^ 
 
 , * " 
 
 
 ^r^ 
 
 
 'oV . 
 
 
 ■O-r 
 
 
 -r-X'' " ''' 
 
 
 ■-'^COi 
 
 
 * . / 
 
 
 
 \' 
 
 A. -m^ 
 
 
 
 
 % c 
 
 ^^0^ 
 
 
 
 ': »? 
 
 ■■KV5-' * 'S,' <r> 
 
 
 
 
 
 rV" ") 
 
 ■r"* ""o , 
 
 
 '^^ 
 
 
 *f» 
 
 ^'-^o^^- 
 
 "^ '^^^o^ 
 
 
 
 ,-.0 
 
 ^'^. 
 
 
 $:> 
 
 *^^ "'" A^ 
 
 ./' %. 
 
 '<^v 
 
 
 ,% >^ C*^ 
 
 
 
 & 
 
 -i*^^:^. 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 ..V 
 
 ^< 
 
sP-nj-. 
 
 ^^ %.^ 
 
 .0 V 
 
 
 ^'> -^^ 
 
 'V, 
 
 »-"' *v 
 
 •I o 
 
 V' .•;v^ 
 
 ^..^^ :^. 
 
 ■\^ 
 
 o 
 " » ., to 
 
 
 
 » . e. 
 
 ■^. .<:. /.x^. 
 
 <>^' 
 
 
 K. 
 
 •'0 
 
 . o 
 
 
 
 V- 
 
 :f 
 
 
 
 •P5;"-,',7 . 
 
 V\' 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 '1! 
 
 
 
 
 ■0^ 
 
 
 
 
 '. 0^ 
 
 
 
 
 X<v 
 
 
 
 ■ v'^ . 
 
 1 • 0. 
 
 '-^^%^' 
 
 • ^ 
 
 
 ^>-.'^ . 
 
 p.- ^*'"-^* 
 
 ly^^^^v^ 
 
 .^^^^^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 4 
 
 -ft;"'-' 
 
 ' 
 
 
 V .•-.°'*' *'"• ^^" 
 
 
 K^^b • *<* *V 
 
 ;>\V^>, 
 
 
 
 I5^is>j • ^4 »r 
 
 ^ ' 
 
 y^. 
 
 
D.OC 
 
 DOCZZHDOC 
 
 o 
 
 CONSCIENCE AND THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 EEJIAEKS ON THE EECENT SPEECH 
 
 HON, DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 ON THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 SLAVERY. 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 ^o 
 
 i 
 
 o 
 
 M 
 
 sse^ 
 
 \o f )or 
 
 2S^^2SSS) 
 
/ 
 
 CONSCIENCE AND THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 REMARKS ON THE RECENT SPEECH 
 
 HON. DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 IN TIDE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 ON THE SUBJECT OP 
 
 SL AYER Y. 
 
 I *^ / BY M. STUART 
 
 n 
 
 ^ LATELT PROFESSOa IN lEE TUEOLOGICAt SEMUJ.IRT AT AJfDOVEB. 
 
 AoiiXof iKkri^-qq, firi aoi fieXiru. — Padl. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 PUBLISHED BY CROCKER & BREWSTER. 
 
 I80O. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1850, by 
 
 CROCKER & BREWSTKR, 
 
 in the Clerk's Oflace of the District Court of Massachusetts. 
 
 AM>OVliR: JOHN D. PLAOG, 
 ST£&B0T1FEB AKD PUNTIO. 
 
CONSCIENCE AND THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 § 1. Introduction. 
 
 I HAVE not selected a passage of Paul's first epistle to the 
 Corinthians, to stand on my title page, without some hesitation. 
 It is not because I am anxious about myseh" in the matter, that I 
 have hesitated ; for let my motto be whatever it might, unless it 
 were some favorite passage of the so-called anti-slavery party, it 
 would probably be read by one portion of the community, in their 
 present state of excitement, with strong forebodings of a pro-slavery 
 effort. Let it be so, then, if it needs must be. I am willing, for 
 myself, to shoulder the burden, and to stand under it if I can. But 
 I rather shrink from putting the great apostle in the fore-front of 
 such a battle, and exposing him to tlie contumely which any one 
 else must meet wuth, who perils a declaration of the same purport 
 as his, on his own responsibility. The reader who does not under- 
 stand Greek, may find a translation of Paul's words, in the fu^t 
 clause of 1 Cor. 7: 21. There it stands, as translated, in the follow- 
 ing words : Art thou called, being a servant, care not for 
 IT. Had I adopted some motto devised by myself, expressed it in 
 other words of just the same import as those of the apostle, and 
 then placed this instead of the words of Paul at the head of my 
 little pamphlet, I should unquestionably find tliat a cataract of oblo- 
 quy and indignation would speedily be pouring upon me. Still I 
 could have dared to commit such a deed, liad I not deemed it more 
 to my purpose to quote what Paul says, than to quote myself. 
 
 That the great apostle himself may be brought into some disre- 
 pute, among a certain class of readers, by my cxi)osure of Im sen- 
 
timents on the present occasion, is what I fear ; and this is the only 
 ground of the hesitation to which I have adverted. If I know my 
 own heart, I would sooner expose myself to contumely, than occasion 
 its coming upon him. Still, he has a hetter shield to protect himself 
 than I have ; and his words are likely to stand, unchanged and unre- 
 pealed, when the lips and the pens of revilers will be beyond the 
 reach of harming him or his doctrine. 
 
 It is not my present object to go minutely here into the interpret- 
 ation of the words I have quoted, and of the surrounding context. 
 This belongs to another part of my little work. I have produced 
 the words of Paul at the beginning of my inquiries and remarks, 
 that such of my readers as still preserve a regard for the apostle's 
 words and sentiments, may reflect on the advice which he gives to 
 thpse who are under the yoke of slavery and who have to bear its 
 pressure, and ask themselves, whether those who do not bear the 
 yoke, and are in no danger of having it put upon them, may not 
 seriously inquire, whether the ^^ aoi fDjXtzco (care not for it) is 
 not, on every ground, more applicable to them than to the sufferers. 
 I know that there are many who will sneer at any one's suggesting, 
 that a little more of the laissez faire would become them as believ- 
 ers in the Christian Scripture's. Yet such a suggestion seems to be 
 needed ; for even religious newspapers, not a few, appear utterly to 
 ignore the ajsostle's words, and exhibit not a trace of ever having 
 had cognition of them. Instead of " not caring" they occupy whole 
 columns, yea whole broadsides, and now and then an Extra besides, 
 with the most impassioned appeals and addresses, and with never 
 ceasing contumely and vituperation, poured out in floods on all who, 
 in this so-called Land of Liberty, use the liberty to differ from them 
 in opinion. On all such, the rebuke of the apostle seems to be 
 somewhat cutting. I cannot help it. I should be glad if that 
 rebuke could be spared ; for I do not court, and do not love, the 
 business of applying it. I come to it with about as much reluc- 
 tance, as Jeremiah (20: 7 — 10) felt to bring the message with which 
 he was charged to the Jews. Probably I shall share the same fate 
 that befel him. 
 
 Be this as it may, I have counted the cost, and am not satisfied 
 that it should deter me from doing what I deem to be a sacred duty. 
 It lies within my proper sphere of duty to hold up before the world 
 the declarations and doctrines of God's eternal word ; for I ha^ e 
 

 
 been a preacher of the gospel, according to the best of my knowledge 
 and ability, for more than forty-fave years. More than forty of 
 these have been spent on the study of the Bible ; and the conse- 
 quence has been, that this book has taken a paramount place in my 
 reverence, and in my sense of duty to obey it. Statesmen and 
 jurists may discuss the great questions, now occupying all heads and 
 all hearts, with much force and eloquence. They have done so, on 
 both sides. Never, since the Declaration of Independence, and the 
 formation of the United States Constitution, has there been so much 
 deep feeling excited, or so much etfort called forth. But there is, 
 for all who profess a reverence for the Scriptures, another aspect of 
 the great questions in agitation tlum that which statesmen and 
 jurists, hampered by parliamentary tactics, can venture themselves 
 to discuss. The majority in all our legislative bodies, as I fear, 
 would look upon a man who should address scriptural arguments to 
 them in the halls of legislation, as if he had risen from the dead, 
 after having once been a member of the Long Parliament, in the 
 time of Oliver Cromwell ; and all the names which Butler has con- 
 jured up in his Hudibras, or Dr. South in his Sermons, or Toiy 
 writers in their diatribes, and have bestowed on the Puritan legisla- 
 tors, would be added to the name of the luckless wight who should 
 once make such an appeal. Yet, forsooth, we are in a Christian land! 
 Is this really so ? Then may those whose life has been devoted to 
 the teaching and ditiusing of Christianity be pardoned, for sounding 
 the words of prophets and apostles in the ears of our great commu- 
 nity. I claim that right. I expect, however, to be condemned by 
 some, and perhaps maligned by others, for exercising that right. 
 No matter. It is but of little consequence what becomes of me, if 
 the teachings of "the glorious Gospel of the blessed God" may 
 come in their simplicity and power and authority before the public, 
 in any manner that will attract their attention. It is too late for me 
 to cast off the authority of that Gospel, or to shun my responsibility 
 for proclaiming it. It would be reproachful to me in the highest 
 degree, if I should desert the causo which I have so long and so 
 deliberately espoused, in the day of assault or of peril. 
 
 By this time some of my readers will begin to inquire, p<>rhapp 
 
 with a degree of wonder, what has led me to such an introduction to 
 
 what I have to say, on the present occasion. I feel tliat some 
 
 apology for, or rather that some account of, my proem is due to 
 
 1* 
 
6 
 
 them. I will nai'rate briefly and simply what has called me out, and 
 led me to the utterance of the preceding sentiments. 
 
 I have never been a politician, at least, I have never been what the 
 world usually styles a politician. Li my early days, while in my 
 college-studies, and afterAvards in the study of the law, I was warmly 
 engaged against the JefFersonian politics and administration. When 
 I became a pastor of the First Church at New Haven, in Connecti- 
 cut, I renounced all active pursuit of politics. I never preached a 
 political sei-mon in my life. Usually I did not go to any meetings 
 for the election of state or town officers. My people were some- 
 what divided in poUtics, and I did not like unnecessarily to oifend 
 those who differed from me, by voting against their wishes ; for 
 such was the violence of party in Jefferson-times, that offence would 
 of course have been taken. But I never shunned voting, because 
 I feared the consequences as to myself. It was principally because 
 my vote was altogether unnecessary, and therefore (in my circum- 
 stances) inexpedient, there being then an overwhelming majority in 
 Connecticut of anti-Jefiersonians. I have been more than forty 
 years a resident and freeman in this commonwealth. During all 
 that period, I have never voted at the elections, more than some ten 
 or twelve times. In seasons of what I thought to be peril, I began 
 to vote somewhat regularly ; and it was under the imperial reign of 
 Gen. Jackson, that I commenced such an exercise of my franchise- 
 rights. But I never preached politics, or taught them, in public. 
 I have frequented the Lecture-room, in the Theological Seminary 
 here, near forty years ; yet I believe none of all my pupils will 
 charge me with occupying their time in political lectures. I have 
 never written a political piece for our newspapers or magazines ; 
 except in one case now to be mentioned. In that one case, I put 
 my hand to a critique on a speech of Mr. Webster, delivered at 
 Andover ; and subjoined a defence of Mr. Webster's course, in the 
 matter of continuing to hold office under President Tyler. The 
 people of the glorious old Bay State had been led, at that time, by 
 the newspapers, (some of which were filled with inuendos against 
 Mr. Webster made by interested politicians), into a disapprobation 
 of Mr. Webster's course then, in like manner as I believe them now 
 to be misled. When the whole case was fairly laid before them, 
 they hastened, as a body, and with that noble spirit which they 
 cherish, to do him justice ; I hope they will not refuse the like 
 
justice on the present occasion, if as good an account can be given 
 of Mr. Webster's course. 
 
 K it was a sin in me, who happened, (from circumstances un- 
 sought for and unexpected, and, I may add, quite peculiar in my 
 life), to become acquainted with the true history of Mr. Webster's 
 Secretaryship — if it Avas a sin to develop the matter to tlie public, 
 so be it. I do not reproach m3-self as yet, however, for such a sin, 
 because I have never been able to see any atrocity in helping to do 
 justice to a man, to whom the public were so much indebted. After 
 a short period, from that day to this, I have neither heard nor seen 
 any reproach to Mr. "Webster, from any respectable quarter, for the 
 course he then pursued. Yet for myself I did not, for a time, escape 
 severe censure, on the part of some of my fellow citizens. Anony- 
 mous letters full of reproaches were sent to me ; various newspaper 
 paragraphs, for my edification, were carefully despatched to me by 
 mail, fraught with bitter and sometimes malignant vituperation- 
 Yet I survived. When the tornado had passed, I rose gently up, 
 and finding no very serious bruises, I went quietly along my humble 
 and peaceful way, as usual. 
 
 Since then, I have never meddled with politics. I have been 
 engaged, when able to study, in other matters that I relislicd tar 
 more ; and if I did not understand them better, it was my own foult. 
 My increasing age and my many infirmities have given me a disrel- 
 ish for the melee of political contest. It was not until within a few 
 weeks, that I ever thought of approaching the arena of tliat contest, 
 even near enough to look on and see what was doing. I'nluckily 
 for my quiet, the paper expressing approbation of Mr. Webster's 
 late Speech was presented to me by a friend, and I was asked 
 whether I agreed sufficiently with liis views to sign it. !My nvidy 
 reply was in the affirmative. I put my name to the paper, and there 
 I hope and wish it may stand. It is not a pledge, as I view the mat- 
 ter, that I am ready to support every shade of sentiment, on every 
 topic upon which Mr. Webster's speech touches. That gi-nth-man is 
 the last man who would demand the surrender of their own individual 
 views from his friends. But it is a pledge that I did, and it still sig- 
 nifies that I do, from the bottom of my heart, assent to, and agree 
 with, all the important parts of Mr. Webster's re:u-^oning in geneml ; 
 and specially, it indicates my assent to his aim and desire to cherish 
 our tjnion as inviolable, and to persuade both parties to make idl 
 
8 
 
 such mutual concessions as they can make, consistently with their 
 consciences, for the sake of peace, of mutual good, and of firm con- 
 solidation. If I have erred in tliis case, it is at least in company 
 with those who are not often impeached for want either of intelli- 
 gence or integrity. Moreover, if " a man may be known by the 
 company he keeps," then I am, for the present, in circumstances quite 
 agreeable with respect to this matter. I wiU not say with Cicero, 
 that * I had rather err with philosophers, than think rightly with the 
 populace;* but I must confess, that if error is imputable to me as to 
 the present affair, my case is attended at least with not a few com- 
 forting alleviations. I can say to each of my fellow-signers, so far 
 as I have the pleasure to know them, that, as to the matter now in 
 question, tecum amem mvere, tecum obeam lihens. 
 
 And now, what is the consequence of my alleged political faux 
 pas ? The public have little interest, indeed, to be informed of my 
 individual experience ; and were it not that they stand connected 
 with my undertaking to write the following pages, I should of course 
 psiss them by in silence. But as the matter now is, what has befallen 
 me may serve to cast some light, on the manner in which many of 
 Mr. Webster's accusers manage their cause. Some other things, 
 also, may perhaps have light cast upon them by what has befallen 
 me. But I reserve, for the sequel, any remarks that I may find 
 occasion to make respecting those matters. 
 
