprentice, but he is supposed to render a full equivalent in his care over him, and the schooling he gives him, and his efforts to prepare him for future respectability and happiness, and usefulness. In every step taken, the good of the apprentice is con- templated as well as the interests of the master. It is precisely the reverse in the case of the slave. He is a "chattel personal," a thing, the property of his master to be disposed of as a horse or an ox. And yet, we are gravely told that the essential element of slavery is the control of one mind over another ! " It is not." says "Meridionus," " &xi assumed n^it, nor DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 61 a claimed right. It is a term by which the relation of two parties is indicated." If this is all, what a harmless thing slavery must be ! Who would ob- ject to "a ^e^??^" by which two parties choose to in- dicate their relations ? If this is slavery, it is won- derful that the mass of men should not have made the discovery at an earlier period. Just see with what severity of language Mr. Monroe speaks of " a term.'''' ''Vv^e have found," says he in his speech in the Virginia Convention, "that this evil has preyed upon the very vitals of the Union, and has been prejudicial to all the States in which it has existed." Hear what Patrick Henry said in 1773. " Is it not amazing that at a time when tlie rights of humanity are defined and understood with precision, in a coun- try above all others fond of liberty, that in such an age and country, v/e find men professing a religion the most humane, mild, gentle and generous, adopt- ing a principle as repugnant to humanity as it is in- consistent with the Bible and destructive to liberty." Listen to what Jefferson said of "a term^ " I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that his -justice cannot sleep forever. The Almighty has no attribute v.^hich can take sides v/ith us in such a contest." Hear what Wm. Pinkney said in the House of Delegates, Marjdand, 1789. "Ini- quitous and most dishonorable to Maryland is that dreary system of bondage, which her laws have hitherto supported with a solicitude worthy of a better object, and her citizens by their practice coun- tenanced : founded on a disgraceful traffic to which the parent countrj^ lent her fostering aid from mo- tives of interest. — Its continuance is as shameful as its origin. Wherefore should y right, but as far as the master was concerned, a power, a DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 69 control that one human being exercised over another, &;c. This was disputed. Then, in a subsequent communication, I proceeded to define the term slave- ry more fully. I thus defined the use of the word slavery : Slaver}^ is a term by which the relation of two parties is indicated. The slaves are one part}^, the masters are the other, &c. See the beginning of the second paragraph above. "VYhy did not the Cor- respondent show, that this definition, which was a mere expansion of my denial that slavery is " « riglit^'' and my assertion that it is an " absolute con- trol," was an unsound definition ? I think it was because he could not. I only ask the reader to pe- ruse the definition again. Meantime I have corre- spondents too. Several Avarm opposers of slavery have volunteered their approbation. Here is an ex- tract from one of their communications, a gentleman known for his philanthropy and intelligence, a gen- tleman who has traveled in the South, without being blinded or hardened. I will venture to stake the good sense, and clearness, and urhanity of his com- munication, against the same qualities in the charac- ter of the letter of the correspondent of my opponent in this debate. He says as follows :— ~ * * " Your articles may be of very great use to those who speak and write of slavery, without having any dis- tinct ideas of the condition of the slave. There has been a remarkable confusion of words on the subject, tlie effect, no doubt, of confused ideas. Some have confounded slave- ry with slave-holdhig^ in defiance of the King's English ; and others have imasjined that ' the property -power,' or the laws on the subject, constitute the very essence of slavery. " hi your definition of the word slavery, as ' a ter7n de- noting the complete subjection of one pfirty to the r.u- 70 DISCUSSION Ol\ SLATEI^Y. thority of another, in certain circumstances,' you have de- scribed the very thing. Your definition is a picture, a de- scription — and every reader may see that you are not speaking of the laws, or of the traffic, or any other abuses, which are the accidents of slavery, but which are not es- sential to the relation between master and servant — but of a condition between tico parties^ vrhich may and does often exist, amid all the evils incidental to the exercise of abso- lute power, vv'ithout vrrong to either party concerned. Slave-holding, then, is one thing ; and the traffic in sla\ es, and other abuses which spring from avarice and cupidity, arc very difterent things ; and there is surely no evidence of remarkable perspicacity in the statements, which make these evils a part and parcel of the thing. If the power to sell or barter av/ay the servant, is essential to slavery — many Southern masters are oiot slave-holders — for they do not exercise the right of selling their faithful servants; they do not even claim it as a right. Some of them would about as soon think of selling their children. If this ' pro- perty power ' be a part of the thing — many slave-holders do not hold their servants in the state or condition of slavery ; that is — they are not slave-holders !" 8. I have myself no objection to the course pur- sued by the gentleman of the South referred to by the Correspondent in respect to his slave Tom. I presume he was actuated by philanthropic principles, and I have no doubt that the political sj'stem that sustains slavery is quite as bad ; indeed, in m.y opin- ion, it is a great deal worse than the Correspondent, or any other man that has not lived under it, ever dreamed of. But there are hundreds of good men that hold slaves, and manage their phmtations, with- out any such arrangements as were made in respect to Tom, who are nevertheless not guilty of the sins which the Correspondent charges upon them. Now, Mr. Editor, this matter must be understood — and no intimations that I have been blinded and DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 71 hardened, or that I think well of the system of slave- ry, or that I am apologizing for its evils, shall pre- vent my speaking the truth, in regard to the calum- nies heaped upon our Southern brethren, A good lady Avho had never been at the South, once said to me, that the slaves were all cruelly dealt with, in that they were not well fed, and were never treated kindly. I replied, there are certainly some exceptions. For instance : my friend, the Rev. J. L. Alontgomery, of Bayou Sarah, but now, I trust, in heaven, told me that he had all his slaves served with good hot coffee, before going into the cotton field in the morning ; and I have often seen the late Hon. Judge Harper, of ISTew Orleans, take a little slave on one knee, and the son of his niece on the other, and delight himself in ministering to their common grati- fication. Her reply w^as — " Are jou not ashamed to stand here and apologize for slavery ?" I have often been reminded of this, by the statements of the Cor- respondent, If some men do in fact hold slaves, without brutalizing them — without shrouding their slaves in ignorance — I have a right to say so. If I have known masters that not only v*' ould not prevent parents among their slaves from governing their chil- dren, but who even used their influence to make the children respect and honor and obey their parents — I have a right to say it. Xow a few words in reply to the argument of the Correspondent. 1. He maintains that it is an evil inseparahle from slavery, that it brutalizes the mind and shrouds the en- slaved in ignorance. To brutalize, is to make brutal. That slavery has exerted such an influence, where masters are cruel, or neglectful of the interests of 72 DISCUSSION ON SLAYERT. their servants, cannot be denied — but the Corre- spondent maintains that this influence is inseparable from slavery ; that is, that every Christian man that holds slaves, brutalizes them — that he cannot hold them in slavery without brutalizing them. Why, Mr. Editor, it is perfectly palpable to every body ac- quainted with the state of things in the South, that those who have been in bondage longest, as a general thing, are least brutal^ and that those who have come to the country most recently^ are, in general, most brutal. The Correspondent admits that " many slaves are instructed in the precepts and principles of the gospel, and furnish evidence of piety." Is brutalizing inseparable from the influence exerted on these many ? I do not understand how a brutalizing, and converting, and sanctifjdng process, can go on together in the same persons. He admits that they are taught orally, but then he maintains that they are every one brutalized and enshrouded in igno- rance. Suppose I should show the Correspondent a slave that has more grace of manners than the ma- jority of graduates of our colleges, a man that can be trusted by his master to manage a great and com- plicated business, and to whose care he can safely con- fide the protection of his wife and daughters, both at home or in journeys, will he say that slavery has brutalized such a man? I can assure the Corre- spondent that I have had the happiness to know more than one, who is as far from being brutahzed, as Joseph was in Egypt, or Daniel in Babylon, by their bondage. And is shrouding the enslaved in igno- rance, inseparable from slavery ? If this means any thing, it means that a man cannot be in a state of slavery, and be taught at the same time. DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 73 Shrouding in ignorance is inseparahle from slavery ! Tgnorance insejoarable from slavery! Were the literati among the Roman slaves ignorant? Was the accomplished Terence made brutal and ignorant by slavery? Yet his master Terentius Lucanus, (who had the power of life and death over him,) gave Terence his elegant education. Plautus, too, one of the purest among the early Latin classics, was born and brought up in slavery. There are also hundreds in the South, that can read, and write, and cast interest. Is being enshrouded in ignorance in- separahle from a state of bondage ? Why, sir, the Correspondent knows from the moment that he re- flects on it, that he himself could advance a family of slaves in knowledge every month of their lives, if he held them, even under all the disadvantages of our American slave code. I deny that any master, but a wicked and unprin- cipled one, brutalizes his servants, or enshrouds them in ignorance. Every Christian man exerts an influ- ence of an opposite character. The assertion that such an influence of brutalizing and enshrouding in ignorance is inseparable from slavery, is a cruel accu- sation against hundreds of excellent Christian men, that are toilfully and successfully, though slowly, I admit, improving the intellectual and spiritual state of their poor slaves. Another evil which the Correspondent asserts to be inseparable from slavery, is the unlaioful control ivhich slaveholders exercise over the children of the enslaved. Mr. Editor, I do feel deeply the cut, inflicted by this paragraph of the Correspondent, upon thousands who are unj ustly accused by it. If the Correspond- ent had said that slavery gives a man the power to 74 BISCr.'SSlON ON SLAVERY. act thus towards his slaves, I would not have ob- jected. But he maintains that all slaveholders exer- cise this cruelty — that it is inseparable from slaver}^ The questions propounded are most extraordinarj^ He refers to the Divine injunction to children to obey their parents, and gravely asks me " if masters do not nullify this command uniformly^ in the slave- holding States ?" Why, he might with as much pro- priety ask me if masters do not uniformly whip their slaves to death in the Southern States. He asks whether I " will pretend that children are permitted to obey their parents as God has enjoined it upon them ?" Why sir, the question is as insulting to many of our excellent Christian friends at the South, as it would be to the Correspondent to ask him if he would pretend that he himself permits his children to obey their mother. There is nothing in slavery that can prevent a Christian master from inculcating every precept of the gospel upon his servants. Every precept is in- culcated by the pious. Christian masters require it of the children of their servants^ to honour and obey their parents. They often require it of their own children, to obey the servants that have the care of them. — I must here narrate a little incident illus- trative of the feelings of many Southern Christians in respect to the deference which they often demand for worthy servants. I procured for a New England gentleman, a young man, the situation of family pre- ceptor, in a respectable family in Louisiana. After a time I inquired of the employer how he liked my young friend. He replied, ^^Very well, except in one thing ; he seems to be a fine scholar, and the children are fond of him." But. in what particular. DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 75 asked I, does lie not suit you? "Well," said he, " he does not seem to understand our domestic feel- ings ; he is not exactly as kind as he should be to all the family." IIow is that ? said I, he always seemed to me a man of very bland and amiable manners. " Well," said my friend, " so he is except in a single case. Our servant, old aunt Polly, has grown grey in the service of this family. She has been the mamma [nurse] of all my children, and we never allowed one of them to speak disrespectfully to her. She is an old saint, and we can't bear to see her abused." But what has he done ? How does he treat aunt Polly ? Yery bad ? inquired I. " Why, yes," says he, " he orders her about like a child, and asks her what she means by not having his room in order. It grieves her. We always say, please aunt Polly." Yet, this young man pocketed his $800 salary, which he had leceived in addition to his board, and returned to the North, and wrote back a letter to his pastor containing " scorching rebukes" for his not coming out and " reproving the sin of slavery," and that too, when he had remained in the same place a year without " reproving" it himself, or doing any- thing else bearing on the subject, except to grieve the heart of a pious family by speaking disrespectfully to a servant of excellent character ! Do you wonder, Sir, that such a man as that master should speak of abolitionists as " northern fanatics," when he sees in the paper, from the pen of a man of so much stand- ing and character as " the Correspondenc," a question like this — " Will he pretend that children are per- miited to obey their parents as God has enjoined it upon them?'' The insinuation that -'a child [in 76 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. bondage] is not permitted to minister to a parent in sickness, or wipe the cold sweat of death from his brow," is unworthy of the Correspondent. I know he does not say that this \s> inseparable from slavery — • but why say, "7/' the master chooses to forbid these last offices of sympathy and affection." Would "the Correspondent" think it kind if one should say of a servant woman in his own family, that a child might not come and minister to her mother in sickness, or wipe the cold sweat of death from ]ier brow, if he the Correspondent chooses to forbid these last offices of sympathy and affection ? And yet, he ought to know that such an act is as likely to be perpetrated by himself, as by our Christian brethren at the South. Mr. Editor, I do deeply regret that the Correspond- ent has not left some opportunity for modifying his statements. But his declaration, that it is " inscpa- rahy^ from slavery, " that slave-holders exercise an unlawful control over the children of the enslaved," and the question (one of the strongest modes of as- serting a thing,) do not masters nullify this divine precept uniformly in the slave-holding States?" have put it out of his power to explain. He ought, in my opinion, to retract the charge. I know that the Correspondent is kind and charitable in his general character. He can doubtless say, that he has writ- ten hastily, that he has been imperceptibly drawn into such modes of speaking by an honest zeal against a hateful institution, but he will not abide by positions of a calumnious character against his Chris- tian brethren. A man may utter language that has all the influence of the basest calumny, without in- volving himself in the guilt of calumny. So I trust, DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 7-7 and believe it is with tlie Correspondent. Tliere are hundreds of men, in the South, some of them min- isters of the gospel, and elders of our churches, who hold slaves, of whom, I am sure, he will not say on reflection, that it is insejjarahle from their slave-hold- ing that they brutalize their servants, enshroud them in ignorance, or refuse " to permit their children to obey their parents." He means it is inseparable from the slave-holding of very bad men. I do not allege that the Correspondent is culpable for saying what he has said of Southern men here, but I do say that he will he if he do not inform him- self of the state of facts. If he fears being hlinded and hardened by going and seeing for himself, let him inquire of those who have as much character as himself, and who have been eye witnesses, and he will learn that the things wdiich he has charged upon all slaveholders as inseparable from slavery, and as being uniformly practiced, are, like sin, everywhere else, practiced only by wicked men. Slavery is a great evil. Mr. Monroe, and Mr. Jefferson, and thousands of others anions: slave-holders do not think too badly of it. But, there are other evils. Among them, there is perhaps none more dangerous than the spirit of detraction. We look to good men like the Correspondent to counteract its influence. When the Correspondent brings forward one evil that is inseparable from slavery that is not equally inseparable from depraved human nature in other lawful relations, I Avill promise cheerfully to retract my position. O. R. MERIDIONUS. DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. [MR. ROOD.] TO " 0. R. MERIDIONUSy Mr. Editor : — Mj opponent ought surely by this time to be convinced, that I make a wide distinction between the system of slavery^ and those Christian brethren who feel its ponderous weight, and are struggling amidst the difficulties with which they are environed, to do the best they can in their unfortu- nate position. I have not uttered an unkind word in regard to them, but uniformly in this discussion expressed the sympathy which I sincerely feel for them, in their trying and difficult circumstances. "Meridionus" might have saved much time and strength which he has expended in his last commu- nication, in defence of brethren at the South, if he had called into exercise a reasonable share of dis- crimination, so as to have gained a clear apprehen- sion of the positions, which I endeavored to establish. As it is, he has certainly missed the mark in most that he has said. It will be recollected, that he call- ed on me to specify ^''barely one^^ evil that is in- separable from slavery. I responded to this b}^ say- ing, " one evil inseparable from slavery is hrutalizing the mindy and shrouding the enslaved in ignorance^ I admitted " that many slaves are instructed in the i^recepts and principles of the Gospel, and furnish evidence of piety." I knew full well that many Christian masters are careful and conscientious in im- parting knowledge to their servants, and this is clear- \y implied in the remark, ^' that many slaves are in- structed." Who did "Meridionus" suppose I in- tended as giving such instruction, but pious masters ? But such instances, and I rejoice there are so many, are exceptions to the general rule. Where there is one master, who labors for the intellectual and moral culture of his servants, are there not ten, fifteen, or twenty, who are indifferent or hostile to their mental improvement ? Let us look at some facts, and see if my position, which my opponent represents as untrue and slanderous, is not full}^ sustained. '' A law of South Carolina, passed in 1800, autho* rizes the infliction of twenty lashes on any slave found in an assembly con\ cned for the purpose of MENTAL iNSTRUCTiox, held in a confined or secret place, although in the presence of a white. Another law imposes a fine of one hundred dollars on any person who may teach a slave to write. An act of Virginia, of 1829, declares every meeting of slaves, at anjr school, by day or night, for instruction in reading or icritlng^ an unlawful assembly ; and any justice may inflict twenty lashes on esch slave found in such school." How slanderous it is, to say that slavery brutalizes i\\^ mind, and keeps its victims in ignorance ! But I have not done yet. In IN'orth Carolina, " to teach a slave to read or lorite^ or to sell or give him any book, (the Bible not excepted,) or pamphlet, may be punished with thirty-nine lashes, or imprisonment, if the offender be a free negro ; but if a white, then with a fine of two hundred dollars." Would the reader know why this severity for an act which would be commended in a free State ? The preamble to the law assigns the rea^^on. Mark it, my good friend, sO LISCUSSION ON SLATERY. '^ Meridionus," ponder, and inwardly digest it — " TeacJiing slaves to read and write^ tends to excite dissa- iisfaction in their minds^ and to 'produce insurrection and rebellion^ A law was enacted in Greorgia, in 1829, to wit, "If a Avliite teach a free negro or slave to I'ead or Avrite, he shall be fined five hundred dollars, and imprisoned at the discretion of the court ; if the oft'ender be a colored man, bond or free, he shall be fined or whipped at the discretion of the court." In