 Within a week after my name was set to the paper approving of 
 ]Mj\ Webster's Speech, I began to receive anonymous letters ; and 
 soon after, various newspapers of diverse character and complexion 
 began to pour in. One anonymous letter states, that the writer once 
 had much respect for my opinions and views, but that I have now 
 showed him that he was much mistaken in me. Another says, that 
 the only apology he can make for me is, that I have had a two 
 years' sickness, which has doubtless very much impaired my mind ; 
 so that he can, on the whole, pity me rather than blame me. A 
 third says, that I have now arrived at three score and ten, and like 
 most men of that age, have become a child the second time ; other- 
 wise I never could have become the advocate of slavery. Another 
 challenges me to show one text in all the Bible, which allows of 
 slavery, or justifies my course in according with, and approving of, 
 Mr. Webster's Speech. Another of my obhging friends, (it may be 
 that he resides in our metropolis), sends me a slip of a newspaper, 
 
9^ 
 
 on which is a paragraph, giving an account of tlic drove of slaves 
 lately marched from Washington on Sunday, by ]}ruin, (I think this 
 was the name), who charged some SI 800 for a good looking young 
 wench, whom he (Bruin) wished to sell to some gentleman ; and to 
 this slip of information is added, in a note written in what I take to 
 be a dissembled hand, the following monition : " You, by puttin" 
 your name to Mr. Webster's paper, have put your seal of approba- 
 tion on all this transaction ; and you have moreover approved of the 
 violation of the Sabbath, by the said Bruin." Another letter writer 
 says, that 'I am neither more nor less than a downright wolf, in 
 sheep's clothing.' Another wonders how a man could study the 
 Bible for 40 years, and yet never have learned that slavery is a sin. 
 These are only some of the many specimens. 
 
 As unique in its kind, I advert to one anti-slavery paper, (which 
 it is needless to name, for there can be but one such), that was sent 
 to me, as I suppose, by its philanthropic editor. In this, after a flood 
 of Billingsgate on Mr. Webster's " Satanic SrEECii," he includes 
 within a square enclosed by funereal dressings, my name, that of Dr. 
 Woods, of Dr. Emerson, and of President Sparks, and Professor 
 Felton. Here we are — dead and gone — and (what is a little re- 
 markable) all buried together. It is all well, and for one I am quite 
 content; for a man, as people say, may be known by the company in 
 which he is buried, as well as by those with whom he associates 
 while living. But this is not all. In another paragrai»h, myself and 
 my two venerable Colleagues are named together, and tlien the editor 
 says : " These individuals have formerly been called preachers of 
 evangelical truth ; but," he adds, " they are never more to be so 
 named. They are to be classed with the Jewish high-priests, who 
 accused the Saviour of the world at the bar of Pilate." — This, by 
 the way, is merely a specimen; but thus much may suffice. I should 
 not have noticed even this, but for a purpose that will appear in the 
 sequel. I have, and can have, no contest with the editor of that 
 paper. I wish to settle all the accounts, if any lie open, brtween me 
 and him, by the simple remark, that he hivs my full and free consent 
 to utter against me all the slander and contumely and vituperation 
 that the compass of the English language will aflbrd him the means 
 of utterin"- — he is entirely welcome to 'let his tongue walk tlimugh 
 the earth ' in its pestiferous bowlings ; — and then, if he looks for any 
 signs of excitement or impatience in me, he will find me as quiet 
 
10 
 
 and peaceable and harmless as lie could wish. He is in no danger 
 of any suit for slander, nor even for blasphemy, (which, a& most per- 
 sons think, he not unfrequently utters), from me, or from my respected 
 friends whom he has entombed with me. All I ask of him is, that 
 he may never, on any occasion or by any means, be persuaded to 
 utter one word in my praise, or in commendation of me. Should I 
 see such a paragraph in his paper, I should begin forthwith to think, 
 that his obituary notice had something ominous in it. At all events, 
 I should severely tax my memory and my conscience to search dili- 
 gently after, and find out if possible, what egregious folly or down- 
 right betise I had been committing, which had di'awn down upon me 
 the misfortune of his eulogium. 
 
 But there is a class of men different from all, who have thus far 
 been brought to view, some of whom conduct papers highly respect- 
 able and useful in regard to most of their contents. Some of these, 
 edited by even personal friends whom I heartily love and respect, 
 have thought proper to make me and my colleagues the butt of allu- 
 sion or remai'k, in neai-ly every number of their paper that has been 
 issued since our unlucky deed of subscription. The pieces of this 
 nature, if I ken aright, do not come from editorial hands, but from 
 some of their zealous friends, who seem to consider themselves as 
 officers in the corps of life-guards who keep watch in the temple of 
 Liberty. After speaking of Mr. Webster as our misrepresentative, 
 and as having done sacrifice to base electioneermg purposes, and 
 thrown out a gilded bait to catch the South ; after alleging that all 
 the confidence of the Bay State in him is about defunct ; some con- 
 fidential Ariel of the editors, who hails from Boston, and seems to 
 know everything about everybody, goes on to say, ' that as to the mer- 
 chants' (whose names are on Ma-. Webster's testimonial), ' they cannot 
 afford to have a conscience ; as to the politicians, their conscience 
 varies with the wind ; and as to Professors, etc., their railroad must 
 no longer run over the heights of Zion, [quaere — Andover Hill ?] 
 but through the valley of Hinnom.' I do not, with the little that I 
 know of exegesis, feel able to make out an interpretation of this last 
 clause, and must therefore give it over to the reader to manage for 
 himself as he best can. But there is another declaration of this 
 sharp-sighted sentinel of the life-guard of Liberty, that I think I 
 can cognize. He implicates all of us, who have subscribed the tes- 
 timonial, in the accusation of being either the advocates of slavery, or 
 
II 
 
 apologists for it. He says we raake no more scruple " in riding over 
 the ten commandments," than a merchant (he seems to have a pecu- 
 liarly degrading opinion of merchants) does in riding to his cotton 
 mills over the bales of southern cotton. In this, however, I think 
 there is somewhat of a. faux pas. At least, there seems to be dis- 
 closed a keenness of vision in seeing a mote in a neighbor's eye, 
 without even dreaming that a beam may be in his own. When he 
 says, or at least implies, that I, (I speqk now only for myself, for 
 others whom he has joined with me need no defence from me) — 
 that I am the advocate or ai)ologist of slavery, he speaks avtiat is 
 KOT TRUE ; and thus he rides over one of the ten commandments 
 •which says : " Thou shalt not bear false >vitness against thy neigh- 
 bor." When he appeals to the ten commandments as plainly and 
 palpably decisive against all slavery, " he rides over " (to use his own 
 choice and delicate expression) a certain /owr^A commandment, with- 
 out once seeming to recollect, that this commandment requires men "to 
 keep the Sabbath holy," and that " neither they, nor their sons, nor 
 daughters, nor their men-servants, nor their maid-servants, 
 shall do any work " on that sacred day. In the ten commandments, 
 then, servants male and female are recognized as a standing and per- 
 manent part or portion of the Jewish people. The fourth command- 
 ment prescribes their duties specifically as servants. And what is 
 the conclusion from this ? There is indeed no command here to 
 make slaves ; but it is equally true, that there is none to unmake 
 them. One thing, however, is palpable, viz., that there is a cogni- 
 zance of them in such a way as to render it quite certain, that Moses 
 expected the Jewish nation to continue to have such a class of peo- 
 ple as servants or slaves among them. He elsewhere gives them 
 express liberty to do this. Lev. 25: 44 — 4G. Who then rides over 
 (cum pace aurium delioatiorum !) the largest number of command- 
 ments ? Is it Ariel himself, or his vituperated neighbors ? I take it 
 for "ranted that the other nine commandments have nothing about 
 slavery in them ; how is it, then, with the fourth? Or is thiTe some 
 eleventh commandment which we have rode over, because, being less 
 sharp-sighted than Ariel, we did not see it? 
 
 Withal, this same life-guard watchman has a singular faculty of 
 quoting and interpreting the Scriptures for his purj)o><' ; specially in 
 applying them to the confounding of Mr. Webster and his friends. 
 We shall have occasion by and by, to look a little into this part of 
 
12 
 
 his development; not because of any special importance that at- 
 taches to what Ariel says or does, but because he has seized on the 
 same weapons of assault which are common to most who agree with 
 him in anti-slavery notions, and which they brandish to the right and 
 left with the expectation of either scattering all opposing forces by 
 striking them with terror, or else of laying them low. We shall see, 
 in due time, whether the weapons are sharp enough to do much exe- 
 cution, or well tempered enough to bear an opposing blow without 
 shivering to pieces. 
 
 There are some other declarations from other assailants of Mr. 
 Webster and his friends, in the same journal, which I intend to 
 notice when a fitting opportunity occurs ; not because I design to 
 attack the journal, but because those declarations give expression to 
 sentiments of late often avowed and widely proclaimed. I have 
 referred to the journal in question, for the very reason that I regard 
 it as edited for the most part in an able manner, and until qui^e 
 recently as holding out fair promise of great and extensive use- 
 fulness. 
 
 It would not be worth my time or labor, to hunt up and bring for- 
 ward the violent diatribes, which have issued of late from the 
 second, third, and fourth rate papers ; for their name is legion. I 
 have referred to a paper highly respectable, in order to show, that 
 matters are becoming somewhat serious, and tliat it is high time they 
 should be examined on all sides. Statesmen and jurists will doubt- 
 less take care for themselves and their cause, as to what comes with- 
 in their appropriate sphere. But in a Christian land, there are 
 many — many thousands, sincerely desirous to know what light can 
 be obtained from the Bible, to aid them in discerning and perform- 
 ing their duty, in times hke these. To all such I have sometliing to 
 say ; not so much in the way of apology for my own sentiments and 
 course of conduct, as for the sake of " stirring up their pure minds 
 by way of remembrance." 
 
 And now, after producing only a tithe of what has been brought 
 before me, either to chastise or to edify me, may I be permitted to 
 ask, why I should be doomed to such a lot ? I can easily see, why 
 Mr. Webster's Speech should have roused up the ire of those who 
 call for emancipation to-morrow, and who are bent upon all possible 
 measures to foreclose our unappropriated domains against the pros- 
 pect of slavery, even at the risk of violating our plighted national 
 
18 
 
 faith, of setting aside the solemn compacts which we have made, and 
 of dissolving the Union and covering the land with hlood. Such a 
 speech, addressed to the soher, candid, law-loving, peace-loving, cov- 
 enant-keeping freemen of our country, threatens much, no douht, to 
 the cause of the violent. Such Paixhan guns as he hrings into the 
 contest, threaten demolition to the tottering walls and hrick-huilt 
 citadels. No wonder they look with concern upon the issue of the 
 contest ; and of course, no wonder that he should become the object 
 with some of impassioned, and with others of embittered, attack. 
 All this is easily exj)lained. But why, in my peaceful retirement 
 from the world, in my inaction and quietude as to politics, and while 
 I am standing on the verge of the grave with one foot already in it 
 
 — why I should have become, all at once, such a target to be tired at. 
 seems to me somewhat inexplicable. Whom have I harmed ? And 
 who can expect any harm from me, in such a condition ? However, 
 straws (they say) show which way the wind blows. So an expe- 
 rience like mine shows the violence of party spirit that is abroad. 
 In such of our journals a*! are published for the canaille, and well 
 adapted moreover to gi'atify their taste, all this perhaps might be 
 expected. But to find such violence in many of our rcliyiotis papers, 
 even in some which are among those of the first rank, this is an 
 indication of a day api)roaching, which may be like that seen in 
 vision by the Hebrew prophet, " a day of darkness and gloominess, 
 a day of clouds and thick darkness, a day of trouble and distress, a 
 day of wasting and of desolation." If my feeble hand can be 
 employed in even gi'ving a signal for halting a little time, until we 
 can survey the ground more etfectually before we hasten on in our 
 forced march, yea, even for deliberating whether the present direc- 
 tion of our march ha<l not better b(> abandoned, at least for a while 
 
 — then my poor remnant of life will not have been spared in vain. 
 Such then, as I have shown above, is the state of tilings in wliieh 
 
 I undertake to speak a word of (juition, well meant, ahliongh it 
 may not perhaps be well sj)oken. If I look merely at the eoniino- 
 tion which seems to surround me, I almost believe that I might be 
 pardoned, if I should feel somewhat as the trident-god did, when he 
 was called away from his quiet resting place in the depths of his 
 watery domain, by the heavings of the ocean and tlie IxxtTuing and 
 dashing of its waves above, which had been la-ihed into fury juid 
 elevated to the skies, by the tornados that Piolus had let loose, with- 
 
 2 
 
14 
 
 out the knowledge or consent of his Neptunian majesty. When the 
 monarch raised his head above the surface of the deep, and saw its 
 commotion, and the Trojan fleet like things of cork upon it, his first 
 feeling was indignation ; his second and better thought was, tliat he 
 must, without delay, calm the raging element. 
 
 Quos ego — sed praestat componere fluctiis. 
 
 If my first feeling w-as like his, it was very soon succeeded by the 
 better second thought. I have no power indeed, such as Virgil 
 attributes to Neptune, to calm the raging billows ; but if I can pour 
 even a little oil upon them, it may possibly be reckoned as a contri- 
 bution of my mite, toward smoothing down their angry crests. 
 
 Let me, once for all, before I advance to the main objects that I 
 have in view, here make a frank statement of my feelings in regard 
 to a large class of men, who entertain views different from, and in 
 some respects opposed to my own. Those who belong to this class, 
 are not all of the like character ; and therefore they should not in 
 any way, either directly or by implication, be amalgamated together. 
 I have already excepted one excellent journal and its editors, and 
 stated my reason for making any reference or appeal to it. That 
 its editors are high-minded Christian men, I cannot doubt. As little 
 can I doubt that great numbers of the so-called Free Soil party are 
 men of intelligence, of patriotism, and of integrit}'. They appear 
 to me, to be adorned with every civil and social virtue. All this I 
 most cheerfully concede and believe. Many of them, also, are men 
 of exemplary Christian lives. Some of them, moreover, as we 
 know from the developments which they have made, are men, whose 
 eloquence can charm not only the mass of our citizens, but hold in 
 breathless suspense our Senates and our Houses of Representatives. 
 Not to go beyond the boundaries of our own Massachusetts, I have 
 the pleasure of some personal acquaintance with a number of Free 
 Soilers, who adorn private life by their virtues, and public life by 
 their learning, their talents, and their eloquence. Nay, I could, if 
 it were decorous, readily point to this man and tliat among them, and 
 say with all my heart : 1 nostrum decus ! Of such men I can fully 
 believe, that their aim is good ; that their principles (as to main 
 positions) are humane, patriotic, becoming high-soulcd freemen. I 
 believe those principles, bating some excesses to which excited 
 feeling has cai-ried them, are such as meet the approbation of a 
 
15 
 
 tribunal higher than an earthly one can be. But in matter-s of 
 exciting moment, where great and humane objects are sincerely 
 believed to be at stake, it often happens, even to spirits of the nobler 
 order, to become excited beyond the bounds of moderation and sober 
 wisdom. I do not call this crime, in such men. I might almost 
 say, that it is the fault, or rather the infirmity, of excessive virtue. 
 But still, if the means which they employ to carry their cause 
 through with success, are lacking in prudence, in sober foresight, in 
 moderation, in justice, and in comity to opponents — then the public 
 suffer far more from these distinguished and excellent men. than 
 they would from all the etlbrts of tlie Ledrn J^ol/i/is and the lied 
 Caps who ai"e in the midst of us. On the yeomanry of Massachu- 
 setts, at all events, Parisian Socialism and Parisian Liberty and 
 Equality, are not likely to make much permanent impression. If 
 the people of this State are in the end misled, it must be by men 
 whose lives and talents have given them a commanding influence. 
 Hence it is that I have ventured on the declaration, that when such 
 men fall info excess of zeal, and lead the way to measures corres- 
 pondent with this and indicative of it, the community sutler far more 
 than they would be liable to suffer, from the excesses of all those 
 who live on excitement, and are never gratified so much, as when 
 they can idlure or drive others into the like condition. 
 