Louisiana, the penalty on the statute book, if it has not been recently repealed, for teaching slaves to read or write, is one year's imprisonment. I pass now to the testimony of ecclesiastical bodies. The Synod of Kentucky have recorded their tes- timony as follows : " Slavery dooms thousands of human beings to hopeless ignorance. Throughout the State, so far as Ave can learn, there is but one school in which, during the week, slaves can be taught. Here and there a family is found, where humanity and religion impel the master, mistress, or children, to the laborious task of private instruction. But after all, what is the utmost amount of instruc- tion given to slaves? Those who enjoy the most of it, are fed but with the crumbs of knowledge which fall from their master's table. The impression is al- most universal," (mark it, my good friend,) " that intellectual elevation unfits men for servitude, and renders it impossible to retain tliein in this condition. Hence, in some of our States, laws have been enact- ed, prohibiting, under severe penalties, the instruc- tion of the blacks ; and even where such laws do not exist, there are formidahle numbers^ who oppose with deep hostility every effort to enlighten the mind of the DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY, 81 negror Had tlie Synod of Kentucky any doubt in regard to the brutalizing influence of slavery ? The Eev. Dr. Xelson, born and educated in Ten- nessee, and till forty years old a slaveholder, says. " I have been asked concerning the religious instruc- tion of slaves ; and I feel safe in answering, that in general it amounts to little or nothing. Hundreds and thousands never heard of a Savior ; and of those who are familiar with his name, few have any com- prehension of its meaning. I remember one grey- headed negro, with whom I tried to talk concerning his immortal soul. I pointed to the hills, and told him God made them. He said he did not believe anybody made the hills. I asked another slave about Jesus Christ. I found he had heard his name, but he thought he was the son of the Governor of Ken- tucky." The Eev. Charles C. Jones preached a sermon, in 1831, before two associations of planters in Georgia, in which he says : " Generally speaking, the slaves appear to us to be without God and without hope in the world — A nation of heathens in our very midst. We cannot cry out against the Papists for withholding the Scriptures from the common people, and keeping them in ignorance of the way of life ; for we withhold the Bible from our servants, and ^ee/.^ them in ignorance of it, while we luill not use the means to have it read and explained to them. The cry of our perishing servants comes up to us from the sultry plains, as the}^ bend to their toil — it comes up to us from their humble cottages, when they return at evening to rest their weary limbs — it comes up to us from the midst of their ignorance, and superstition, an.d adultery and lewdness." And yet, " there is not 4* S'4 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. one evil in slavery^ that is not equally inseparable from depraved human nature in other LAWFUL RELA- TIONS." " Meridionus " holds on to this, as if it were his life. In 1833, the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia made the following record: "From long continued and close observation, we believe that the moral and re- ligious condition of slaves is such, that they may justly be considered the heathen of this Christian country, and will bear comparison with heathen in any country in the world." Why does not my opponent reprove these Southern brethren for ^''detractions'''' which he justly represents as a crying sin! I think if I am arraigned on this charge, I shall be found in a very numerous and respectable company. A correspond- ent of the Church Advocate^ published at the time in Kentuck}', saj^s : " The poor negroes are left in the ways of spiritual darkness — no efforts are being made for their enlightenment — no seed is being sown in this portion of the Lord's vineyard — here nothing but a moral wilderness is seen, over which the soul sickens, and the heart of Christian sympathy bleeds. Here nothing is presented but a moral waste, as ex- tensive as our influence, as appalling as the valley of death." If my limits would permit, I could furnish a mass of additional testimony of the same general bearing. Now, my opponent is bound to do ofte of two things : either to show that this testimony is irrelevant or untrue, or admit that my position is fully sustained. I shall not accept general statements of denial, or be diverted from the point at issue by the charge of *' detraction." " Meridionus " must meet^ and set aside this testimony, or confess that he is rnrong, and that I am DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY 83 rights It is preposterous for a man who lias resided in Kichmond, or Charleston, or New Orleans, and mingled with refined and genteel circles, to pretend that he has seen slavery as it is, and is qualified to give a fair representation of its atrocities, as they are generally exhibited. A writer in the Charleston (S. C.) Observer said : *'Let us establish missionaries among our own ne- groes, who, in view of religious knowledge, are as debasingiy ignorant as any one on the coast of Africa ; for I hazard the assertion, that throughout the bounds of our Synod, there are at least one hundred thousand slaves, speaking the same language as ourselves, who never heard of the plan of salvation by a Redeemer." The Editor, instead of contradicting this broad asser- tion, adds : " We fully concur with what our corre- spondent has said, respecting the benighted heathen among ourselves." With testimony like this, and a great amount of similar character, the conviction is forced upon my mind, that the knowledge of my opponent, of the customs and usages of the South, is extremely limit- ed and superfi-cial. I do not believe that he inten- tionally misrepresents the state of things there. Certainly not. He is a man of character, and con- science, and truth. But he is mistaken, and does not understand the things whereof he affirms. In his zeal for the South, he has lost sight of his usual dis- cretion, and committed himself to the defence of positions, which every body must see are utterly un- tenable. My second specification of the evils inseparable from slaverj^, respects the " unlawful control which slave-holders exercise over the children of the en- 84 DISCUSSION ON SLAYERY. slaved." M}^ opponent professes to be deeply grieved by this representation. He says, " I do feel deeply the cut, inflicted by this paragraph of the Corre- spondent, upon thousands who are unjustly accused by it." The Kev. Mr. Barnes in his admirable work on sla- very, sustains by a triumphant argument, the views I have expressed. He says, " Slavery interferes with the natural right which a father has over his children. This results from the nature oi property im- plied in the relation. The primary and the controlling notion is, that the child is owned by the master, not that he is placed under the control and authority of his father. The master, not the father, is supreme. .... The father is displaced from the position where God has assigned him, and the master is sub- stituted in his place .... Children, all children are to honor their father and mother, are to obey their parents in all things^ Ex. 20 : 12, Col. 3 : 20. "Now it is impossible," says Mr. Barnes, " to secure the discharge of these duties under the s3'Stem of slavery. The father's own time is not at his disposal ; he is at liberty to select and appoint no hours when he will instruct his children ; he has no right to de- signate any time when he will even pray with his family ; and the whole business of ' providing for his own,' is entirely taken out of his hands The law of God is perhaps still more entirely nuUiiied in regard to the duty which the child owes to its parent. Here it is impossible for him to obey the command of God requiring subjection to his parent, if the will of the master comes in conflict with his. It is not de- signed that the father shall be obeyed. The master has the absolute authority, and has the right to coun- DISCUSSION ON SLAYERY, 85 teract any of the requirements of tlie father The spirit of the whole institution is, not that the father is be obeyed, but the master ; and if the father is not obeyed, the law lends no help to secure the re- spect and obedience of the child. The law has dis- placed the father from the position which God gave him, and has substituted the authority of another." I asked a gentleman born and educated at the South if my statement was not supported by facts ? He re- plied, it could not be contradicted that masters have the absolute control of the children of the enslaved — that they could sell them, and in all respects, when the wishes of the master and those of the parent come in conflict, the will of the master is paramount. I can produce any amount of testimony confirming this statement. " Meridionus " will not deny that tho laws on this subject are decidedly wrong and shield unprincipled masters in the practice of flagrant enor- mities. I did not say that Christian masters used the power lodged in their hands as they are authorized to use it. I was speaking of the ivrongfulness of the SYSTEM OF SLAVERY. I admit most freely, that there are many kind, humane masters, who are striving to do the best they can in the circumstances in which they are placed. But the system in its spirit and gen- eral operation is hostile to the great principles of cha- rity and Christian benevolence, and naturally and al- most necessarily leads the masters to assume preroga- tives in respect to the children of the enslaved, which are the exclusive privilege of parents. I see no rea- son, therefore, to recall what I said on this point. Mjr language was sufficiently guarded. I spoke of the uniform^ not the universal practice of slave-holders. The case of " aunt Polly" does not, in my judgment, ■86 DISCUSSIu^' ON riLAVKRY. require any modification of my statement. She was a very good woman, I have no doabt, and had a very kind master, but this has very httle to do with the system of slavery in its general operation. My third specification of the evils of slavery w^as this, to wit: "While the system is maintained, mas- ters cannot render to their servants thai which is just a>nd equal. The nature of the system forbids this on the broad scale which Christianity requires." Not a word of reply is made to this position. I shall take it for granted, therefore, that this point is conceded. I re- joice in this fresh proof of the honesty and integrity of my opponent. He is too conscientious to deny the truth, although it bears with tremendous power against himself I am greatly encouraged by this feature of the candor and self-sacrificing spirit w^hich he has exhibited. He is determined to carry out the prin- ciple, " Fiat justitia, ruat coelum," whatever may be the fate of his theories and posi- tions. This is right, and it will command and secure the respect of all intelligent, honorable men. Hence- forth, it will be understood that all our discussions will be conducted on the conceded point that " while the system of slavery is maintained, masters cannot render to their servants that ivhich is just and equals I will notice one or two other points before I close. *' Meridionus" says, " Suppose I should show the Cor- respondent a slave that has more grace of manners than the majority of graduates of our colleges, a man that can be trusted by his master to manage a great and complicated business, and to whose care he can safely confide the protection of his wife and daugh- DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 87 ters/* &c. My opponent wishes to know if I regard such a man as brutalized ? Perhaps not. But this I will say, to wit : — I think it is a burning shame to hold such a man as a *' chattel personal," and put him up in the market like a brute beast. 