 I have thus done, as I trust, the justice due to a large class of 
 men among us. If at any time, in the hurry or excitement of writing, 
 I should let drop one word that would seem to disagree with what 
 I have now expressed, let such of my fellow-citizens as may be 
 implicated in my remarks, draw their pen over that word, and be 
 assured that it comes from inadvertence and not from design. 
 
 I wish I could speak in a similar tone of another class among us, 
 who seem to be kindred spirits with the Liberty-men of Paris. I 
 refer of course to such, and to the like of them, as have deluged me 
 with the gall that I have briefly described in the i)ages above. 
 What there is in all this, which is manly, patriotic, just, profitable, 
 or decent, I am not able to see. By tlieir fruits, at all events, they 
 may be known, and by these they must expect to be judged. It 
 would ill become me to occupy much time or i)aper witli ih<in. 
 Such men, if I rightly judge, have little or nothing to lose, l)y a 
 breaking uj) of the I'nion. No change can be niucli lor the worse, 
 so far as they are concenie(l ; an<l tin- cliaucf. as tin y brljeve, is, 
 
16 
 
 that change may in some way present a better opportunity to help 
 bring in Socialistn upon us. When property (to use the language of 
 their transatlantic coadjutor) becomes a crime, and equal division is 
 made of the whole, then they may have « high life below stairs," as 
 well as others can now have high life above stairs. If they will 
 promise me now to keep their temper, I will tell them a short story, 
 and then, wishing them better views and better feelings and more 
 civility, I will bid them, for the present, a hearty adieu. 
 
 The story is this. In Jefferson-times, when party spirit was 
 hif^her, if possible, than it now is, the inhabitants of New Haven, 
 in Connecticut, where I then lived, were as a mass strong Federal- 
 ists. As soon as Mr. Jefferson was fairly seated on his throne, and 
 had got a Senate, a House of Representatives, and a Cabinet, 
 obedient and entirely subservient to his will, he displaced a Collector 
 of the Customs at New Haven, appointed by Washington, (a man 
 of great integrity and distinguished ability for business, and then 
 enjoying the highest confidence of his fellow citizens), and appointed 
 in his room a gentleman above eighty years of age, a man indeed of 
 unblemished cliaracter, but unfortunately the father of a real Jaco- 
 binic son. Tliis son had been at Paris during the reign of terror, 
 and, like Thomas Paine, with whom he sympathized both in religion 
 and in politics, did all he could to aid the Mountain party. It was 
 believed, of course, that he was the real appointee ; and this was 
 soon confirmed by his open appointment at his father's death. No 
 man could have been more obnoxious to New Haven, at that period, 
 than the son in question. The commotion of course was very great. 
 Soon after the appointment in question came the Fourth of July. 
 It was celebrated with a mixture of enthusiasm and of indignation. 
 At the dinner which followed the exercises of the day, where some 
 hundreds were seated at the table, an aged merchant of the town, a 
 shrewd man and a high Federalist, was called on for a volunteer 
 toast. He rose instantly and gave one thus : " Our New Collector, 
 A. B. ! When the political pot boils, the scum is sure to come to 
 the top." 
 
 i Sed — paullo majora canamus.' I come now merely to mention 
 further, that from some respected and cherished friends, I have 
 received letters, stating their doubts and perplexities on the present 
 agitated questions, and requesting me to point out, if I could, some 
 way of Christian politics, in which they might conscientiously pro- 
 
Yi 
 
 ceed. The tone of respect and kindness wluch pervaded these 
 letters, induced me to give some special attention to the subject of a 
 (Jliristian examination. My undertaking wjis furtlier stimulated, by 
 other letters of a similar tenor ; and these assured me, that the writ- 
 ers of them knew many serious and conscientious persons, who were 
 in the same predicament with themselves, and would be greatly 
 relieved if the path of Cliristian duty could be pointed out. After 
 some examination of the matter as an affair concenied with Chris- 
 tianity, I became so far satisfied in my own mind, that I could not 
 well doubt for myself. "When we get into this state, after a serious 
 effort in the way of examination, we are apt to feel that what con- 
 vinces ourselves, may perhaps help to convince others. The subject 
 gradually grew upon me, until I finally concluded that I would 
 make the attempt to communicate my views, provided no serious 
 obstacle should be found in the way, and if I should continue to 
 be in such a state, that I could perform the labor necessary. 
 
 My next step was, to see that Mr. Webster should be consulted 
 on the question, whether he would have any objections to my can- 
 vassing his speech. I did this through the medium of a friend ; for 
 between Mr. Webster and myself no communications had yet 
 passed. That friend gave him my letter, on his coming to Boston. 
 The reason why I took pains to get Mr. Webster's views, was, on 
 my part, a regard to delicacy and respect, and not for the sake of 
 forming my own opinions, which had already been formed. The 
 letter of mine, that was put into his hand, stated merely that my 
 special design was, if he concurred, to take a Christian >iew of the 
 agitated questions. In answer to my letter, Mr. Webster sent me 
 the following communication, which, with his consent, I shall here 
 subjoin, premising merely, that I should have omitted the first pai-a- 
 graph, had it not been a plain case, from the temper of the times, 
 that any omission would be supposed by some readers, to have been 
 filled up with matter which it would not do to publisli. and which 
 some might guess was very difi'erent from what JNIr. Webster lias 
 actually written. If I be amenable at the bar of delicacy, for pub- 
 lishing a paragraph expressive of kindness and regard to myself, I 
 hope to obtain a pardon, in ciu'^e of condemnation, for the ira^on 
 already stated. Here is the letter : 
 2* 
 
18 
 
 ''Boston, April 31, 1850. 
 
 "My Dear Sir, — I cannot well say how much pleasure it gave 
 me to see a name so much venerated and beloved by me as yours is, 
 on the letter recently received by me from friends in Boston and its 
 vicinity, approving the general object and character of my speech in 
 the Senate, of the seventh of March. I know the conscientiousness 
 with which you act on such occasions, and therefore value your 
 favorable sentiments the more highly. 
 
 " Is it not time, my dear Sir, that the path of Christian duty, in 
 relation to great and permanent questions of Government, and to 
 the obligations which men are under to support the Constitution and 
 the fundamental principles of the Government under which they 
 live, should be cleai'ly pointed out ? I am afraid we are falling into 
 loose habits of tliinking u[)on such subjects ; and I could wish that 
 your health and strength would allow you to communicate your 
 own thoughts to the public. 
 
 '' We have established over us, as it appears to me, a much better 
 form of Government than may ordinarily be expected in the allot- 
 ments of Providence to men ; and it appears to me that the con- 
 sciences of all well meaning and enlightened individuals, should 
 rather be called upon to uphold this form of Government, than to 
 weaken and undermine it, by imputing to it objections, ill considered 
 and iU founded, dangerous to the stability of all governments, and 
 not unfrequently the offspring of over heated imaginations. 
 
 " Allow me to conclude, my dear Sir, by offering you my highest 
 respects, and my affectionate good wishes for your health and hap- 
 piness." DAjS^IEL WEBSTER. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Stuart. 
 
 I should, of course, have spared the public all this, so far as I 
 myself am concerned. But I Avell knew, that concert between Mr. 
 Webster and me would be charged upon my pamphlet, and it would 
 be put mainly to his account. He has more than once, in some 
 journals which have a Christian name and wear a Christian face, 
 been taunted with getting up a subscription-paper, declarative of 
 approbation by his particular friends, in order to keep himself in 
 countenance, and to prop him up in his falling condition. Kay, I 
 have repeatedly seen statements, that the whole State of Massa- 
 chusetts had been scoured, from Cape Cod to Berkshire, in order to 
 get -underwriters for him ; that every store and shop and stall and 
 bar-room and kennel had been rummaged, in order to increase the 
 number of vouchers for his speech ; and that after all the running to 
 and fro over the whole land by his partizans, they had been able to 
 collect from the whole Bay State, only between seven and eight 
 
n 
 
 hundred persons, wlio were willing to vouch for the propriety of his 
 speech. Now those who can say this, of course can say anything. 
 Those who have said it, at least some of them, know thai no signers 
 were sought for or wished, except from Boston and its suburbs. 
 Andover, at all events, is at the greatest distance from Boston, 
 where any application for subscription was made ; and there but in 
 a few cases. The names on the list are the pledge of all this. If 
 there are any names, (I have not seen the full list, and therefore 
 speak conditionally), on the subscription paper, which belong at any 
 distance from Boston, it comes about merely from the persons' being 
 in Boston when the paper was carried round. What could be the 
 inducement to pubhsh such a palpable falsehood, it woidd be diffi- 
 cult, in one point of view, to say ; but still, not very difficult in 
 another. Delenda est Carthago. If Mr. Webster's reasoning cannot 
 be answered, (and this is somewhat of a hard task), he must in some 
 other way be put down. At all events, this last point must be car- 
 ried ; and what would help more in the present exigency, than to 
 persuade the public, that Mr. Webster has lost the confidence of his 
 own State? No matter, think they, if the falsehood is discovered 
 and exposed, by and by. Justice has a lame foot, and moves very 
 slowly; and she will not come with her scorpion lash, until we have 
 realized all that we hoped for. It may be so, I answer ; but when 
 justice does come — wliat then ? Can you, who have made such 
 statements to the public, expect any longer to be trusted by tliem ? 
 The real truth seems to be, that we are acting over again the scenes 
 of old Athens, in the days of Aristides. His rival, Themistocles, 
 went about the whole city, whispering all manner of surmises against 
 him, so that at length the jiopulace were ready to thrust out the best 
 and most distinguished man in their commonwealth. On tlir day 
 when the votes of Athens were to decide the fate of Aristides, he 
 asked one of the citizens on his way to the voting-hall, to whuin lie 
 was personally unknown, how he was going to vote. He told him 
 he should rote to banish Aristides. AVhy ? said he, what has he 
 done ? Wliy nothing, replied the simple clown, that I know of; but 
 I am tired of hearing every body call him the Just. So is it, I fear, 
 among us at the present moment. The man who has eonimanded 
 more listening ears, and made more hearts beat liigli. tliese twenty 
 years paM, than any other man in our great conuntiuity, is culled 
 upon by the spirit of the Levellers to come down to iheir hiunbler 
 
20 
 
 place, and take his lot with them. "A has le Smateur! There 
 are other men who have as good a right to reign as you ; and if we 
 cannot bring you to a level by argument, we can do it by contumely 
 and vituperation." This is the brief, but, I am pained to say that I 
 feel constrained to believe, the true history of the matter. 
 
 Mr. Webster, forsooth, asking for underwritei-s in politics, and 
 drumming up all Massachusetts to get them ! Tell it not in Gath ! 
 It is neitlier true that he would ask for any such thing, nor true that 
 his friends would condescend to devise and execute any such mea- 
 sui'e. 
 
 Let those who are doing such deeds of violence against fact and 
 truth, call to mind, that Athens, when she had banished her Aris- 
 tides for six years, felt obliged to recall him before the end of that 
 period, and to give him her highest confidence and her posts of 
 higliest lionor. Let them call to mind, that when the immortal 
 ^schylus, in one of his lofty and glowing tragedies, introduced a 
 sentence replete with eulogy of moral goodness and integrity, every 
 eye, in the assemblage of those very Athenians who once voted for 
 his banishment, was filled with tears of emotion, and was sponta- 
 neously fixed upon Aristides, who was then present. And so will it 
 be with us, if the impetuous zeal of the present hour is to march 
 forward until it gains its ultimate end. We are full surely prepar- 
 ing for a future repentance. 
 
 In one word, no man who regards truth has any right to say, that 
 Mr. Webster has procured his friends to prop him up, in the way of 
 subscription to a paper commending his speech, or that he has 
 enlisted me now in his service. He has not lifted one finger, in the 
 way of accomplishing either object. And yet, in the way of helping 
 to depreciate him, a respectable journal asks : ' How is it that his 
 political Orthodoxy needs vouchers ? Wliat is the matter with it ? 
 What if Dr. Woods should be vouched for on the score of Orthodoxy, 
 by an Association of Ministers in Boston, or elsewhere ? Would it 
 not seem passing strange, that he was in need of such vouchers ? ' 
 Yes it would, I answer, in present circumstances. But suppose Dr. 
 Woods were unjustly assailed in different quarters, and many things 
 were laid to his charge without any foundation or good reason ; 
 would it be strange if Dr. Woods's friends, who best know him, 
 should rally, and volunteer their united testimony to put down the 
 false accusations ? No, it would be strange if they did not do so. 
 
21 
 
 Why then may not Mr. "Webster's friends who have long been his 
 neighbors and best know him, in a time of unrestrained and unmea- 
 sured obloquy, rally around him, and bid liim God-speed in his 
 patriotic and noble course ? They may do so ; they have done so ; 
 and they are none the less resolved to hold on in their course, by 
 any false statements, so long as what they consider to be palpable 
 injustice is done to him. 
 
 But — enough of preface to my little book, unless the porch is to 
 be larger than the building. I can only say. once more, that little 
 if any of all this preface would have been written, had not the facts, 
 now brought into view, contributed to throw light on the character 
 of the times, and on the moderation and comity of some of those, 
 whose opinions I expect to call in question. I nuist say, however, 
 that I do not think the old proverb : " A man is known by the com- 
 pany he keeps," will apply, in the present case, to a large portion of 
 those who dissent from Mr. "Webster's views. It is an unblest, nnna- 
 tural union — this union of these with those — one of the matches 
 not made in heaven, that has brought together such reputable men 
 as I have described above (p. 14), and such as many of those ai-e, 
 who have loaded me with such favors as I could well dispense with, 
 (see p. 8 seq.), and for M-hich I am not specially grateful. But 
 such is the doom of jiarty sjnrit, when it runs high. We may jmd 
 should regret it ; but 1 see no way to prevent it. 
 
 One more remark, and I shall proceed to my main business. This 
 is, that I have learned to suspect, that there is some distrust in the 
 strength and goodness of their cause, when men begin to vitujierate, 
 to slander, and to satirize those, who are opposed to their views. I 
 have seen some service, in my day, in the wars of pens, and some- 
 times felt obliged to act as well as to see. Long ago I learned by 
 observation, a lesson that impressed itself deeply on my mind. 
 Those who feel a sober conviction from serious and repeated exami- 
 nation, that the views which they cherish are well groimdcd. and 
 will bear assault without any lasting harm, are very apt to ki-cp 
 quiet, and cool, even when listening to declamation and obloquy. 
 Why not? They are in no real danger. It is for those who are 
 afraid that 'their underpinning may give way, and bring down the 
 whole superstructure upon them, to keep constantly on tlm ijui nir, 
 and to make so much noise and bustle iis will turn I lie atlt-ntion of 
 the public to the commotion, rather than to the foundations of the 
 
22 
 
 edifice whence the noise proceeds. One part expect to be heard for 
 much speaking ; another, for loud speaking ; another, for tlieir inge- 
 nuity in the formation of vituperative epithets ; and another, for their 
 skill in substituting fiction for fact. Some write for a reason as good 
 as Voltaire assigned, for a false statement (which however was quite 
 piquante) in one of his histories. When advertised of the matter by 
 an acquaintance of his, who was surprised to see it, he very coolly 
 repUed : ' My dear Sir, / must he read^ Some of these writers 
 think in like way, and are well prepared to say : Si non caelum — 
 Acheronta movebo. But — all badinage apart — it is my sober con- 
 viction that very much less of excitement would now exist, did not 
 the array of Mr. Webster's arguments appear so formidable. If he 
 is willing to risk his reputation and honor, in uttering sentiments 
 which every tyro in the Free Soil political ranks can refute, why 
 then hssezfaire. There is no need of attacking him. He is undo- 
 ing himself as fast as his enemies could wish. But — do they feel 
 30 ? Do they believe all this ? Not a word of it. It is the Paix- 
 han guns that they fear, when directed against clunky walls and 
 citadels of mouldering brick. 
 
 My preface is through. I advance, then forthwith to the first part 
 of my main design. Tliis is, 
 
 § 2. To exhibit the attitude of Slavery as presented by the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 I must prepare the way for this exhibition, by a few remarks on 
 the positions assumed by the anti-slavery party (so called) of the 
 present day. 
 
 One leading position, a thousand thousand times repeated, is, that 
 slavery, on the part of the master is a crime of the first magnitude ; 
 a real malum in se; a crimen capitis ; a misdeed to be placed by the 
 side of murder, adultery, robbery, treason, and the like. Often is 
 this position advanced without making any distinction between the 
 case of an involuntary master of slaves, (one who has inherited them 
 and cannot, without the most imprudent risk of doing them injury, 
 free them immediately in the circumstances in which they are), and 
 those who have trafficked in them, or been concerned with the pirat- 
 ical business of bringing them away from Africa. The bare pos- 
 session is, as they assert, an outrage ; the bare relation is in itself a 
 
23 
 
 sin. Immediate repentance and the proclamation of their free- 
 dom are duties to be done without the least delay. Stolen goods, the 
 fruit of robbery, they say, are not to be retained a single hour, after 
 the man who hiis obtained them has come to a proper sense of his 
 duty. 
 
 Is all this really so ? Is this alleged malum in se, a case so en- 
 tirely clear as it is said to be, in all its extent and in all its ramifica- 
 tions ? Will the Scriptures bear us out in this position ? For after 
 all, this must be the ultimate test to which all sincere Christians 
 are bound to appeal. A thorough Protestant, at least, professes to 
 believe, that " the Scriptures are the siijjicioit and only rule of faith 
 and practice." 
 
 We begin our investigation with the Old Testament. Our first 
 object is to develop the matter as it there stands ; our next will be 
 to subjoin some remai'ks on this development. 
 
 Of the great antiquity of slavery no one can doubt. The curse 
 of Noah that lighted on the progeny of the unfilial ilam, wivs, that 
 Canaan his son should be a servant of servants unto his brethren, 
 Gen. 9: 25. This language, uttered soon after the flood, shows 
 plainly that slavery had an existence before the flood ; for otherwise, 
 it would not have been intelligible. ISo wonder it was so, " tor the 
 earth was filled with violence" (Gen. 6: 11) ; and slavery, for the 
 most part, originates in violence, and has its deepest foundation in 
 the simple but utterly unjust principle, that miy/d is riyht. 
 
 Under many moditieatioiis, however, did slavery exist among the 
 patriarchs of the Jewish nation. Abraham, " the father of the faith- 
 ful," (when his nephew Lot was taken captive, his goods rifled, and 
 himself carried off by marauding l^iiiditti), could bring into tlie lield 
 318 armed and disciplined servants, born in his own great houseliold, 
 and make pursuit after the robbers, and disperse them. Gen. 14: 
 12 — 16. If one Jifth be taken as the proportion among his servants 
 of such men, viz. those who were capable uf bearing and using arms, 
 Abraham's family of slaves must liave consisted of at leiust lu'JO 
 persons ; somewhat larger, I think, tlian any like family among our 
 fellow citizens of the South. However, we must call to mind here, 
 that Abraham's relation to these slaves was somewliat (liir<rcnt from 
 that of master to slave among u.*. The patriarch resembled, in his 
 mode of life, the Nomades who still roam over the very country 
 from Avhich he sprung. The Sheikhs among them often have under 
 
24 
 
 their control a whole tribe ; and this tribe stand in such relation to 
 their Sheikh, as the serfs under the old feudal law bore to their 
 master. Bodily service in the way of labor when needed, and 
 special military service in predatory and warlike expeditions, were 
 always at the command of the master. So, moreover, did the 
 administration of justice, and the power of life and death, pertain to 
 him. But in the East, where servitude everywhere prevails, the 
 slaves, for the most part, are generally treated with less rigor, and 
 more as human beings should be treated, than they are in most 
 countries called Christian. Especially do the family-servants find 
 much favor in the eyes of their master. It is a frequent custom 
 now, among the Persians for example, to bestow legacies on this 
 class of slaves, and nearly always (if they have behaved well) to 
 give them their freedom. See how exactly the case of Abraham 
 illustrates this. He had no child until he was 100 years of age ; 
 and in making arrangements for the disposition of his property after 
 his death, (before the promise of a son), he had made the steward 
 of his house his heir who was a slave of Damascene origin, one 
 born as a slave in his own house. Gen. 15: 2, 3. "When, therefore, 
 the example of the patriarch is referred to as justifying modern 
 slavery, it should be remembered, that what the Arabian Sheikhs 
 now are to their petty tribes, Abraham was to his 1590 servants. 
 
 One striking circumstance respecting slavery, quite revolting to 
 our occidental and Christian views, deserves mention here. If the 
 mistress of the house Avas childless, a favorite female slave was 
 selected by her, and offered by her to her husband, to take the place of 
 a wife. In case of offspring, the children of this slave were regarded 
 as the children of the real wife. The case of Sarah and Hagar fully 
 illustrates this, as told in Gen. 16: 1 — 3 ; and it was as Abraham's 
 son, that the blessmg came upon Islunael, Gen. 17: 20. And when 
 Abraham was about to die, he bestowed gifts on all his sons born of 
 his concubines, and sent them away free from the domination of 
 his heir. Gen. 25: 5, G. 
 
 Of Isaac, the patriarch's regular heir, we read that he "had in 
 possession a great store of servants," Gen. 26: 14. When Rachel, 
 the favorite wife of Jacob, Isaac's son, found herself childless, she, 
 like Sarah, gave to her husband her favorite female servant, in order 
 that she might claim the rights of a mother, and this slave bore to 
 Jacob two sons, Gen. 30: 1—8. Jacob's other wife Leah, although 
 
25 
 
 she had already borne four sons, was so ambitious of outstripping 
 her rival in progeny, that she too gave her handmaid to her lm.sbjind ; 
 and she increased the motherly rights and joy of the mistress, by 
 bearing two sons, Gen. 30: 9—13. Thm four of the twelve patri- 
 archs were the sons of favorite bond-women, voluntarily substituted 
 by lawful wives to take their own place. Nor do we ever find any 
 difference made between those four and the other sons, as to the treat- 
 ment they received, or the rank wliii-h they held. 
 
 Such was, and still is, the manner of slavery in the East. If an 
 appeal be made to the example of the patriarchs in order to defend 
 slavery, we must carry the matter through all their domestic ar- 
 rangements. "We should soon come in this way to the conclusion, 
 that Avives among us, not blest with children, may readily supply the 
 deficiency, a-s Sarah, and Rachel, and Leah did, and the children thus 
 born would become la\vful heirs of the husband ; a matter tliat now 
 and then would be of serious importance to slighted wives, for whom 
 no adequate provision had been made. But modern Christian views 
 have introduced a very different taste and manner of conduct amono- 
 our wives. Few, even if it were allowable, would be so fond of the 
 mere name of mother, as to give up their husbands to their servants. 
 If we appeal to the patriarchs to justify slavery, then why not appeal 
 to them in order to justify polygamy and concubinage ? Undoubtedly 
 they neither thought nor intended to do wrong in either of the cases 
 that are Ix'fore us. But this will not justify us in imitating them. 
 The gospel has given us better light. 
 
 I shall enter into no argument here in defence of the patriarchs, 
 as to the usages now in question. In one sense they do not concern 
 us ; for the blessed God, by his gospel, having scattered the dark- 
 ness of early agps, has made us to walk in the clear light of the Sun 
 of Righteousness, so that polygamy and concubinage arc no more 
 regarded, in Christian lands, as lawful or proper. Perhai)s we may 
 see, before we are through, that slavery is ;xs little commanded or 
 even permitted by the highest form of Christianity, as those prac- 
 tices. Still, it is proper to say in relation to the patriarchs, that 
 every man's conduct is to be judged of in most cases, at least in 
 some good meiu^ure, by the light he has, and by the age and circum- 
 stances in which he lived. "When Sir John ^lalcolm was introtluced 
 as English ambassador to the Shah of Persia, the first question after 
 the formal salutations were over was* How many wives has the 
 3 
 
26 
 
 Shah of England got? Sir Jolin replied: May it please your 
 Majesty, One. One, said the astonished monarch, One? Why 
 not more ? Because, replied the ambassador, our customs and laws 
 permit but one. Then, rejoined the Shah with great emphasis, 
 nothing would tempt me to be the Shah of England. Had George 
 the Fourth then been on the throne of England, Sir John might 
 have replied, that the Shah of England would very much like to be 
 in his Persian Majesty's place; for the latter had then 1800 wives 
 and 100 sons. Instead of this being regarded by him, however, as 
 a disgrace and a stain upon his character, he gloried in his preemi- 
 nence above all who had been seated on the throne of Persia, in 
 respect to the multitude of his wives and cliildren. 
 
 TMs now is a specimen of oriental feeling. Much of the like 
 feeling is evident even in the patriarchal history that has just been 
 brought to view. Christianity alone makes marriage a sacred, an 
 exclusive, an inviolable compact. Christianity alone has brought us 
 back to the piimitive state of man, in regard to this matter. Adam had 
 but one Eve. But Abraham and the other patriarchs lacked our light. 
 If they had possessed it, there cannot be a doubt that they would 
 have followed its guidance, and rejoiced in it. Noble traits of char- 
 acter they had ; but it needs the blessed gospel of God to make men 
 " perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work." What Christ 
 has commanded is our rule ; and not what the patriarchs did, who 
 lived when the light was just beginning to dawn. 
 
 We proceed at once to the Mosaic Constitution and Laws. The 
 foundation of aU the ordinances respecting slavery, is disclosed in 
 Ex. xxi. But it should be noted here, that the regulations thei-e 
 exliibited have respect only to Hebrew servants, and not to those of 
 foreign origin. It wiU be seen by an inspection of this chapter, that 
 Moses, at the outset, provided for many mitigations bf the usual rig- 
 ors of slavery. Hebrew men might be bought and sold ; yet only 
 for the term of six years. The seventh year set them free. If the 
 man, who was sold into bondage, had a wife and children before the 
 sale, they also were freed with him. If he married a wife given 
 him by his master, then she and her children were to be regarded as 
 belonging to the master ; unless the year of jubilee intervened, when 
 all were to be free. Lev. 25: 39 — 41. If a man purchased a con- 
 cubine, and lost his fondness for her, then she might be redeemed 
 by her friends for a moderate sum. If he betrothed her to his son, 
 
27 
 
 then he must treat her after tlie manner of daughters. If tlie master 
 took another in her room, her support and comfort and conjugal 
 rights were not to be disregarded. If they were, then she was ipso 
 facto free. If a man should smite his servant, male or female, so 
 that he or she should die, his punishment was made imperative. If. 
 however, the smitten servant survived, and continued for some time, 
 the presumption was that the master did not mean to kill ; and the 
 loss of the slave was regarded as his fine. If a man smote out an 
 eye or a tooth, i. e. if he in any way maimed his man-servant or 
 maid-servant, then freedom was of course to follow. I subjoin the 
 passages here, for convenience' sake, which show the ground of the 
 preceding statements : 
 
 Ex. 21: 2. If tliou buy a Ilobiew servant, six years he shall serve: and in 
 the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. (3) If he came in by himself, he 
 shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out witli him. 
 (4) If his master have given him a %vife, and she have borne him sons or 
 daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out 
 by himself. ....(") And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she 
 shall not go out as the men-servants do. (8) If she please not her master, who 
 hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed ; to sell her 
 unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully 
 mth her. (9) And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her 
 after the manner of daughters. (10) If he take him another irZ/e, her food, 
 her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish. (11) And if 
 
 he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money 
 
 (20) And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under 
 his hand ; he shall be surely punished. (21) Notwithstanding, if he continue a 
 
 day or two, he shall not be punished : for he is his money (26) And if 
 
 a man smite the eye of his servant, or the e3-c of his maid, that it perish ; he 
 shall let him go free for his eye's sake. (27) And if he smite out his man- 
 servant's tooth, or his maid-servant's tooth ; he shall let him go free for his 
 tooth's sake. 
 
 Of the treatment of slaves, something will be said in the sequel. 
 It is proper to show, first, HOW jien might become slaves. 
 (a) As a general thing, all captives in war were regarded as slaves, 
 I believe, by all the ancient world; see Num. 31: 18, 32, 3"), 40. 
 But this does not apply to the case now before us, which is that of 
 Bebrew slaves, Deut. 20: 14. 21: 10—12. (b) By debt; see 2 K. 
 4: 1. Is. 50: 1. Matt. 18: 2o. {c) By theft; for the thief, if poor, 
 was sold to repay the property which ho ha<l stolen, {if) By birth. 
 when the mother was a slave ; so that children of the hotise, or born 
 
28 
 
 in the house, became as it were a kind of proper name for slaves ; 
 see Gen. 14: 14. 15: 3. 17: 23. 21: 10. Ps. 86: 16. 116: 16. (e) By 
 sale and purchase. A man might sell himself (Lev. 15: 47), which, 
 however, was not very common ; or another who owned a slave 
 might sell him ; but the seventh year, and above all the jubilee year, 
 broke the bonds of slavery ; Lev. 25: 25—28, 39—41. (/) There 
 was one way more of making slaves, viz. by stealing and selling 
 them. This the law of Moses punished with death, Ex. 21: 16. 
 Deut. 24: 7. The latter passage, however, shows that this law, in 
 its primary design, applied only to the stealing of Hebrews : " Lf a 
 man be found stealing any of his hretliren of the children of Israel., 
 etc." Yet that this extended to the slaves of foreign origin resident 
 among the Hebrews, I doubt not. All servants of every kind were 
 to be circumcised, Gen. 17: 12 — 14; and thus they became quasi- 
 members of the Jewish community, and rested, like the Jews, on the 
 Sabbath and on feast days, i. e. they partook of their religious priv- 
 ileges, Ex. 20: 10. Deut. 5: 14. 12: 17, 18. 16: 10, 11. If one of 
 these servants was stolen, then, it would seem at least probable that 
 the law was to be extended to his purloiners. But to quote these 
 passages, as is every day done, to show directly the criminality of 
 foreign slave making, is doubtless uncritical and unfounded, as it 
 respects the original and main object of the Jewish law. Yet the 
 spirit of that law, (now the partition between Jew and Gentile is 
 broken down), would seem to be fairly applicable to all cases of 
 man-stealing. All men are now as much, or at any rate as really, our 
 brethren, as the Hebrews in Moses' time were brethren of each 
 other. Hence the law, almost if not quite universal among Chris- 
 tian nations, which makes foreign man-stealing piracy, is, in my 
 view, altogether in the spirit, although not after the letter, of the 
 Mosaic statutes. 
 