1 should be ashamed to treat a man of such capabilities with such indignity and glaring injustice. " Meridionus" endeavors to shift a fair iuference from a position he had laid down so as to make me responsible for it. This is not exactly a just method of conducting an ar- gument. He said, "if he [the master] rules with the gentleness and benevolence of a perfectly holy being, yet if he rules absolutely over his servant, the essen- tial elements of slavery are there." I replied to this, that " good men and angels are under the absolute control of God ; but according to this doctrine, in- stead of being the ' freemen of the Lord,' they are bond-slaves. An argument that leads to such revolt- ing conclusions is worse than a mere abstraction. I leave our readers to give it a name." And now for- sooth, he charges the abominable doctrine on me that God must be a slave-holder, because he says, no " man can deny, with the least show of plausibility, that slave-holders do exercise absolute power." This is going a little farther than I can patiently endure. The statement of " Meridionus" that " if the master rules with the gentleness and benevolence of a per- fectly holy being, yet if he rules absolutely over his servant, the essential elements of slavery are there," is preposterous and absurd. In showing its absur- dity, it will not do for him to attempt to fasten an in- ference upon me which is chargeable exclusively upon his own unwarranted position. I will, in a word, place this matter in it.«; true light. Christ is " Head 88 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. over all things to the Church." He is King in Zion, and rules supremely and absolutely over his people. Bat are the "essential elements of slavery" there? No, verily, for "whom the Son maketh free, he is free indeed." The absolute control of Christ insures perfect liberty. But there is another kind of absolute control which comprises "the elements of slavery" in all their terrific forms. This is exercised by the " Prince of the power of the air, the Spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." He leads his servants " captive at his will," and binds them with chains of eternal fire. He is the great slave- holder of the universe, and good men like " Me- ridionus" ought to be very cautious not to enlarge his vast dominion, or increase his cruel power. THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N. T. EVANGELIST. DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 89 [dr. PARKER.] ABE THE EVILS OF SLA VERY INSEPARABLE FROM IT? Mr. Editor : — It is not improbable that many of your readers may be weary of the controversy be- tween myself and " the Correspondent." It is but right that my opponent should speak last in the de- bate. I will therefore take such a course in this article as shall give him a fair opportunity to close the discussion, on the following week. I shall not reply again, nnless strongly urged by the nature of the Correspondent's next communication. I consider that there are two questions of great consequence, in respect to the moral right or wrong of slavery. One is, Has a State a right to make and sustain such a system of laws as exist in the South- ern part of our confederacy ? The other is. Is it right for an individual to retain a human being in bondage ? With the first question, I have had nothing to do in this discussion. I have raised no inquiry with respect to the duty of any political or- ganization as such. I have spoken only on the question of the moral character of the individual slave-holder. I have maintained that a man's holding slaves does not im- ply that he is living in sin — that if he is guilty of wrong towards his servants, he is not necessarily guilty — that it is possible for him to discharge his duty towards his servants in such a way that he shall have as clear a conscience towards them and towards God, ■90 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. as a good parent can have in respect to his children. I admit that servants are more liable to be wronged bj their masters than children are bj their parents, but I maintain that the ivronging of servants is not inseparable from holding them in bondage. This position the Correspondent has undertaken to disprove. He allows, indeed, that a man may hold the legal relation while making arrangements to eman- cipate^ or at the request of his servants for protection, and that in such a case he is not guilty, because he is not a voluntary slave-holder. I admit the justness of his distinction here. But on this pointy (and this is the only point) he joins issue with me. He maintains that one man's holding another in bondage is prima facie evidence that he is a wicked man — that a man cannot hold a slave voluntarily (that is without any purpose of emancipating him,) and not inflict upon his slave grievous wrongs. Now, let it be observed, that all that the Corre- spondent has said on the system and the laws has no relevancy to the subject. Nearly all his arguments have gone to prove either, that the State has made laws that oppress the slave, or that bad masters use their servants cruelly. In his last communication but one, it is true, he came to the point and met it fairly. — He undertook to prove that the following evils were inseparable from holding slaves. That all real voluntary slave-holders are guilty of these wrongs. 1. They are guilty of brutalizing their slaves^ and enshrouding them in ignorance. 2. They uniformly exercise an milawful control over the children of the enslaved. DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 91 8. That tfiey are guilty of not rendering to their slaves that vjhich is jusi and equal. Let it be remembered, that these statements are made, not respecting men that are peculiarly cruel and unprincipled. The question is not whether bad men treat their slaves badly — these are the thiugs which he maintains are inseparable from slavery — the things of which masters at the South are uniformly guilty. Now, I assert that there are many hundreds of slave-holders — I mean voluntary slave-holders — men who have inherited plantations stocked with slaves — who have no plan for emancipating, but who expect to transmit them to their heirs, and yet they are excellent Christian men, and are not guilty of one of the sins specified. They do not hrutalize one of their servants. They do not enshroud one in ignorance. They do not exercise an unlawful control over the children of the slaves, or refuse to permit them to obey their oiun parents. They do not hesitate to obey the Apostle's injunction, to render to them what is just and equal. I assert that the Correspondent has not substan- tiated these charges, and for proof, I refer the reader to his communication of February 5th. He has made the charges there, but without proof that can satisfy any thinking mind. If he had said that unprincipled men do these things, and that the State is culpable for permitting it^for not restraining them — it would be a different thing ; but he maintains that these things are inseparable from holding slaves — and that Southern slave-masters are uniformly guilty of them. Mr. Editor, I am glad that the views of the Cor- respondent are before the public. I only ask that his arguments, so far as the}^ relate to the subject, may 92 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY, be looked at, and that our readers will remember, that all he has said of slave laws, and of the cruelty of cruel masters, has nothing to do with any question between us ; and that so far as such representations have a tendency to draw men's minds away from the point — as if he were opposing slavery, as a system, and I were its advocate — they are palpably unjust. The power of reproof is a mighty power, in remov- ing great systems of wrong — but nothing is more mischievous in its influence, than misplaced censure. It is misplaced, in my opinion; and the bitterest evils are inflicted, when all slave-holders are accused of the three wrongs specified by the Correspondent. The closing allusion, in the Correspondent's last communication, to Satan as a slave-holder, if it were of any consequence, might be retorted. Satan has no involuntary servants. He is an abolitionist, and an "accuser of the brethren." 0. R. MERIDIONUS. DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 93 [MR. ROOD.] TO " 0. E. MERIDIONUS:' Mr. Editor : — There are but two or three pomts in the last communication of my opponent, Avhich re- quire notice. I shall dispose of these with great brevity. I am not surprised he should enter his caveat against being regarded as the apologist and defender of slavery. I have not charged this great wrong upon him. I have examined the princi^iles and iwsitions he has laid down, and left our readers to draw their own inferences. One thing is quite certain, to wit, the subversion of the system of slavery does not enter into his plan. Hear Avhat he says : " I assert that there are many hundreds of slave- holders, I mean voluntary slave-holders, men who have inherited plantations stocked with slaves, who have no plan of emancipating, but who expect to transmit them to their heirs ; and yet they are ex- cellent Christian men, and are not guilty of one of the sins specified." Well, if this be so, the system will be perpetuated without doubt. And if voluntary slave-holders can be excellent Christian men, and have no plan of emancipating^ and no desire to eman- cipate, but continue to transmit their slaves to their heirs — it is all the system needs, to defend it from the assaults of its opponents. Did " Meridionus" see the bearing of this paragraph, when he penned it ? Did he reflect on the necessary inference it sug- gests, in regard to his estimate of the system of sla- 94 DISCUSSION OX SLAVERY. very ? My views of the system have been freely and frankly expressed, and I cheerfully submit them to the judgment of our readers. In respect to the re- tort, that " Satan has no involuntary servants ; that he is an abolitionist, and an accuser of the brethren" — I have one or two inquiries to make. Abolition- ists, whether their views are right or wrong, insist upon emancipation, as a fundamental principle of their creed. But when or where has Satan done anything to strike off the chains of servitude, and give liberty to his captives ? What continent, king- dom, island, or tribe, has been blest by his agency ? '' An accuser of the brethren !" True, indeed, he is. But they are such men as Wilberforce and Clarkson, and their co-adjutors, who have fought manfully the battle of human rights. But I must not dwell on these things. I have a more important object to ac- complish in this communication. My opponent has laid down two or three positions, which are such precious specimens of logic and learning, that I feel bound to invite the special atten- tion of our readers to their consideration. They are the following : " Slavery is a term by which the relation of two parties is indicated. The slaves are one party ^ the masters are the other J^ " Slave-holding is the exer- cising of a power of one mind over another absolutely^ and in certain circumstances ^ " What are the evils of slavery ? There is not one that is not equally insepar- able from depraved human nature in other laivful rela- tionsy I have said something of these positions be- fore, but they deserve a more distinct and formal notice. If true, they throw a flood of light upon the world, and ought to be proclaimed with trumpet- tongue to all the habitations of men. If true, they DISCUSSION ON SLAVKRT. 95 amount to nothing less than a quick and easy method of banishing all sin from the universe. We have all been groping in the dark. We have been laboring in the slow way which the Gospel points out, to get rid of moral evil. Slavery has long been regarded by multitudes as a great evil and a great sin, and many prayers have been offered up for the subversion of the system. But if my opponent represents it truly, it is far from being the hideous enormity which men have supposed. " It is a term by which the re- lation of two parties is indicated." Apply this to other things, and how differently do they appear from what we had vainly imagined ! Idolatry, for instance — what is that? It is a term by which the relation of two parties is indicated. The idolaters are one party — the idols are the other. Our mission- aries tell us of infanticide and patricide, and the burning of widows, and the self-tortures of devotees. But if " Meridionus" is right in his philosophy, these are not " part and parcel of the thing." They are only " circumstances that may be separated from" idolatry. Point out one that cannot. Cannot infan- ticide ? — There are thousands of heathen parents, who do not murder their children. Cannot patricide ? The Chinese are exceedingly kind to their parents. Cannot the burning of widows ? Are not the Brit- ish abolishing this in India ? Cannot the self-tortures of devotees ? Many of the heathen do not practice them. Take another example. What is drunkenness ? Much has been said about it, of late years, but with how little relevancy, the definition of " Meridionus" will show. It would have saved Dr. Beecher a great part of his labor, in writing his celebrated "Six Ser- 96 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. mons," if he had apprehended that drunkenness is nothing more than " a term by which the relation of two parties is indicated." The drunkards are one party, the manufacturers and venders of intoxicating drinks are the other. Let not Messrs. Barnes, and Chambers, and Brainerd, and Thompson, pubHsh ad- dresses, and make speeches, about the evils of intem- perance. Away, gentlemen, with your stories about the crimes induced by intemperance ; the misery and pauperism, and orphans and widows, that follow in its train. These are not ''part and parcel of the thing." They are only " circumstances which may be separated from it." Which of them cannot? Have not men been drunkards, without committing robbery or murder? Have not men filled drunk- ards' graves, who had no widows or orphans to leave behind ? And what is robbery ? Mr. Webster de- fines it to be, "the forcible and felonious taking of money, goods, &c." The law books speak of it in the same way. But they have committed an egre- gious blunder. "It is a term by which the relation of two parties is indicated." The robber is one party, the man robbed is the other. There are, it is true, many circumstances connected with robbery, which we may unite in deploring, and wishing they were otherwise, "almost as much as the robbers do them- selves :" Such are, the forcible entrance into houses, the alarming of families, the tying them in their beds, or standing over them with loaded pistols, and taking away from them their means of support. But these are not "part and parcel of the thing." Which of them cannot be separated from it ? Cannot the entering into houses ? Certainly it can. A man may be knocked down on the street, and robbed. DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 97 Cimnot the tying tliem in bed, or standing over tliem with loaded pistols? Undoubtedly. Cannot the taking awa}^ the means of their support ? Assuredly. Many a family has been robbed of much valuable plate and jewelry, who still had enough to live upon.'^ The slave-trade, what is that ? It has been pro- nounced piracy, and is punished as such. But after all, if the position of Meridionus is sound, it is a. mere " term by which the relation of two parties is indicated." The captured Africans are one party, the traders in human flesh are the other. It is not denied that there are some unhappy circumstances connected with this branch of business. Such is the tearing asunder of family ties on the coast of Africa; the confining them in the hold of the slave-ship in. such numbers ; the want of pure air and wholesome food, and of space to stand erect, or even to lie. But these are not "part and parcel of the thing," as Wil- berforce and Clarkson supposed. Is it not plain that these circumstances may every one of them be separated from the trade ? Cannot the sundering of family bonds on the coast of Africa ? Certainly, by taking the whole family. Cannot the crowded hold ? Yes : by simply carrying a smaller number. Cannot the want of wholesome food ? No one will deny it. Thus, by a stroke we get rid of most of the evils in the world, and why not the whole ? Cannot the thing be exhibited to the universal conviction of mankind by a series of syllogisms ! Thus : — * Does my opponent say that Idolatry, and Drunkenness, and Robbery, are sins per se ? And is not the sij^tcm of Slavcri/ one of fraud, injustice, and cruel oppression, abhorrent to God and to all rio;ht-minded men ''. 98 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. There is no sin in abstract terms. Slavery is an abstract term ; Therefore there is no sin in slavery. There is no sin in abstract terms. Idolatry is an abstract term ; Tliereforc there is no sin in idolatry. But it seems that slave-] lolding is not exactly the same thing that slavery is. Still it is an abstraction, and a very harmless one, — Hear Meridionus. " Slave- holding is the exercising of a power of one mind over another absolutely, and in certain circum- stances." — Such is the divine government^ snch is the parental, and such are all human governments. There is nothing wrong in this surely. The views of Washington and Jefferson, and Patrick Henry, and John Jay, and Wm. Pinkney, of the abomina- tions of slave-holding are all exploded. It is clear they did not understand the nature of the subject. They onlj' knew it in the concrete ; we in the ab- stract. They looked at it only in its actual workings ; we " treat it ethicalty." But query ; — would not this definition apply to the matters we have considered above, and thus doubly fortifj^ the position we have taken in regard to them ? Would it not apply to the slave-trade ? Is not that the " exercising of a power of one mind over another absolute^, and in certain circum- stances ?" Would it not apply to highway robbery ? Is not that the " exercising of a power of one mind over another absolutely, and in certain circum- stances?" Would it not apply to murder? Is not that the " exercising of a power of one mind over another absolutely, and in certain circumstances ?" Now, let us frame another syllogism, and see how the matter will stand. DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 99 The exercising of a power of one mind over another absolutely, And in certain circumstances, is not sin. But the slave-trader, the robber, and the murderer exercise such a power absolutely in certain circumstances ; Therefore, the slave-trade, robbery and murder are not sins. But it is acknowledo-ed that there are some circum- o stances connected with each of these things which are evils, and which it would be desirable to get rid of. Well, so far as the evils of slavery are concern- ed, Lleridionus finds but little difficulty. Hear him. — '' There is not one evil in slavery that is not equally insepa,raUe from depraved liuma.n nature in other LAW^- FUL RELATIONS." We havc then but to look at other lawful relations to see how little trouble any one need give himself in regard to the coatinuance and exten- sion of the system. The marriage relation, and the parental, are lawful relations, but slavery is just as innocent as thej^ are, and there is not one evil con- nected with it that is not equally inseparable from either of them. How foolish and wicked it would be to abolish the marriage relation on account of the evils that are at present connected with it ! And equally foolish and wicked is it to wish to do away with slavery, which is a lawful relation, and very good with the exception of some circumstances which are not " part and parcel of the thing." So also, partners in business sustain lawful relations, but ac- cording to the doctrine of Meridionus, there is " not one evil in slavery that is not equally inseparable" from all business partnerships. Pastors and their churches sustain lawful relations, but according to my cpDonent, " there is not one evil in slavery that is iOO DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. not equally inseparable" from the relation of pastor and people. The American Board unites many friends of missions in lawful relations, but Meridionus stakes his reputation as a logician and Christian philosopher on the asseveration that there is not one evil in slavery that is not equally inseparable from the American Board, His argument seems to be this : — there is nothing wrong in slavery itself. It is, divested of a few cir- cumstances, morally good and excellent. It is in harmony with Christianity and the law of love ; and so it seems that the toiling captives are to breathe the pure atmosphere of the millennial morning. Let no one say, these are unwarranted and unjust inferences. I ask any man to look at the positions Meridionus has laid down, especially the last, on which I have commented, and pass judgment between us. I never sought this controvers}', or anticipated being drawn into it, but forced to defend myself, I have done it with what leisure from pressing duties I could com- mand. THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N. Y. EVANGELIST. DISCUSSION ON SLAYERY. 