 "We come next to the treatment of slaves, (o) A Hebrew sold 
 for poverty, i. e. for debt, was not to be treated with rigor as a bond- 
 servant, but as a hired servant ; and he and all his were to be free on 
 the coming of jubilee-year, Lev. 25: 3D — 43. {b) The master who 
 killed his (Hebrew) slave, was to be punished in an exemplary man- 
 ner, Ex. 21: 20, 21. (c) A master who maimed his servant, was com- 
 pelled to set him free, Ex. 21: 26, 27. (d) Slaves should enjoy the rest 
 of the Sabbath, Ex. 20: 10. Deut. 5: 14 ; and be invited to the solemn 
 feasts and festivals, Deut. 12: 17, 18. 16: 10, 11. (e) They should 
 
29 
 
 have a comfortable sui)port, Deut. 25: 4, as expounded by Paul 
 
 1 Tim. 5: 18. 1 Cor. 9: 9, 10. (/) As stated above, and apparent in 
 the passages there quoted at length, eveiy seventh year, and the 
 jubilee-year, severed the bonds of slavery ; see also in Lev. 25: 
 39 — 41. (g) It appears, by a comparison of Lev. 25: 49 and 
 
 2 Sam. 9: 10, that slaves were permitted the enjojinent of some 
 little property as their own. 
 
 Such is the picture of the slavery of Hebrews among Hebrews. 
 There remains, however, one extraordinary circumstance in the leg- 
 islation of Moses, in relation to this subject. "WTien INIoses came 
 out of Egypt and gave the law of Sinai, he declared that Hebrew 
 men-servants should be free after six years ; but not a word of tliis 
 nature is said, as to the female-servants. But after 40 years, when 
 on the borders of the promised land, he made the law, which before 
 was applicable only to males, equally applicable thenceforth to 
 females. Very plainly are the prudence and sagacity of the Jewish 
 lawgiver developed here. Such was the universal feehng on the 
 subject of slavery, when he began to legislate, that it would have 
 been hazarding disobedience and rebellion, if Moses had freed 
 females as well as males, after six years' service. Their universal 
 degradation in the East, rendered such a measure revolting to the 
 Jews, and quite impractic<able. But when Moses had been moulding 
 the manners and customs of the Hebrew nation for 40 years, he felt 
 that this matter ought to be placed on its proper basis. Accordingly, 
 Deut. 15: 12 — 15 declares, that a Hebrew bond-man or bond-woman 
 shall go free on the coming in of the seventh year, and that they 
 should be liberalhj supplied by their master, from the Hocks, and the 
 grain-floor, and the wine-press. A truly noble advance in legisla- 
 tion, and worthy of such a man ! 
 
 "Why now did not Moses do this thing at Sinai ? He had both 
 the power and the right : for he was divinely commissioned. "Why 
 then did he not do it ? Simply, I answer, because he had common 
 sense and judgment enough to see, that legislation could not change 
 the established internal structure of a nation or commonwealth in a 
 day. There must be a prt'parati<m for obedience, b(>fore the law 
 would or (morally speaking) could be obeyed. How ditlerent such 
 a policy was from that which is trumpeted by the immediate Eman- 
 cipationists of our day, it needs no words of mine to show. How- 
 ever, the great Jewish legislator seems to be a very insignificant 
 8* 
 
30 
 
 person in the view of many of these zealous gentlemen. They 
 think that his eyes were but half opened, if indeed they were open 
 so far. Of course, they let this matter of his alone, as much as pos- 
 sible, and contrive to ignore it in all feasible ways. No wonder. It 
 is a precedent of frowning aspect on all heated rashness and extra- 
 vagance, specially in respect to great questions where national and 
 universal usages of long standing and deep root are concerned. 
 
 One more passage in the Mosaic code claims our particular 
 notice. This is in Deut. 23: 15, 16, and runs thus: "Thou shalt 
 not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his 
 master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in 
 that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh 
 him best ; thou shalt not oppress him." 
 
 The first inquiry of course is : Where does his master live ? 
 Among the Hebrews, or among foreigners ? The language of the 
 passage fully develops this, and answers the question. He " has 
 escaped from his master unto the Hebrews (the text says — thee, i. e. 
 Israel) ; he shall dwell with thee, even among you . . . in one of thy 
 gates." Of course, then, he is an immigrant, and did not dwell among 
 them before his flight. If he had been a Hebrew servant, belonging to 
 a Hebrew, the whole face of the thing would be changed. Restora- 
 tion, or restitution, if we may judge by the tenor of other property- 
 laws among the Hebrews, would have surely been enjoined. But be 
 that as it may, the language of the text puts it beyond a doubt that 
 the servant is a foreigner, and has fled from a heathen master. This 
 entirely changes the complexion of the case. The Hebrews were 
 God's chosen people, and were the only nation on earth which wor- 
 shipped the only living and true God. On this ground, as they 
 were the living depositary of the oracles of God, great preference 
 was given to them, and great caution exercised, to keep them from 
 all tangling alliances and connections with the heathen. In case a 
 slave escaped from them and came to the Hebrews, two things were 
 to be taken into consideration, according to the views of the Jev.'ish 
 legislator. The first was, that the treatment of slaves among the 
 heathen was far more severe and rigorous, than it could lawfully be 
 under the Mosaic law. The heathen master possessed the power of 
 life and death, of scourging, or imprisoning, or putting to excessive 
 toU, even to any extent that he pleased. Not so among the He- 
 brews. Humanity pleaded, then, for the protection of the fugitive. 
 
81 
 
 The second and most important consideration wa.^, that only among 
 the Hebrews could the fugitive slave come to the knowledge and 
 •worship of the only living and true God. The clause which says : 
 " Thou shalt not oppress him," of course means, that he shall be 
 denied none of the privileges of a resident in the land, and that lie 
 shall not be subjected to peculiar taxation or labor. The verses 
 before us do not say, that such a refugee servant sliall be circum- 
 cised; but the admission of him to the privileges of a freeman 
 implies this. The servants of Hebrews, whether of domestic or 
 foreign origin, were all to be circumcised, Gen. 17: 12 — 15. Of 
 course the admitted denizen, in the present case, would be required 
 to comply with such an injunction. By the rite in question he became 
 incorporated into the Jewish theocratieal commonwealth, and there- 
 fore entitled, as even bond-men were, to all its religious privileges. 
 Moses, therefore, would not suffer him to be forced back into the 
 darkness of heathenism, nor allow that he should be delivered up to 
 an enraged heathen master. AVas he not in the right ? 
 
 But if we now put the other case, viz., that of escape from a 
 Hebrew master, who claimed and enjoyed Hebrew rights, is not the 
 case greatly changed ? Who could talce from him the property 
 which the Mosaic law gave him a right to hold ? Neither the bond- 
 man himself, nor the neighbor of his master to whom the fugitive 
 might come. Reclamation of him could be Imrfidhj made, and 
 therefore must be enforced. 
 
 With this view of the matter before us, how can we appeal to the 
 passage in question, to justify, yea even to urge, the retention of 
 fugitive bond-men in our own country ? We are one nation — one 
 so-called Christian nation. Christianity is a national religion among 
 us. I do not mean, that all men are real Chnstians, or that Chris- 
 tianity is established by law; but I mean, that imnieasiiraMy the 
 greatest part of our population. North and South, profess to respect 
 Christianity, and appeal to its precepts as a test of morals, and Jis 
 fuiTiishing us with the rules of life. What State in the Union does 
 not at least tacitly admit Christianity to hold such a place? 
 
 "WTien a fugitive bond-man, then, comes to us of the North, from 
 a master at the South, in what relation do we of the North stand to 
 that Southern master? Are our fellow-citizens and brethren of the 
 South, to be accounted as hcnihcn in our sight ? No, this will never 
 do. I know not what the proportion of real Christians in the 
 
a2 
 
 South may be, compared with those of the North ; but tliis I do 
 know from personal observation made at the South, to some extent, 
 and from a considerable acquaintance with people of the South, that 
 there are among them many warm hearts and active hands in the 
 cause of true Christianity. There is no State where such persons 
 may not be found, and many of them too. A bond-man, fleeing 
 from them to us, is a case of just the same kind as would have been 
 presented among the Hebrews, if a Hebrew bond-man had fled from 
 the tribe of Judah to that of Benjamin. We do not send back the 
 refugee from the South to a heathen nation or tribe. There is many 
 a Christian master there, and many too who deal with their ser- 
 vants as immortal beings. It may be, that the fugitive has left a 
 severe and cruel master, who will wreak his vengeance upon him 
 for escaping. And it may be, also, that if the fugitive takes up his 
 abode here, he will find those who will maltreat him, and defraud 
 him, and do other grievous things. Crimes of this sort have not as 
 yet quite vanished from the North. But be the master as he may, 
 since we of the North are only other tribes of the same great com- 
 monwealth, we cannot sit in judgment on cruel masters belonging to 
 tribes different from our own, and having, by solemn compact, a 
 separate and independent jurisdiction in respect to all matters of 
 justice between man and man, with which no stranger can on any 
 pretence whatever intermeddle. We pity the restored fugitive, and 
 have reason enough to pity him, when he is sent back to be delivered 
 into the hands of enraged cruelty. But if he goes back to a lenient 
 and a Christian master, the matter is less grievous. The responsi- 
 bility, however, for bad treatment of the slave, rests not in the least 
 degree on us of the North. The Mosaic law does not authorize us 
 to reject the claims of our fellow countrymen and citizens, for 
 strayed or stolen property — property authorized and guarantied as 
 such by Southern States to their respective citizens. These States 
 are not heathen. We have acknowledged them as brethren and 
 fellow citizens of the great community. A fugitive from them is 
 not a fugitive from an idolatrous and polytheistic people. And even 
 if the Bible had neither said nor implied anything in relation to this 
 whole matter, the solemn compact which we have made, before 
 heaven and earth, to deliver up fugitives when they are men held to 
 service in the State from which they have fled, is enough to settle 
 the question of legal right on the part of the master, whatever we 
 
33 
 
 may think of his claim when viewed in the light of Christianity. 
 But of this, more in the sequel. 
 
 In the meantime, I ciinnot quit this topic, without adding a few 
 remarks on the assumption, that eveiy slave-holder must be denied 
 the title of a Christian, and denied the regard wliich is due to a 
 Christian brother. It is not too much to say, that no man, in his 
 sober senses, can believe or say, that there are no Christians in the 
 South, who are owners of slaves. There are thousands of masters 
 and mistresses, of exemplary Christian lives and conversation. 
 There are many thousands, moreover, who have never been taught 
 to doubt, and never have doubted, the lawfulness of slavery. They 
 have felt that they violated no sacred obligation in holding slaves, 
 provided they should treat them in a Christian manner. Whether 
 they have neglected their duty in putting by all discussion of the 
 subject, and all serious examination into it, is another and a diffe- 
 rent question. I suppose there are Christians elsewhere, besides in 
 the South, who neglect some of their duties, and who are not abso- 
 lutely perfect. If perfection is the only proper test of a Christian 
 state, I fear that we of the North might have our title to such a 
 name called in question. But I will say all that I intend now to 
 say on this subject, by adverting to two notable cases, which may at 
 once serve to illustrate and to justify my assertions. 
 
 The celebrated and eminently pious John Newton, of London, was 
 master of a slave-ship that went to Africa, several times, under his 
 command. He tells us, that until the question was raised in Eng- 
 land, by Wilberforce and others, he never once had a doubt in his 
 mind of the lawfulness and propriety of the Guinea trade. To 
 come nearer home ; who does not know that the immortal Edwards 
 — immortal as much for his great piety as for his intellectual pow- 
 ers — left behind him in manuscript an Essay on the wShive-trade 
 (probably still extant), in which he defended the trade with all his 
 ability, on the same ground that Closes required the fugitive heathen 
 slave to be detained, viz., on the ground that it would l)riiig the 
 perishing heatlien within the reach of Christian influence. That his 
 logic, in this case, would not well compare with that in some of his 
 printed Treatises, I am fully satisfied. But the simple and proper 
 question is: Did he intend any wrong? Had he any motives of 
 self-interest, which led him to argue as he did concerning the slave- 
 trade? Unhesitatingly we answer both questions in the negative. 
 
34 
 
 May it not be, tlien, that there are some Christians in the South who 
 are in the same plight, in which Newton and he were ? For one, I 
 say emphatically — Yes. 
 
 When will the time come, in which men shall cease to pronounce 
 sweepinfT judgments of condemnation on their fellow men, without 
 examining into their case, and giving them a fair and impartial hear- 
 ino- ? I earnestly hope the day-break is approaching, although at 
 present it seems to be receding. But — it is sometimes dai-kest just 
 before day. 
 
 Thus far I have treated only of Hehreivs, made slaves among the 
 Hebrews, with the exception of one peculiar case of a foreign 
 refugee. I now come, after exhibiting the full state of things among 
 the Jews in respect to slaves of Hebrew origin, and the many 
 modifications which Moses inserted in his laws to mollify the hard- 
 ships and rigors of their condition, to consider the condition op 
 
 SLAVES, WHO WERE OF HEATHEN ORIGIN. 
 
 Here the abettors of the proposition, that all slavery is a malum 
 in se and is to be ranked with murder and robbery, wdll find matter 
 of serious difliculty. "With not a few of the high-toned Abolition- 
 ists, I fear I shall bring Moses into much discredit, by quoting his 
 enactment. But here it is, and it would not become me to offer an 
 apology for him. Let him speak for himself: 
 
 Lev. 25: 44. Both thy bond-men, and thy bond-maids, which thou shalt have, 
 shall be of the heathen that are round about you ; of them shall ye buy bond- 
 men and bond-maids. (45) Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do 
 sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with 
 you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. (4C) 
 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit 
 them for a possession, they shall be your bond-men for ever. 
 
 What now have we here ? Simply and plainly an unlimited lib- 
 erty to ptirchase, (not to steal), bond-men and bond-maids of the 
 heathen around and out of Palestine, or of heathen dwelling within 
 it. But when Moses says: "Ye shall buy bond-men and bond- 
 maids," he is not to be understood as giving command, but permis- 
 sion. Our translators have here made the Fut. tense in Hebrew 
 imperative, and as it were jussive ; but every one acquainted with 
 Hebrew knows, that the Fut. tense is very often permissive, i. e. it is 
 used as a Subjunctive mode. However, on the liberty to buy, there 
 
35 
 
 is no restraint whatever. When bought, slaves are declai'ed to be 
 heritable property — to belong to the children of the owners '• to 
 inherit them for a possession." Then follows the clause wliich rivets 
 fast the tenure of the property : '• They shall he your bond-men fob 
 EVER." There is no seventh freedom-yeai'here; there is no jubilee 
 liberation. These belonged to Hebrew slaves. The heathen bond- 
 men are not put on a level with them. The tenure of them is 
 perpetual, the tenure as of heritable property. " The middle wall of 
 partition between Jews and Gentiles " was not yet broken down, but 
 just erected. The time for declaring that there was one God and 
 Father of the Jews and Gentiles, to whom all stood in the same 
 common relation, was yet far distiint. 
 
 There then stands the Mosaic statute, wliich was the perpetual 
 law of the Jews. There it stands, not to be erased by the hand of 
 the most zealous Abolitionist. He will pi*obably think very ill of 
 Moses, and not be very courteous toward me for venturing to quote 
 him. However, if there is any blame here, it falls on the great 
 Jewish legislator himself, and not on me. He, moreover, can atford 
 to bear it. 
 