101 [dr. PARKER.] REPLY TO THE ''CORRESPONDENT;' &c. Mr. Editor : — I intimated to you in my last that I should not reply to the Correspondent again, unless strongly urged by the nature of his next communi- cation. The chief thing that induces me to take up my pen again, is the fact that the Correspondent has chosen to invite it by going back to a ground once jjassed over in respect to the use of the term slavery. It seems to trouble him very greatly that the Avord should be regarded as expressive of any sort of re- lationship between two parties. I have replied to his remarks about a " fe^??^" before, but it seems he is not satisfied, though, I have no doubt, he was completely satisfied at the time. Let it not be for- gotten then that I defined the word slavery in the following language, viz. : — " Slavery is a term hy ivhicli the relation of two 'parties is indicated. The slaves are one party^ the masters are the other. The State is not a party in the rekUion. A State w,ay hold slaves^ hut in the condition of things of icMch we speah.^ in this country^ individual citizens hold slaves. Bui^ whoever Tiray hold slaves^ slavery is neither ' a righH nor ' an assumed right J nor ' a claimed right.'' Slave- ry as expressive of the condition of the subordinate party ^ is the absolute subjection of slaves to their masters. Whether it is coyisistent with their rights that th-ey should he under this subjection or not is a distinct question. 102 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. Slaves are in absolute subjection to their masters. Slave- ry as expressive of the condition of the superior party ^ is the holding of slaves^ the exercising of the power that keeps them in absolute subjection. Whether it be right for a master to hold slaves in absolute subjection is a. dis- tinct question.''^ This is the question between us. I maintain that there 7nay be — that there are many excellent Chris- tian men that hold slaves, who yet are not guilty of tlie sins which the Correspondent charges on all vol- untary slaveholders. Now, how has the Correspondent met this j)lain account of slavery ? Not by pointing out any one thing left out of this description as a thing necessa- rily belonging to slavery. Not by showing that any- thing is included in the definition that does not al- ways belong to slavery ? Nothing of the kind. He has intimated that I have represented slavery as being- nothing but '' a term.'''' Instead of showing that the relation between the two parties is not fairly describ- ed, or that the relation implies injustice in one of the parties, he affects to treat the wdiole matter as if a relation between two parties could be of no sort of consequence. Why does he not show that every man that holds slaves is guilty of a wrong ? He com- 23ares the holding of slaves with ^^ Idolatry ^^^ and "Drunkenness" and "Robbery" and "Murder," and maintains that the evils that belong to these are "part and parcel of the thing," and that just so the evils incidental to slavery are " part and parcel of the thing." He then challenges me to point out one evil that cannot be separated from " Idolatry." So he asks of Drunkenness and " Robbery," and "Murder." Why, DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 103 Mr. Editor, what can the Correspondent mtend by such questions ? I am afraid some of your readers will think that I am writing in the name of the Cor- respondent, and asking these questions to bring his cause into contempt. The inquiries so plainly de- mand an ans\Yer directly o\'er against the Correspon- dent's argument, that it reminds one of the parody on Phillips. — " The Flagrant and Chromatic tea, does it not come from Africa ? And the coffee, does it not come from China ?" Let me assure you, Mr. Edi- tor, that I have had nothing to do knowingly with leading the Correspondent to place himself in such an attitude before his readers. What one sin cannot be separated from idolatrj^ ? This is his question in effect. Why the worshiping of false gods cannot be separated from it. Does the Correspondent wish proof that such worship is wicked? What sin cannot be separated from drunkenness ! — why, the sin of drunkenness. What from robber}^ and murder ! W^hy the sin of robbing and murder- ing. These are all crimes in themselves — always crimes. Idolatry is tlie violation of the lirst commandment directly. Drunkenness, we are expressly told by revelation, excludes from heaven. " Kor drunkards shall enter into the kingdoin of God.'' Eobbery is forbidden in the law which says, Thou shalt not steal ; and murder is opposed to the prohibition which says. " Thou shalt do no murder.'' There is no law, no]^ precept, that prohibits the holding of a slave — yet the Garrison Scliool put these things on the same footing. In conclusion, I beg leave to call tlie attention of the Correspondent to a few of his positions. 104 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. He maintains tliat slavciy is not a sin per se, and yet that it is " W22fn'?2sica% wrong." lie says, "The doctrine that slavery is pe?' se sinful, is untrue, and has done a vast amount of mischief." Yet he main- tains, that " Slavery is, whenever a human being, without a^ime alleged, is robbed of his inalienable rights ;" that it is "a bartering awaj^ rights which the law of God never gave to man," and that it ought to be " denounced as intrinsicalli/ wrong , opj)ressive, a,nd vnckedy Which of these contradictory statements would he have.his readers believe? He alleges that ^^ some, perhaps one in a hundred, or in a thousand, hold slaves in harmony with the great law of love." Yet " slavery is when a man is robbed of his inalienable rights" — and that the rela- tion of slavery is " unlaAvful and oppressive." He says, that " some hold slaves in harmony with the law of love." And 3'et, in the case of the slave- holder, " you must bring him away from the influ- ence of slavery, before he can in cdl respects, if I may so speak, fulfil the law of love." May so speak ! He may speak in any language he chooses, but he cannot require of his readers to be so stupid, as not to see the contradiction of such statements. He says, " I do not deny that cruelty of treatment, where it exists, may be corrected." Yet he main- tains that all slave-holders are guilty of hrutalking their slaves, and enshrouding them in ignorance — that they " uniformly" exercise an unlawful control over the chiklren of the enslaved, and that they are guilty of cruelty, withholding from their ^^oor slaves " that which is just and equal." These cruelties, he admits, may he corrected — j^et he avers that they are inseparahle from holding skxves, DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 105 and that Southern masters are " uniformly" guilty of them. He says that the doctrine that slavery is per se sinful, is untrue — but that " the system of slavery is a sin per se." What ? The holding of slaves is not a sin p)er se^ and the system of slavery is a sin per se. The sj'stem of slavery is a sin per se ! ! Who per- petrates it? This is really one of the last discove- ries that have been made. It is not the giving a lo- cal habitation or a name to a new planet — but it is discovering a new sin. It ought to be put doAvn in the list of crimes, something like this — felony, arson, murder, '' the system of slavery," drunkenness, and such like. But who commits this sin ? For it is a sin 2')er se. Not the slave-holder, for the Correspond- ent informs us that holding slaves is not a sin p)er se. Who is guilty of the s}- stem ? Somebody must be chargeable with it. Not one who defends a Chris- tian slave-holder, w4th whom " cruelties are correct- ed." Not one who condemns such a man as is in an " unlawful and oppressive relation." He may be " an accuser of the brethren," but he has not com- mitted that great sin per se — the system of slavery. Who has committed the system of slaver}^? The sinner ought to be known. The Correspondent will do well to remember the predicament of a certain judge who, when presiding at a public Sunday School meeting, and seeing a particular word, intend- ed to guide him in respect to the order of the per- formances, called out with a very sonorous voice, " Mr. Anthem will now favor us with an address." Scholars ought not to make such a mistake, as to as- scribe to an inanimate tiling^ Avhat belongs only to a moral being. 0. R. MERTPIONFS. 100 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. [mPw rood.] TO " 0. R. MERIDIONUS:' Mr. Editor : — My opponent in tliis discussion is fully apprised that lie has laid down one position especially, which I regard as most unwarranted, and of injurious practical tendency. All his statements and arguments, in support of his side of the ques- tion, are of very little importance, as I view the sub- ject, compared with the repeated asseveration, that " There is not one evil of slavery thai is not equally inse- IDarable from depraved human nature in other LAWFUL RELATIONS." In my last article, I resolved to bring him to the defence of this position, or constrain him to abandon it. It will be borne in mind by our readers, that while he has reiterated this statement directly and indirectly, in his communications, he has not attempted to adduce the arguments Avhich are in- dispensable to sustain it. I was anxious that this thing should be met frankly and fearlessly, and pre- pared my last article Avith the design of compelling him to defend his position, by all the argum.ents within his power. I must beg the privilege of repeat- ing what I said, that our readers may have a distinct apprehension of my earnest endeavors to prevail upon him to exhibit all his logic and ability in defending a position, which I regard as untenable, and deeply injurious to the rights of man. I remarked as fol- lows : '' AVo have then but to look at otlier lav,'fiil relations, to DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 107 see how little trouble any one need give himself, in regard to the continuance and extension of the system. The mar- riage relation, and the parental, are lawful relations, but slavery is just as innocent as they are, and there is not one evil connected with it, that is not equally insei3arable from either of them. How foolish and wicked it would be to abolish the marriage relation, on account of the evils that are at present connected with it ! And equally foolish and wicked is it, to wish to do away with slavery, which is a lawful relation, and very good, with the exception of some circumstances which are not ' part and parcel of the thing.' So also, partners in business sustain lawful relations, but according to the doctrine of ' Meridionus,' there is ' not one equally inseparable' from all business partnerships. Pastors and their churches sustain lawful relations, but ac- cording to my opponent, ' there is not one evil in slavery, that is not equally inseparable' from the relation of pastor and people. The American Board unites many friends of missions in lawful relations, but 'Meridioims' stakes his reputation as a logician and Christian philosopher, on the asseveration, that ' there is not one evil in slavery, that is not equally inseparable' from the American Board." Now, it is too mucli to suppose that these remarks sbould have escaped the notice of my opponent — and I presume they will not be regarded as so entirely irrelevant, that they did not merit a reply. And yet there is no allusion to tliem in the communication of " Meridionus" ; 7iot a loord uttered in approhation or condemnation. If he is satisfied with this course, it does not become me to complain. If he is willing to stand before the Christian community, as responsible for such a position, without girding himself to its de- fence, lie has a right to do so. I do not believe, bow- ever, he will find a very large number, either in the free or the slave States, who will be willing to stand by bis side. In proof, I mention one fact among many I might record. I asked a distinguished gen- tleman, who was born, bred, and still resides, in a 108 DISCUSSION OX SLAYERY. slave-holding community, liis views of this j^osition of my o^Dponent. He promptly replied, "It is pre- posterous — there are none, save those who deal in hitman fleshy \\'h.o would defend such a statement." '' Let me assure you, Mr. Editor, that I have had nothing to do, knowing^, with leading ' Meridionus ' to place himself in such an attitude before his readers." I pass now to a brief consideration of my alleged inconsistencies and contradictions. I am represented, in effect, as having thrown together a "jumble of things," so that " confusion is worse confounded." I hope to be able to show, in a few paragraphs, that my contradictions are not so numerous or palpable as *' Meridionus" v.^ould have our readers believe. In speaking of the system of slavery^ I have represented it as one of fraud, oppression, and injustice. Nor have I been " so stupid" as to suppose that this system is sustained and perpetuated Avithout the agency of intelligent, responsible men. " Who is guilty of the system?" asks m.j opponent. I answer, the great mass of those who advocate and sustain it. The sin lies at their door — and the day of inquisition Avill disclose the flagrant injustice and wrongs of which they are chargeable. But is every individual who is involved in the evil workings of this system, worthy of condemnation ? I have answered this inquiry in. language as ex^Dlicit as follows : " The laws of slave- holding States force good men into a position which they deplore and abhor. They are restrained from acting out the jDromptings of their humane, benevo- lent feelings, by unrighteous and oppressive legisla- tion. Now, if they do the best they can, in their circumstances ; if thev remonstrate and petition for DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY, 100 a change of those laws which environ them with dif- ficulties ; if they truly desire to give freedom to their bondsmen ; then I say they are not chargeable with the guilt of oppression. Their condition is most un- fortunate ; but it is not one that deserves censure." I have in the course of this discussion, again and again, expressed similar views. The case of the slave Tom, which I mentioned as an illustration of my views, will be remembered. . His master resolved to bring him to a free State, and give him his liberty. He remonstrated on account of his wife, Avho was owned by another person, from whom he must be separated. His master said . to him, make your own arrangements, then, and receive all your wages for 3^our labor, and I will hold my present legal rela- tion for your good. In view of this case, I remarked, ''Is that excellent man guilty of sin, for holding that slave ? Ought he not to be commended and honored by the wise and the good? And yet the system which forces him into such a position, is one which all good men should condemn." ISTow, I ask my readers, if there is any glaring in- consistency or palpable contradiction, in this view of the system of slavery, and particular cases of slave- holding ? If I was accustomed to sa}^ severe things, or deal in personalities, I should be strongly tempted to open my battery, and give to m}^ opponent a scorching rebuke, for the injustice he has done me in his last communication. But I am thankful that I possess some power of self-control, and I mean to ex- hibit it on this occasion. I cannot omit to say, how- ever, that I regret exceedingly the course which he has seen fit to adopt. He has attempted to convict me of inconsistency and contradiction, and make me 110 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY an object of ridicule, by means wliicli I feel quite sure I should not have adopted in reference to him. The quotations he has given, are a word here, and a phrase there, taken from the connection in which they stand^ and so jumbled together to effect the object he had in view, that they would prove me, if received in the manner he intended they should be, not only destitute of logic, but of common sense. " Meridio- nus" did not reflect in how ridiculous a light I could place him by adopting the method he has pursued. All I ask is, that what I have said shall be taken in the connection in wliicli it stanch^ and he fairly and honestly interpreted^ and then if it is pronounced in- conclusive, or irrelevant, or contradictory, I will not complain. But it is not right to place what I have said of the system of slavery in juxtaposition with what I have said of particidar individuals^ w^ho feel, and lament the bitter evils that cluster around it, and are sighing for deliverance from their burdens, and then raise a shout of triumph as if I had fallen into irreconcilable contradictions. Such a course may suit those, who are striving for the victory, but will not, I think, be sanctioned by honest and earnest inquirers after truth. A word more in close. I have a strong desire that Christian brethren at the South, will look at this great subject divested of those biasses and prejudices which have resulted from Avhat they suppose to be an im- proper interference by brethren at the North, with their domestic rights and privileges. That many things have been said and done without the exercise of that wisdom which is profitable to direct, I do most freely admit. I have no hesitation in saying farther, that there are men who have made themselves DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. Ill prominent in denouncing slave-holding in all 'possible circumstances^ who possess as little of the confidence of Northern, as they do of Southern Christians. The mass of good people at the North have but little respect for their judgment, and give no countenance to their vituperation and indiscriminate denunciation. I need not say that I refer to the Garrison school of abolitionists. As A body, I believe they are the worst enemies of the slaves, and would do twice as much to secure their own aggrandizement and a per- sonal triumph, as they would to burst the bands of the enslaved. Their unmeasured abuse and railing accusations are hurled at Christians at the North who will not listen to their teaching, and submit to their dictation, with as much bitterness as they are poured upon the heads of the most determined defenders of slavery. With large professions of philanthropy and benevolence, I fear the mass of them have yet to learn the first principles of true Christian charitj" and the gospel method of doing good. They have yet to learn that there is no argument in multipljung epi- thets of abuse, and that the meekness of Christ is more powerful in reproving wrong-doers, than the anathemas the}/ have been accustomed to thunder against those, whom they profess to be anxious to reform. But \hej have had their day, and will soon pass into the obscurity to which their talents and moral worth naturally consign them. There is, how- ever, a very large class at the North, and their num- ber is constantly augmenting, of an entirel}/ different character, who are the uncompromising enemies of slavery. They look upon the system as mischievous in all its workings ; bad for the slave, bad for the master, and bad for the couutrv at lars'e. Thev de- 112 DISCUSSION ON BLAYERY. sire tlieir bretlircn at the Soiitli, in concert with their fellow-citizens, to adopt a course of measures which shall, in a reasonable time, subvert the sj-stem, and save them and their children from those evils which naturally and necessarily cluster around it. They have no desire to interfere, or meddle with things -which do not belong to them. All they ask, or desire is, that something shall be done adequate to the great emergency which slavery has brought upon the country. Surely, our Southern brethren will not say this is harsh, or officious, or unreasonable. Let them seek direction of Him, " who is wise in counsel and mighty in working," and be willing to do what His Spirit and Word shall dictate, and obstacles which now seem insurmountable will vanish away, and the captives will be set free, and a jubilee will be pro- claimed, and our country be in truth, what it has long been in song, " The land of the free, And the home of the brave." Such a glorious consummation, I am sure, our Southern brethren would hail with an ecstasy of joy. O, may it speedily come ; and we will at the North unite with our brethren at the South in adoring that mercy and grace which has brought us so great a deliverance. THE CORRESPONDENT OP THE N. Y. EVANGELIST. DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. H; [dr. PARKER.] REPLY TO TUB CORBESPONDENT. Mr. Editor: — The "Correspondent" thinks he can show tha,t his " contradictions are not so ni(^ merous ors: j^al^oMe^'' as I would have my readers be- lieve. Why did he not, in making this concession, tell us how much less numerous they are, and how far they are wanting in pcdpableness. He then speaks of there being no inconsistency between his hoi ding- that the system of slavery is a bad thing, and his maintaining that the slave-holder may be a good man. This was not one of the points of contradic- tion alleged ; on the contrary, I entirely agree with him thus far. But what does he mean by the follow- ing ? Speaking of my last article, he says : " The quotations he has given, are a word here, and a word there, taken from the connection in ■wJiicli they sta?id, and so jumbled together, to effect the ob- ject he had in view, that they would prove me, if received, in the manner in which he intended they should be, not only destitute of logic, but of common sense." This is a most extraordinary declaration. You Avould think that the Correspondent would bring forward one clear instance of my thus misre- presenting him. Why did he not? Because he knows well that I have not, in a single case, quoted him in a way to prevent him being fairly and honestly interpreted. When he speaks of slave- holders imbruting the minds of the enslaved, and of 114 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. their not allowing tlie children of slaves to obey their own parents, he is professedly pointing out the things that are inseparcible from slave-holding — things