 In the name of all that is called reasoning now, in morals or 
 rehgion, how is the ownership of slaves which heaven has given 
 express leave to purchase, to be deemed a crime of the deepest dye 
 — a malum in se — an offence to be classed with murder and trea- 
 son? Let those answer this question, who decide a priori what the 
 Bible ought to speak, and then turn it over in order to see how they 
 can make it speak what they wish. But there is no bending or 
 twisting of Moses' words. There they are, so plain that '• he who 
 runneth may read." If AboUtionists are right in their position, then 
 Moses is greatly in the wrong. More than this ; then has the God 
 of the Hebrews sanctioned, with his express leave, the commission 
 of a crime as great as that which he has forbidden in the sixth or 
 seventh commandment. There is no retreat Irom this. The posi- 
 tion of the Abolitionists plainly taxes high Heaven with misdemean- 
 or, — with encouragement to commit one among the foulest of 
 crimes. 
 
 What shall we say then ? Shall we consign Moses over to repro- 
 bation ? Or are we to regard him as an iff7ioramus ? One or the 
 other, or both, follow from the reasoning imd the premises of heated 
 Abolitionists. 
 
36 
 
 I have said that Moses needs no aid of mine in the way of apol- 
 ogy. When he speaks the words of the God of the Hebrews, it is 
 for us to listen, not to call in question. Yet it may be consistent 
 with all the reverence due to him as the head of the ancient dispen- 
 sation, to say a word that may help to open closed ears. Let what 
 I have hinted, once and again, be here brought distinctly into view. 
 The Jews were a separate, chosen, peculiar people. The Mosaic 
 dispensation was a preparatory one, and not a complete, perfect, or 
 permanent one. High was the wall of partition, while it lasted, 
 between the Jews and heathen Gentiles. That slaves might be 
 purchased of the latter, on conditions entirely different from the 
 purchase of Hebrew servants, resulted, no doubt, from the fact, that 
 the Jewish nation were to be trained up in such a way, as to consider 
 the condition of the heathen as inferior to their own. In this way, 
 contamination by famiUar intercourse with them, on the terms of 
 equality, was in some good measure prevented. To look on nations 
 as fit to be enslaved, produced the same kind of feeling that the 
 sight of African slaves now produces, in the minds of slave-o^vners, 
 toward the people of Africa. Hence heathen marriages were for- 
 bidden as degrading to the Hebrews. The abominations of idolatry 
 were such, both in respect to cruelty and pollution, that no intimacy 
 was to be allowed. But the slaves purchased from the heathen were 
 not likely to influence the religion of their masters. They were 
 obliged, moreover, to be circumcised, and to keep the Jewish sab- 
 bath and feasts. Their degraded state prevented the danger of con- 
 tagion from their heathen notions. The whole tenor of the Mosaic 
 legislation on this subject seems to show, that the permission to pur- 
 chase heathen slaves, was one of the means employed by Moses to 
 render heathenism contemptible in the eyes of the Hebrews, 
 
 At aU events, none can reason from the case of the Jews — the 
 one favored, preeminent, secluded nation — to the case of men, who 
 lived after the coming of Him, " who broke down the middle wall of 
 partition between Jews and Gentiles," proclaimed one common God 
 and Father of all ; one common Redeemer and Sanctifier ; that this 
 God is no respecter of persons ; and that he has " made of one blood, 
 all the nations that dwell on the face of the earth " — I say none 
 can now crave liberty to purchase slaves of the Gentiles or Jews, on 
 the ground of Mosaic permission. He might as well insist on the 
 liberty of polygamy and concubinage, both of which Moses allowed 
 
37 
 
 — 1 cannot say encouraged, for evidently this is not the case. He 
 allowed it for the same reason that he allowed divorce at the will 
 of the husband. Our Saviour has told us what this reason was, viz. 
 « The hardness of their heai-ts." The light of the gospel dissipates 
 all these deeds done in claro-obscure light. All reasoning of this 
 kind is null, if it be at variance with tlie spirit and precepts of the 
 gospel ; which is now our supreme law. 
 
 I have only one remark more to make, and then I go from IVIoses 
 to his disciples in later periods. This is, that it is well wortlv the 
 labor of every serious man, who prizes his Bible, to look into the 
 accounts we have, in books of Grecian and Roman antiquities, of the 
 state of slavery among the two leading nations of the world, most 
 renowned for learning and civilization. They gave to masters the 
 power of life and death; they authorized them to scourge and 
 imprison at pleasure ; see Juvenal Sat. vi. 219. The master could 
 put to death by crucifixion, at Rome ; and this was the usual punish- 
 ment. If the master of a family was slain at home, and the mur- 
 derer could not be discovered, all his domestic slaves were liable to 
 be put to death. Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 43) mentions a case, in which 
 400 slaves in one family were put to death under this law. Slaves 
 were not supported among heathen nations, except by special kind- 
 ness and comity ; see Julius Pollux, Onomast., on the word nuvcji- 
 ndnt]. They were rarely permitted to marry, or even to enter into 
 that connection with a female, which the Romans called contuher- 
 7iium. Slaves, moreover, were debarred from all participation in the 
 civil and religious festivals and rights of the citizens. Compare all 
 this now with the laws of Moses. Does it not lie on the very face 
 of his legislation, that he far outstripped all the legislators and sages 
 of antiquity? llow came he, issuing from Kgypt the very hot-bed 
 of polytheism and slavery, to know so much about the rights of men, 
 and to do so much for the interests of humanity? Tliere is but 
 one satisfactory answer to these questions ; and this is, that he had 
 light from above. 
 
 But we come now to his followers. The first question which 
 spontaneously presents itself here, is: Did subsequent prophets and 
 teachers undertake to repeal or amend the laws of IMoses ? 
 
 The ready answer is in the negative. Repeal tlieni thi'v could 
 not; for their commission and business was, to exj)Iain and enforce 
 them. Amend them they could not ; for they were already what 
 4 
 
God designed they sliould be, under the Jewish dispensation. All 
 they could do was to rectify mistaken views of them, correct popu- 
 lar errors, and urge the strict observance of all the Mosaic code. 
 
 Yet we are every day presented with examples of quotation, from 
 the prophets or other sacred Hebrew writers, which, by the inter- 
 pretation given them, are made to speak in direct contradiction to 
 Moses. This practice has become so familiar and popular, that a 
 multitude of Old Testament texts are pressed into the service of 
 Abolitionists, which have no special bearing whatever on slaves or 
 slavery. Oppression is forbidden ; defrauding the laborer of his 
 hire is forbidden; and (in a word) every injury which a man might 
 do to his neighbor is prohibited. All this is put, by Abolitionists, 
 under the category of denunciation against slavery. How little 
 foundation this reasoning has, for the most part, we shall soon see. 
 It becomes necessary to adduce examples, in order that the reader 
 may fully understand what I am intending to say. 
 
 Of all the prophetic texts, I believe Is. 58: 6 has been the subject 
 of appeal most frequent, and confident too. What says it ? " Loose 
 the bands of wickedness ; undo the heavy burdens ; let the op- 
 pressed go free ; break every yoke." The prophet further enjoins, 
 that they shall give bread to the hungry, house-shelter to poor 
 wanderers, and clothing to the naked. He then adds : " Hide not 
 thyself from thine own flesh." And who then are they that are thus 
 described ? Plainly fellow-countrymen, citizens of the same common- 
 wealth, and kindred by blood. Let the reader, if he doubts tliis 
 interpretation of the expression one's own flesh, open his Bible at 
 Gen. 29: 14 and 2 Sam. 5: 1. 19: 13, 14. Judg. 9: 2. It is clearly 
 the oppressed and degraded Hebrews, then, of whom the prophet is 
 speaking in tliis whole passage. It has no special relation to slaves 
 at all, whether heathen or Jewish. Surely heathen slaves would not 
 be called, by Isaiah, the '" own flesh " of the Hebrews. Yet this 
 passage is printed in staring capitals every day, as the sentence of 
 an ultimate and supreme tribunal, which decides the cause of the 
 Abolitionists in theii" favor. 
 
 For the sake of further illustration, let me revert once more to 
 the respectable reUgious journal, to which I have made reference on 
 p. 10 seq. above. The same keen sighted Ariel, who dates from 
 Boston, and who has already been noticed (p. 10 above), after quot- 
 ing some eight or ten names of subscribers to the commendation of 
 
39 
 
 ^Ir. Webster's Speech, find putting Dr. Woods's name and mine in 
 capitals, goes on to quote a sentence from Mr. Webster's reply to the 
 communication he had received. The quotation is : " The day has 
 come, when we should open our eai-s and our hearts to the advice of 
 the gi-eat Father of his country," (Washington). Ariel then asks: 
 " When will the day come, in which we will open our ears and 
 hearts, to hear that Father who is in heaven?" Forthwith he 
 cites some five different texts from the Bible, and joins them into 
 one mass, without any reference to the places where they may be 
 found, just as if they all stood in juxta-position in the sacred volume. 
 The first passage is Jer. 22: 13, which runs thus : " Wo unto him 
 that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by 
 wrong ; that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth 
 him not for his work." It seems not to have occurred to him, that 
 it would be strange to hear the prophet speak of defrauding slaves 
 of their ivages. Did Moses ever expect or demand, that a slave 
 should have wages ? This inquiry Avould of itself set a considei-ate 
 man to examining the case, in order to find out what such language 
 means. But no ; the text sounds all to Ariel's purpose, and so it is 
 brought in. Unluckily however for him, the context (v. 11) shows 
 us plainly, that the oppressive and tyrannical Shallum, the degene- 
 rate son of Josiah and heir of his throne, is the sole object of the 
 denunciation. He built " lai'ge chambers, wide houses . . . ceiled 
 with cedar and painted with vermillion," by exactions upon his sub- 
 jects. The woe, therefore, is applicable to him, and (in this place) 
 only to him. 
 
 Prov. 31: 8, 9 is next cited. It runs thus : " Open thy mouth for 
 the dumb, in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. 
 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and jilead the cause of the poor 
 and needy." And who then are "the dumb, and those appointed to 
 destruction?" The next verse shows that they are "the poor and 
 needy," whose mouth h:is been stopped by some unrighteous and 
 bribed judge, who refused to hear their plea, and so fbrceil them 
 to be dumb. And were slaves permitted to bring causes before the 
 Hebrew courts ? Possibly our Ariel may think so ; but no one 
 of course, who understands the matter, will be inclined to think with 
 him. 
 
 The third passage is Ps. 82: 3, 4. "Do justice to the atllicted 
 and needy. . . Rid them out of the hands of the wicke(l." The 
 
40 
 
 Psalmist is addressing judges who act unjustly, (v. 2). The wicked 
 here are such persons as bring the poor and needy into court, in 
 order to enforce exactions upon them by bribing the corrupt judges. 
 "Were the slaves of the Hebrews, then, sued in court by their mas- 
 ters ? I trust not ; their masters needed no court but their own, and 
 had a summary process within their own power. 
 
 The next appeal is to Jer. 34: 17. " Ye have not hearkened unto 
 me, in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every man 
 to his neighbor." The context (vs. 12 — 16) informs us, that the 
 Jews of that day paid no regai'd to the liberation of Hebrew slaves, 
 when the seventh or liberty-year had come. The masters still con- 
 tinued their bondage. Jeremiah threatens them, therefore, with 
 divine judgments, on account of their pei-fidy to the law of Moses. 
 But — not a word or syllable is here, about the bondage of heathen 
 slaves. 
 
 The fifth and last appeal is to Isa. 16: 3. "Hide the outcasts; 
 bewray not him that wandereth." And who are the outcasts and the 
 wanderer ? They ai'e the fugitive daughters of Moab, who flee from 
 the conquering invaders of their country, and seek safety in the 
 land of Israel. The prophet presents them as addressing the He- 
 brew people, beseeching them, in the words quoted, to conceal them 
 in a place of safety, and not to tell the pursuing enemy where they 
 ai"e, i. e. not to bewray them. This is all. But how this is to be put 
 to the justification of concealing runaway slaves, or made into a 
 command to aid and protect them, I have not sagacity enough to 
 divine. 
 
 I should not refer to Ariel, who has thus exhibited his profound 
 acquaintance with the Old Testament, if it were not, that he has 
 merely given utterance to what is resounding on all sides. Such 
 ai'e the conclusive texts, which are every day appealed to with the 
 most undoubting confidence, as speaking to the point which the Abo- 
 litionists are eager to estabUsh. How much reason they have for 
 such a confidence, has now been shown. Probably, however, it will 
 be labor lost on most of them ; for they seem very much prone to 
 ignoring. Be it so ; I still hope that the cautious and sober inquirer 
 after scriptural truth, will at least be put on the alert, as to such 
 quotations, and as to the interpretations which are given to them. 
 As to Ariel himself — I know not who he is, and am glad that I 
 do not, because I can now speak the more freely, without subjecting 
 
41 
 
 myself to the imputation of personalities. I suppose, by his fre- 
 quent appeals to the Scriptures, that he may be a minister of the 
 Gospel. If so, I can only condole with his people, that they have 
 not a more dicriminating guide, to lead them to a right knowledge 
 of the meaning of the Scriptures. If the quotations above, and the 
 construction put upon them, do not show him to be a mere sciolist in 
 the knowledge of the Bible, it would be difficult to say what could 
 exhibit proofs of such a predicament. I add only, that the last 
 three texts above are printed in staring capitals; why, I know 
 not, unless it be to proclaim to the world what a capital exegete 
 he is. 
 
 I stop with these examples ; for if I were to follow up and exam- 
 ine all the texts of Scripture which are every day alnised in this 
 manner, it woidd of itself require a little volume. I add here only 
 a few brief reflections. 
 
 Let us now take a momentary retrospect. Wliere do the Hebrew 
 Scriptures place and leave this whole matter ? The answer is plain 
 and undeniable. The Jews were permitted to purchase and hold 
 slaves, who were of their own nation, i. e. native Hebrews. But 
 this could be done only for six years at a time. When the seventh 
 year came, each Hebrew was free ; and so at the jubilee-year they 
 were all free, whether the six years had expired or not. Many priv- 
 ileges were granted to such persons, wliich were not usually granted 
 among other nations. Moses made great advances in the matter of 
 humane treatment. But the unlmvfulness of sueli slavery, so modi- 
 fied, is a thing that Moses never once intimates. 
 
 But how was it with slaves purchased from the heathen ? The 
 Jews had unlimited liberty to purchase them, and to hold them as 
 heritable property. There was no seventh year, and no jubilee-year, 
 to them. Lev. 25: 44 — 46 has put this matter at rest, for all sober 
 and honest inquirers. There it stands, (and even Abolitionists can- 
 not abolish it), that the Jews might have slaves ad lihitum. 
 
 Have the prophets contradicted this ? Did the expounders and 
 enforcers of Moses' laws occupy themselves with repealing and con- 
 tradicting them ? So the Abolitionists virtually conclude and 
 declare, every day. I do not mean that they venture directly upon 
 such assertions, but that they quote and apply the words of the 
 prophets in such a way, as to set them in direx-t opposition to Moses. 
 If they are not conscious of this, (as many of them do not seem to 
 
 4» 
 
 ^ 
 
42 
 
 be), or if they do not intend it, it is none the less a matter of fact — 
 a thino- too plain to be overlooked. Why then should they vitupe- 
 rate, with so much unsparing violence, those who believe and main- 
 tain that Moses and the prophets have not contradicted each other, 
 but are in perfect concord ? 
 
 One more suggestion, and I have done. It should be remembered, 
 that the Jewish commonwealth was a theocracy, or a monarchy, and 
 not a democracy. The people had not the right of electing rulers 
 and magistrates ; nor any right to repeal or modify their laws. 
 These laws were ecclesiastico-political. They spread over all the 
 duties of religion and civU polity. They determined all the various 
 relations and relative duties of the community. What Moses had 
 ordained, no subsequent legislative Congress could repeal, or even 
 modify. If, then, he gave full permission to purchase and hold 
 slaves, (which he surely did), then, so long as the Jewish dispensa- 
 tion lasted, this permission could not be abrogated. God only could 
 change the Mosaic law ; and therefore, if any Hebrew disliked sla- 
 very, he could only refrain from it himself, but could not demand of 
 his neighbors to refrain from it, much less denounce them if they did 
 not refrain. 
 
 Last of all ; let it not be forgotten, that Moses was forty years at 
 the head of the Jewish nation, before he ventured on giving to 
 female slaves the same rights of freedom after six years, which the 
 Hebrew hond-men had. What do or can the zealous advocates of 
 immediate emancipation do with his example ? 
 
 I have but one question more to ask, and I shall then leave this 
 part of our subject. This question is very simple and plain : Did 
 the God of the Hebrews give pemaission to them to commit a malum 
 in se ? Did he give unlimited liberty to do that which is equivalent 
 to murder and adultery ? To this point the matter comes. There 
 is no shunning the question. It will not do here, to allege that the 
 Hebrews were permitted to hold slaves, because they were an obsti- 
 nate and rebelUous people. It is only in matters less strenuous than 
 this, (I mean such as were not 77iala in se), that any indulgence of 
 this kind could be granted. Crimes mala in se cannot be trans- 
 formed into no crimes, by heaven or earth. Slavery, therefore, 
 under the Jewish dispensation, by purchase from the heathen, was 
 not one of these crimes. The God of the Bible could never sanction 
 the commission of such. And yet, if Abolitionists are to be heard, 
 
43 
 
 that God has sanctioned not only a positive evil, but one of tho 
 greatest of all crimes. 
 
 Enough for the Old Testament ; come we now to the New. 
 
 § 3. Tlie attitude of Slavery in the New TestamerU.- 
 
 "We pass now from the ancient dispensation of the Law, which, in 
 its very arrangements for worship and ritual, was confined to one 
 nation, and was never designed to be a permanent and universal reli- 
 gion. The moral and spiritual part of it, however, has its basis in 
 the relations of God to man, and of men to God and to each other. 
 They are unrepealed, and irrepealable. 
 
 First of all, let us call to mind, that in our Saviour's time, the 
 Jews were under a foreign power ; whose appointed governor in 
 Judea was a stern and jealous military commander. It needed a 
 strong hand to keep the Jews under, and make thera quiet ; and 
 such an one was laid upon them. They had no choice of oUicers, no 
 appointment of magistrates, no means of vindicating their freedom 
 and independence. It was in circumstances such as these, that our 
 Saviour made his appearance among them as a religious teacher, 
 and the head of a new dispensation. It is a deeply interesting 
 question, when we ask : How did he, " who knew no sin," de- 
 mean himself among the Hebrews with whom he lived and con- 
 versed ? 
 
 There are a sufficient number of cases, by means of which we may 
 see how carefully our Lord avoided all appearance of opposition to 
 the government under which he lived, notwithstanding his full 
 knowledge of the tyranny and injustice of the Roman governor. 
 His disciples were applied to for tribute-money, and were asked, 
 whether their Master paid tribute. The answer was. that he did. 
 When Peter applied to him to know what he would do on a pai-ticu- 
 lar occasion, he asked him : " Of whom do the kings of the earth 
 take custonv or tribute ? Of their own children, or of strangers ? 
 Peter saith to him : Of strangers. Jesus saith to him : Then are 
 the children free." The meaning of this seems to be, that he, the 
 Son of David and Son of God, as the sovereign of the Jews and of 
 all men, might rightfully decline to give tribute to a heathen power. 
 Still, he ordered Peter to take a fish, in whose mouth a piece of 
 silver was found, and this was given to the exactor of tribute, both 
 
44' 
 
 for himself and for Peter ; see Matt. 17: 24—27. In other words ; 
 he would set an example of being "subject to the powers that 
 be " even when they required what he was not under obligation to 
 give. 
 
 In Matt. 22: 16 — 21, is an account of a plot laid by the Herod- 
 ians, to ensnare Jesus, by asking, whether it was lawful to give 
 tribute to Cesar. They expected him, as a Jew, to answer the ques- 
 tion in the negative ; and then they meant to accuse him of sedition 
 before the Roman governor. Or, if he should answer in the affir- 
 mative, then they meant to make him odious to the people, for liis 
 want of Hebrew patriotism. His answer was admirable : " Render 
 unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's, and unto God the things 
 that are God's." It is easy to see how utterly he frustrated their 
 insidious designs. No wonder that the evangehst subjoins, that his 
 enemies " marvelled, and left him and went their way." Yet he 
 could, and doubtless did, regard the Roman sway over Judea, as 
 merely the predominance of might over right. 
 
 When the Pharisees came to him, tempting him, and seeking to 
 entangle him in a quarrel Avith the Jewish expounders of Moses' 
 law, in regard to the matter of divorce at the will of the husband, 
 he boldly answered at once, that Moses permitted this only " because 
 of the hardness of their hearts ; but that in the beginning it was not 
 so." Mark 10: 2—9. 
 
 In John 8: 3 seq., we have an account of a woman taken in adul- 
 tery, and brought to him by his enemies, in order that he might con- 
 demn her. He confounded them by saying : " He that is without 
 sin among you, let him cast the first stone." One by one they all 
 slunk away, and left the woman alone. " Jesus said to her : Where 
 are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? She 
 said : No man. Lord. He said to her : Neither do I condemn thee ; 
 go, and sin no more." The object of his enemies was, to lead him 
 to meddle with a case which belonged to the civil and judicial tribu- 
 nals. This he declined to do. And when he said : " Neither do I 
 condemn thee," he meant merely that he did not undertake to give a 
 judicial condemnation. Still, he left the woman no room to suppose 
 that he was ignorant of her crime, or indifferent to it, for he said to 
 her : " Go, and sin no more" 
 
 Thus much in respect to the Saviour's cautious forbearing to 
 intermeddle with, or oppose, the civil power. Had the civil juris- 
 
45 
 
 diction been in his hands, or been assumed by him, there can be no 
 doubt that every abuse of the then existing Jewish government 
 ■would have been reformed. As the ca^e wjis, he comprehended all 
 his great design in one sentence, when he said to Pilate : " My king- 
 dom is not of this world." 
 
 Let me now put some questions respecting the teaching and doc- 
 trines of Christ. In what part of the Gospels is there any record 
 of his taking special cognizance of slavery ? "Where is even a direc- 
 tion to masters, or a declaration respecting the demeanor of slaves, 
 to be found in them? I beheve indeed, and I shall hereafter 
 endeavor to show, that the Saviour uttered sentiments, which, in 
 their ultimate effects, must abolish — totally and forever abolish — 
 all slavery, except in cases of crime. But where did he intermeddle 
 with the then existing relations between master and slave ? Not a 
 word is to be found in the Gospels indicative of such an interposi- 
 tion. And yet, there seems to have been great need of some inter- 
 position. It should be remembered, that the Roman power and laws 
 were then dominant in Palestine. The Jews had only the power 
 of controlling religious worship and rites. Of course, the cruel Ro- 
 man laws were dominant there, which gave the power of life and 
 death to the master of a slave. The Jews of that generation, also, 
 were surely as bad as those whom Jeremiah denounced, for misusing 
 their Hebrew servants. And yet, while almost every prevaihng sin 
 of the day is expressly and strongly denounced by the Saviour, he 
 does not once touch on the abuses of slavery. Not even in his Ser- 
 mon on the Mount, has he brought tliis matter into view. Why 
 not ? On the ground of the Abolitionists, who make it a malum in 
 se, it is impossible to free him from the imputation of gross neglect 
 and abandonment of duty, as a preacher of righteousness. I call 
 now upon them to explain these fiicts. My statements they cannot 
 deny. I ask then — I have a right to demand — some satisfactory 
 explanation. 
 
 My own explanation (to which they doubtless will not accede) is, 
 that Christ purposely and carefully abstained from meddling with 
 those matters wliich belonged to the civil power. Slavery was one 
 of these. An undertaking to dictate on this subject, would have 
 subjected him to the accusation of being pragmatical in the affairs 
 of the civil government. He would have been accused before the 
 Roman governor. Nor was this all which influenced his course. Ho 
 
46 
 
 doubtless felt, that slavery might be made a very tolerable condition, 
 nay, even a blessing to such as were shiftless and helpless, in case 
 of kind and gentle mastership. It was not like murder or robbery. 
 It might therefore be tolerated for a while, rather than embroil him- 
 self and his disciples in a quarrel with the Jews and Romans. His 
 policy differed, no doubt, from that of the immediate Emancipation- 
 ists. He took care to utter truths and establish principles, which 
 in their gradual influence and operation would banish slavery from 
 the face of the earth ; but he would leave the completion of the work 
 to time, and to the slow but sure operation of the principles which he 
 inculcated. He doubtless thought and said with Paul : " Art thou 
 called, being a servant, care not for it." He, it would seem, believed 
 that the sudden breaking up of the then existing frame-work of so- 
 ciety, would have occasioned evils greater than slavery. He did not 
 therefore issue any commands for immediate action, in respect to 
 this matter. 
 
 His whole conduct, however, in regard to slavery, is every day 
 practically called in question and condemned. Few venture indeed 
 directly to attack him or to vilify his character. StUl we have some 
 bolder spirits, it would seem, in Boston, who do not scruple to cast 
 contumely upon him, even in public assemblies ; as some late scenes 
 in New York testify. There are many, I fear, in our country, who do 
 not think that any serious regard is to be paid to his teachings or his 
 example, in respect to the matter before us. But stUl, there are 
 many, I do hope and trust, who, although they seem never to have 
 seriously reflected on this subject, may be induced to pause and 
 examine, before they advance any farther in the career of violence. 
 
 Thus much in respect to Him who knew no sin ; who spake as 
 man never spake ; and to whom was given aU power in heaven and 
 on earth. We come next to his apostles and disciples. Have they 
 trodden in the steps of their Lord and Master ? 
 
 Let us begin with Paul. The first passage which I shall quote, 
 is Eph. 6: 5—9 : 
 
 (5) Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, 
 with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; (6) Not 
 with eye-service, as men-pleasers ; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will 
 of God from the heart ; (7) With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and 
 not to men; (9) Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same 
 shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. (9) And, ye masters, 
 
47 
 
 do tlic same things unto tlicm, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Mas- 
 ter also is in hearcn ; neither is there respect of persons with him. 
 
 Servants then, in the Apostle's view, are bound to be obedient — 
 even with /eor and tremhling, i. e. with a high sense of reverence for 
 their masters. In singleness of heart, i, e. with sincerity. As vnto 
 Clirist strongly expresses the high sense of duty wliich they should 
 cherish. The sixth verse has made this idea intense, by precluding 
 all mere show or pretence of obedience, and requiring an obedience 
 like that due to Christ, i. e. an obedience of the heart such as God 
 requires, and because such service is the doing of God's will. Verse 
 6th requires all this to be done with good will, i. e. heartily, cheer- 
 fully, not grudgingly and with morose feelings. The 8th verse 
 encourages such obedience by promise of reward. In the 9th, the 
 masters are taught their duty. The clause do the same things unto 
 them is somewhat obscure and difficult. Same as what? Surely 
 not the same as the obedience required of the servant ; for this 
 would make no sense. I do not see anytliing in the preceding con- 
 text with which same may I* compared, excepting the clause: 
 " Whatsoever good thing any man doeth." The servants were to do 
 good by ready, hearty, and cheerful obedience. The masters to do 
 good to the servants, by kindness, lenity, and forbearance. So the 
 next clause appeal's to explain it, ^forbearing threatening." Paul 
 would have servants rendered obedient by kindness which would win 
 them, not by severe looks, tlu-eatening words, and a rod held over 
 them. I believe there is many a master at the South, who honestly 
 aims at obedience in this particular. Those who do not, should 
 ponder well the last part of verse : " There is no respect of persons 
 with God." In his sight, an obedient servant is as good as Ids 
 master, even if his master is kind and gentle ; unspeakably better, 
 if he is severe and rigid in his exactions. 
 
 If such were Paul's injunctions, in respect to master and slave, 
 how do the language and conduct of most Abolitionists accord with 
 them ? They do not scruple to tell the slave, that he owes no duty 
 to liis master, and that he ought to escape from his service if possi- 
 ble. They hesitate not to furnish him with all the means of escape, 
 which are in their power. It has been publicly declared in this 
 place, by one of the most distinguished orators of the anti-slavery 
 party, thiit a servant would have as good a right to cut his master's 
 
4& 
 
 throat, if it were necessary in order to make Us escape, as he would 
 have to take away his life in defence of his own, when he was 
 assailed with a deadly weapon. And this — all this — what is it, 
 compared with Paul's view of the subject? And how is conscience, 
 that mighty arbiter of all questions — how is it to be disposed of, on 
 the present occasion ? Tliis question must be met ; it must be met 
 fairly and honorably. No evasion will answer the purpose. Nor is 
 this passage to be ignored. Men, ministers of the gospel, politicians, 
 Christians, are bound to meet it, face to face. K not, then let Paul 
 be abjured. This is the only honest course, when we refuse to 
 hearken to him. It is hypocrisy, if we profess to acknowledge him 
 as an inspired teacher, and then flout at his doctrines, and ridicule 
 and contemn those who inculcate obedience to him. The time has 
 come when this matter is to be met directly and honestly. Tergiver- 
 sation will not do. If Paul is cast off — that is one thing. An 
 honest deist, if such a rarity can be found, might consistently ignore 
 Paul. But this will not do for Christians. Many say, that to be 
 the master of a slave, proves the want of Chi'istianity, an unfitness 
 for Christian fellowsliip. In what part of the New Testament is 
 that found ? On the other hand, one may with very much more 
 reason say, that a refusal to obey Paul, an ignoring of what he has 
 taught respecting slavery, and a vihfication of all who plead for the 
 duty of obeying him, is unspeakably stronger evidence of the want 
 of Christian principle. 
 
 The Ephesian church was not the only one to whom Paul preached 
 after the same tenor, in regard to slavery. To the Colossians 
 (3: 22—25 and 4: 1) he says : 
 
 (22) Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not 
 with eye-service, as men-pleasers ; but in singleness of heart, fearing God : (23) 
 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; (24) 
 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance : for 
 ye serve the Lord Christ. (25) But he that doeth wrong, shall receive for the 
 wrong which he has done : and there is no respect of persons. 4: 1, Masters, 
 give unto your sen-ants that which is just and equal : knowing that yc also have 
 a Master in heaven. 
 