of which slave-holders are '' imiformlif guilty. It is not my fault that his logic and common sense do not appear to good advantage. I challenge any fair minded man to go back and read the quotations of the Correspondent's contradictions, without perceiv- ing that they are made with the most perfect fairness. He represents slave-holding — not the system merely, but slave-holding, wherever it exists, " as intrinsi- cally wrong" — " as to be denounced, as robbing men of their inalienable rights," &c., &c. That he has also spoken of the system of slavery as a singer 5e, is very true. But how does that prove that he has not elsewhere made all those strong statements about slave-holders ? I care nothing, however, about the precise iiurnher or palpableness of his contradictions. They doubtless all grow out of one vain endeavor. To maintain some of his mistaken positions, the Correspondent must play into the hands of the abolitionists, techni- call}^ so called, by maintaining that the holding of a slave voluntarily^ is a crime, — that the slave-holder, just hke the robber, the murderer and the drunkard^ ought to be called on to repent : Then he Avishes to say that he does not hold that slavery is a sin per se — that he is no Garrison man. Now how does he difl'er from the Garrison school ? Why in this way. The Garrison man says. The slaveholder is a robber and a man-stealer, and as such he ought to be treated like any other man guilty of the same crimes. That ministers of the gospel and pious elders, who hold slaves, are " Rev. Robbers and pious thieves," and DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 115 deserve to be put in the penitentiary. The Corre- spondent seems to agree with them entirely, with re- gard to the sin, but in courtesy he would talk to slave-holders as his " Christian brethren at the South." He and the Garrison men agree with re- spect to the guilt of slave-holding. They only differ about the punishment. The Garrison men would treat the criminals as they deserve ; the Correspond- ent would shield them from deserved punishment. Does the Correspondent protest again that he makes exceptions in favor of those who are involuntar'dy holding slaves ? So do the Garrison school. They allow a man time to carrj^ home a stolen article. If tlieir doctrines are right, their notions of deserved punishment are right also. The Correspondent says, he resolved to bring me to the defence of my position. Indeed ! lias he forgotten that I have already answered his assertions, in which he charges on every voluntarj^ slave-holder the guilt of inibruting the mind of his slaves — pre- venting children from obeying their parents — with- holding what is justly their due, &c., &c. ? I cannot, of course, prove a negative — but I feai^lessly declare that these statements are as gratuitous and calum- nious, as it would be in me to say of the Correspond- ent, that he treats his domestic servants in an equally cruel and fraudulent manner. IIow can I answer such calumnies, but to deny them, and to warn my Southern brethren against being deceived by terms of respect, uttered with one breath, when the previous one had just characterized them as " inibruting the minds of their slaves," and robbing them " of their inalienable rights." If the Correspondent thinks he can prove that the 116 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. holding of a man in involuntary bondage is wicked, wlij does he not do it ? Why is he forever quoting somebody's opinion ? Yf hat has that to do with the subject? Why talk perpetually about the systera of slavery ? AYhy insist upon it, that if one lawful thing is abolished, then every other lawful thing must be abolished ? Why maintain that " slavery is not the parental relation" — that " it is not appren- ticeship ?" What have such senseless truisms to do with the subject ? Why tell the story again about Tom? Why show that the laws of slave-holding States embarrass those who are endeavoring to free their slaves? We have no dispute about that. Why does he not prove that every inan who holds a slave (except he be doing his best to emancipate him,) is living in sin? Because it cannot be done. 0. R. MERIDIONUS. DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 117 [MR. ROOD.] REPLY TO "0. R. MERIDIONUSy Mr. Editor : — I do not intend in this discussion, to be " frightened from my propriety" by any amount of provocation, or to say things which, on a calm review, I shall have occasion to regret. I shall not characterize the arguments of my opponent as " senseless truisms," but leave our readers to judge of their relevancy and w^eight. lie has doubtless done the best he can in the defence of his positions, and if the Christian community shall decide that he has signally failed in sustaining his side of the ques- tion, he is still entitled to a respectful consideration of all the arguments he has urged without an effort on my part to Aveaken their force by holding them up to ridicule and contempt. I shall not, therefore, imitate Meridionus in his last communico,tion. Nor shall I say anything more in respect to my alleged inconsistencies and contradictions. The public care very little about that. What they are interested in, is to know, wdiether it be true or false, that " there is not one evtl in slavery that is not equally inseixtraUe from depraved human nature in other LAWFUL rela- tions." Here is a great, vital question, modifying and chanoins: the views of the civilized world in re- gard to the sy stein 0/ slayer?/ according to the decision which shall be passed upon it. If this be true, the views of the great mass of intelligent, Christian men, of the evils of slaverv, are altogether erroneous and 118 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. •unfounded. As I have before remarked, if I were a slave-holder, and believed this representation, I should make mj^self quite contented, and let slavery work out its own redemption. But let me remind mj opponent that he is, at least, fifty years behind the age. The dark and dreadful evils of slavery are laid open to public inspection, and influences and instrumentalities are in operation, which must, at length, overthrow this mighty Da- gon. The decree has gone forth from the throne of heaven, as I believe, that slavery shall die, and it is vain for any class of men to attempt to sustain the tottering fabric. Meridionus says, he would warn Southern breth- ren against being deceived by terms of respect, ut- tered with one breath, when the previous one had just characterized them as imbruting the minds of their slaves, and robbing them of their inalienable rights." Let me tell him that Southern brethren see and feel the evils of slavery, and that his most earnest endeavors will never satisfy them, that it is a system worthy of their countenance and support. Time will reveal who are the real friends of the South, and how much brethren there are indebted to those, who proclaim the doctrines of my opponent. I have in the course of this discussion, exhibited the evils of slavery as " brutalizing the mind, and shrouding the enslaved in ignorance," — as an " un- lawful control Avhich slave-holders exercise over the children of the enslaved," — as a system Avhich "pre- vents masters from rendering to their servants that which is just and equal," — as a "right of property in a human being" — as an " incubus that broods over, and to no inconsiderable extent, paralvzes the ener- DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 119 gies of both Church and State" — as an " absolute control of one man over his fellow-men, which God never delegated to him" — and as " bartering away rights" which are personal and inalienable. These positions, I think, have been fully sustained by an appeal to the laws of the slave-holding States, and the full and explicit testimony of ecclesiastical bo- dies, and the published declarations of such men as Mr. Jefferson, and Monroe, and Wm. Pinkney, and Patrick Henry, and Mr. Swain. My proof in sup- port of my positions, so flxr as luritten testimony is concerned, has been derived from the South and from Southern men^ with the exception of an extract from the Eev. Mr. Barnes' Book ; " Scriptural Views of Slavery." I most cheerfully submit to the intelli- gence and judgment of our readers, the points which have been controverted between niA'self and Meridi- onus. In the close of his last communication, he says, " why does not the Correspondent prove that every man who holds a slave, except he be doing his best to emancipate him, is living in sin ? Because it can- not be done." This is, in effect, a re-iteration of a previous assertion, to wit: "I assert that there are many hundreds of slave-holders — I mean voluntary slave-holders — men who have inherited plantations stocked with slaves, who have no plan of emancipa- ting, but who expect to transmit them to their heirs ; and yet they are excellent Christian men, and are not guilty of one of the sins specified." If I have shown, as I have aimed to do, the lurongfulness of the system of slavery, I have proved that voluntary slave- holders, who have no plan of emancipating, and no desire to emaiicipate, but continue to transmit their 120 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. slaves to their lieirs, are guilt j of sin in the sight of God and good men. I do not hesitate to make this assertion, and am willing to be held res]3onsible for the proof. Here is a fair field of argument, if " Me- ridionus" chooses to enter it. I think it can be de- monstrated, that sach persons furnish palpable proof that they are living in violation of the express and implied commands of God. The younger Edwards says of this class : " You do wrong, exceedingly wrong — you do not as you would that men should do to you. Yoio commit sin in the sight of God — you daily violate the plain rights of mankind." Even John Eandolph, singular, eccentric, and reckless as he was, in many respects, seems to have entertained essentially the same view. In his Will, he says : " I, John Randolph, of Roanoke, in the county of Char- lotte, do ordain this writing, written with my own hand, this fourth day of Maj-, one thousand eight hundred and nineteen, to be my last Will and Tes- tament, hereby revoking all others whatsoever. I give to my slaves their freedom, to ivhich my conscience tells me they are justly entitled^ It vv^as Randolph, too, who administered to the Hon. Edward Everett the following scathing rebuke, in 1820 — " Sir, I neither envy the head or the heart of that man from the North, who rises here to defend slavery upon princi- ple." But it may thus be defended, if " the?^ is not one evil in it^ that is not equally inseparable from de- praved human nature in other LAWFUL relations." Mcridionus has signified his willingness to close this discussion, with this position unsustained ringing in his ears. So it shall be. THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N. Y. EVANGELIST. /■■■ C. vP o . °o -O .-^ •"^^.^ .^ .1-2V -^^ . o - o . ^"^^ ^^ #, ■>^^l *t-. •"' V ^^"^. ... % .^ J.^ '>«^' .<" N. MANCHESTER, INDIANA 46962