 As these words are mostly identical with those already commented 
 on, much need not be said. One sentence only, in respect to ser- 
 vants, needs to be noticed. It is this, which is addressed to servants: 
 « But he that doeth wrong, shall receive for the vn-ong which he hath 
 
49 
 
 done; and there is no respect of persons." In otlior words: The 
 servant who does the wrong of witliliokling licarty and cheerful 
 obedience, shall be punislied; for God will punish the wrong-doing 
 slave, as well as the wrong-doing master. One other declaration 
 respecting masters, needs some notice, specially since it has so often 
 been misinterpreted and abused. It is this: "Masters, give to 
 your servants what is just and equal." The shade of meaning in 
 the original is not given by our translation. It stands thus in the 
 Greek : " Show to your servants justice and equity," viz., in your 
 dealings with them, and in your requirements of service from them. 
 All excessive and rigorous demands arc forbidden by this passage ; 
 and nothing more is meant by it. The Greek word {iaotiita) means 
 literally, when applicable to objects of sense, equality. But in the 
 moral sense, (which is plainly the one here intended), it means 
 equity. INIany a time has this passage been jjroduced to show, that 
 masters are bound to make their servants equal to themselves, i. e. 
 to make freemen of them. If so, then how could the Apostle insist, 
 as he does in the preceding verses, on the sincere and thorough obe- 
 dience of the senants to their masters ? How could they be bound 
 to obedience, after they became freemen ? No — such an exegesis is 
 felo de se. It is absolutely preposterous. On the other hand, that 
 masters should be charged not to make unjust and inequitable 
 demands on their servants, and that they should treat them with 
 gentleness and lenity, wjxs a doctrine worthy of him who preached it. 
 In 1 Tim. 6: 1 — 4, Paul has again given us his views very 
 graphically : 
 
 (1) Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own niiv^tcrs 
 worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not tihisi)hcnicd. 
 (2) And they that have believiuf^ masters, let them not despise them, because 
 they arc brethren ; but rather do them service, because tiiey arc faitJiful and 
 beloved, partakers of the benefit. These thin^js teach and exhort. (3) If any 
 man tcadi otlierwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, (4) He 
 is proud, knowinfr nothin;;. 
 
 Here comes before us an injunction on servants to " count their 
 masters as worthy of all honor," i. e. to treat them with high 
 respect, and ready obedience. But why so? "In onlcr that the 
 name of God and his doctrine [the Gospel] be not blasphemed." 
 In other words: 'If a course of conduct the opposite of tliis should be 
 5 
 
50 
 
 followed, then heathen masters would revile the Gospel, on the 
 o-round that it taught their servants to be disrespectful and disobe- 
 dient.' But further; in case master and servant are both Chris- 
 tians, the latter is not on this ground to claim a release from his 
 obligations as a servant, i. e. because they are Christian brethren 
 and one in Chi-ist, it does not follow that their civil and social rela- 
 lations are changed. On the contrary, the masters are to be the 
 more readily obeyed, because they are Christian brethren. To com- 
 plete his directions, he enjoins it upon Timothy to teach these pre- 
 cepts, and to exhort those concerned to do their duty. But what if 
 any man should teach abolitionism to the slaves, instead of Paul's 
 doctrine? Then let him meditate awhile, and seriously too, on 
 vei'ses 3, 4. 
 
 Again in the epistle to Titus (2: 9, 10), we have the same senti- 
 ments repeated with new additions. 
 
 (9) Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please 
 them well in all things ; not answering again ; (10) Not purloining, but shewing 
 all good fidelity ; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all 
 things. 
 
 Here servants are required to " please their masters well in all 
 tilings," i. e. to show a ready and cheerful obedience, " not answer- 
 ing again," i. e. not contradicting their masters, or gainsaying their 
 commands. Here too they are specially forbidden to purloin any- 
 thing; a vice to wliich, as we may naturally suppose, they would be 
 very prone. But the Apostle requires all good fidelity of them. 
 And what if they obey him ? Why then " the doctrine of God our 
 Saviour is adorned in all things," i. e. even by these acts of cheerful 
 and faithful obedience in servants. Servants are told that they can 
 adorn this doctrine a.s really and truly as their masters, or as nobles 
 and princes and kings. Obedience to the gospel, in their difficult 
 and tiying condition, will add another jewel to the Redeemer's 
 crown. 
 
 Thus far Paul. I need quote no more from him of the same kind 
 as that already produced, although it might easily be done. But if 
 what he htis so many times repeated, is not worthy of credit, nothing 
 would be added to it by the prolonged reiteration of the same senti- 
 ments. 
 
 Let us turn now to another apostle, the confidential friend and 
 
51 
 
 disciple of Jesus, on whom was bestowed tlie honor of laying the first 
 foundation stone in the new and glorious edifice of Christianity. Did 
 he agree in sentiment with Taul? Let us hear him: 
 
 1 Pet. 2: 18, Servants, be subject to your :nasters with all fear ; not only to the 
 good and gentle, but also to the frowanl. (19) For this is thank-worthy, if a 
 man for conscience towai-d God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. (20) For 
 what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your fiiults, ye shall take it patient- 
 ly ■? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, yc take if patiently, this is accept- 
 able with God. (21) For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also 
 suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps. 
 
 What have we here ? Paul again, through and through. Here, 
 however, is one new circumstance added. Servants are to obey, 
 readily and with reverence, " not only the good and gentle, but also 
 the froward," (ffy.oXtoi^\ unjust, peevish). Why should they obey 
 even such masters ? Peter tells us ; for he says to servants, that " if 
 when they do well and suflfer for it, and still take it patiently, this is 
 acceptable to God. Christ did well, and yet suffered on our account, 
 thus leaving us an example." Yes — a god-like example it truly 
 was. What greater honor for servants than to imitate him ? Why 
 did not Peter tell them : ' AVhen your master deals hardly with you, 
 it is, your duty to run away ? ' We hear this among us, even 
 preached from the pulpit, at present, almost every Sabbath, and pro- 
 claimed on all sides by journals called Christiaii or relicjious. 
 Where do they get the right of wearing such a name ? They cer- 
 tainly do not deserve it, for they have no proper claim to the honor, 
 while they treat with scorn the idea of obeying Peter. 
 
 Thus much may suHice, in the way of precept from the New Tes- 
 tament, as to the duties of master and servant. Turn we now to 
 that passage in Paul, whence our motto is taken. The wh(;le pas- 
 sage (in 1 Cor. 7: 20 — 24) runs thus : 
 
 (20) Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he wivs called. (21) 
 Art thou called being a servant ? care not for it ; but if tliou maycst be made 
 free, use it rather. (22) P^or he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the 
 Lord's freeman : likewise also he tliat is calii'd, tieing free, is Christ's servant. (23) 
 Ye are bought with a price ; be not ye the servants of men. (24) JJretliren, 
 let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide witii (iod. 
 
 When Paul wrote this, he had just been discussing tin" (question 
 whether circumcision or uncircumcision wa*; of any conse(]uence. 
 
a2 
 
 He says it is of no consequence, so that no one need to pay the least 
 attention to it. Then he utters what has just been quoted. The 
 reader should note especially the general proposition in v. 20. Paul 
 advises every one to I'emain in the same condition in which he was, 
 when he became a Christian. If he was uncircumcised, let him not 
 seek circumcision ; if circumcised, let him not seek uncircumcision. 
 The full explanation of this last assertion would demand disclosures 
 of some physical processes, not proper to be inserted here. But in 
 passing from this matter to the consideration of slavery and freedom, 
 Paul applies the same command or sentiment. He tells servants, 
 that if they are called to be the Lord's freemen, while in a state of 
 civil bondage, they need not have any solicitude about the matter — 
 firi 601 fitXtTO, do not care for it. If I dared to degrade Paul's pure 
 and sober diction, by translating it into our vulgar and colloquial dia- 
 lect, I might exactly and faithfully give the real sentiment of the 
 original thus : " Do not make a fuss about it." This is advice, which 
 is not listened to ; as the eternal din and commotion on all sides, 
 made too by those who are neither slaves nor in danger of becoming 
 so, abundantly show. The advice is as completely ignored, as if it 
 had never been uttered. 
 
 But we have not done with the passage. The next clause runs 
 thus: dXX' ei xaJ dvvaaai iXfv&fQOS ysvea&ai, fidXXov XQticai, lit. 
 " but even if thou canst become free, rather make use of " . . . The 
 reader of Greek will see that the verb XQ>j<^^h w'«^"« "^^ </' is left 
 without a complement or Ace. case. Then comes the question, how 
 are we to supply the deficiency? Or, (which is the same question), 
 what does the ambiguous it of our translation mean? One and all 
 of the native Greek commentators in the early ages, and many ex- 
 positors in modern times, say that the word to be supplied is dovXeia, 
 i. e. slavery, bondage. The reason which they give for it is, that this 
 is the only construction which can support the proposition which the 
 apostle is aiming to establish, viz., ' Let every man abide in statu 
 quo: Even De Wette, (who for his high liberty-notions was ban- 
 ished from Germany), in his Commentary on the passage, seems 
 plainly to accede to the force of this reasoning ; and with him many 
 others have agreed. No man can look at the simple continuity of 
 logic in the passage, without feeling that there is force in the appeal. 
 But still I am not satisfied with this exegesis. We have full surely 
 another and different noun, offered by the context, which we may 
 
53 
 
 supply : " If thou canst become fXev&eQog (free), use fXFv&eQin (free- 
 dom) the rather" that is, rathor than be a sh»ve. Tliis is certainly tlie 
 most facile philology ; althoiip:h plainly not so congruent, at first 
 sight, with the apostle's sentiment before and after this verse. 
 "What follows this ? The apostle subjoins : " He who is called in 
 the Lord, being a servarit, is the Lord's /recwr/n ; " and therefore he 
 need not be concerned about his civil bondage. So " he who is 
 called, being a freeman, is the Lord's servant." In v. 24 Paul again 
 recapitulates, at the close, the proposition with which he liad begun : 
 " Brethren, let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with 
 God." The meaning of the la;st clause is: ' Let each one, whether a 
 servant or freeman, continue in his calling, so demeaning himself as 
 to preserve his alliance with God.' I am disposed to regard the 
 clause: " But if thou mayest be free, use it rather," as a parenthesis 
 thrown in en passant. So taken, it would serve to qualify the rest 
 of the passage, respecting the general duty of servants. The oppor- 
 tunities to become free were not very frequent. The case of those 
 who had not that opportunity, (by far the most frequent), was the 
 one first to be provided for ; and Paul has given his advice so as to 
 make the servants contented and happy in their then present condition, 
 if they will hearken to him. But to suppose that he gravely advises 
 servants, to whom has been offered their freedom, rather to remain 
 slaves than accept the offer, sounds strange, at least to our ears. So 
 it did to Calvin's. I believe, however, that he was the first com- 
 mentator of any note, who supplied iXtvOsnia (freedom) after the 
 verb ;r(»'/(T«t (use, make vse of). This seems to have been the spon- 
 taneous prompting of the spirit of liberty, that beat high in his 
 bosom. From him came the first germs of the Puritan principles in 
 England, in respect to civil liberty. I cannot help agreeing with 
 him here, although it is ditficult to put aside tlie suggestions of the 
 older commentators, which seem to rest upon the general course of 
 thought, viz. " let each abide in his own calling." But I must on 
 the whole think, that the clause wliich we are discussing is a paren- 
 thetic one, designed to make that case, in which a servant should 
 have the opportunity of being free, an exception to the general rule. 
 And I find in the dXhi {but, emphatic) a philological reason for this 
 opinion. If we interpret with the ancients, we are obliged to trans- 
 late aXXa. el xai hy even ?'/', a version which it will not well bear. 
 In case, however, we make the biU both di-ijunctive and adrersaft've, 
 6* 
 
54 
 
 which is its proper meaning, then the interpretation which Calvin 
 gave the passage, is a necessary one. 
 
 Only one verse remains for explanation : " Ye are bought with a 
 price ; be ye not the servants of men." That this cannot refer to 
 civil bondage is very plain ; because Paul had just advised servants 
 to remain contented in that bondage, one case only excepted, viz. 
 opportunity to become free. Plainly the verse in question refers to 
 the preceding one, and was called forth by it. Verse 22 represents 
 bond and free, who belong to Christ, as equal in a spiritual re- 
 spect, and as equally regarded by him. What follows ? " Ye are 
 bought with a price," i. e. you are all Christ's servants, because he 
 has paid for you the price of his blood. And what naturally fol- 
 lows this ? Plainly, that because they belong to him and are his 
 spiritual servants, they are not to serve, i. e. hearken to and obey, 
 men who enjoin upon them to do anything which would forfeit their 
 relation to him. " His sei-vice " [so named] " is perfect freedom." 
 They must not lose this freedom, by following the dictates of any 
 one, who requires them to commit sin, and forfeit his favor and their 
 privileges. Such is the view of Chrysostoni, Theophylact, and of 
 De Wette ; and in this view I fully concur. 
 
 What have we, then, on the whole? Plainly this, viz., that ser- 
 vants are not to be anxious and uneasy and discontented, because 
 they are servants. If they can easily and peaceably obtain their 
 liberty, then they should accept the boon. But they are forbidden 
 to be fractious, and querulous, and uneasy merely because they are 
 in bondage. It should suffice, that they are the Lord's freemen. 
 
 Certainly this is not much like the advice or the conduct of most 
 of the Abolitionists among us. They excite slaves in every possible 
 way to change their condition, at all hazards and in all relations. 
 They set the whole country in commotion, to accomplish this. Om- 
 nia — coelum, terra, miscentur ! They pour forth vituperation and 
 contumely on every man who ventures to admonish them of the sen- 
 timents of Paul. And if the great apostle himself were to reappear 
 on earth, and come now into the midst of us, and preach the doctrine 
 contained in his Epistles, he would unquestionably incur the danger 
 of being mobbed; at all events, we should have a multitude of indig- 
 nation meetings got up against him, like those which have recently 
 appeared in the great metropolis of our country. Alas ! holy and 
 blessed apostle, how little do such men know or partake of thy 
 peaceful spirit ! 
 
55 
 
 Only one passage more from tlio New Testament tlo I de-sigti to 
 recite, in respect to the matter before us. But this will come in 
 better under our next category. The results of our New Testament 
 investigation are few and simple. One spirit reigns throughout, viz., 
 the spirit of peace, of good order, of ready obedience where obedience 
 is due, and of obligation to contentment witii our lot, unless some 
 peaceful way of changing it can be devised. Not one word has 
 Christ said, to annul the Mosaic law while it lasted. Neither Paul 
 nor Peter have uttered one. Neither of these have said to Christian 
 masters : " Instantly free your slaves." Yet they lived under Ro- 
 man laws concerning slavery, which were rigid to the last degree. 
 How is it explicable on any ground, when we view them as hu- 
 mane and benevolent teachers, and especially a.s having a divine 
 commission — how is it possible that they should not have declared 
 openly and explicitly against a malum in se ^- This proljlem the 
 Abolitionists are bound to solve. It will do no good to dodge the 
 question. It will come back again ; it will press itself upon them ; 
 and they must give up the New Testament authority, or abandon the 
 fiery course which they are pursuing. Common honesty and frank- 
 ness demand this. 
 
 But we must not proceed to the next stage of our journey, before 
 ■we have looked a moment at the civil condition and riglits of the 
 primitive Christians. 
 
 How entirely different were those from our own ! A representa- 
 tive — a republican government? "Who of all tiie ancients ever 
 heard or dreamed of this? Despotism, stern unrelenting despotism, 
 under emperors, kings, viceroys, or their deputies, was in all coun- 
 tries the order of the day. '\Mmt could a freeman in Palestine do, 
 in our Saviour's time, toward altering or amending the government ? 
 Nothing at all. A mere calling in ([uestion its measures was trea- 
 sonable. Any intermeddling witli civil relations or rights, would 
 have been deemed sedition. Shivery w;\,s one of these relations. 
 The supreme power of the land allowed and regulated tliis ; and 
 only such a power had or claimed the right. Hence, if Christ, or 
 Paul, or Peter, had said to masters : ' Set your slaves immediately 
 free,' the answer would have been : ' Wlio made thee a ruler or a 
 judi^e over us? Cease to preach this sedition, or we will imme- 
 diately bring you before the magistrate.' There were always mas- 
 ters enough ready to say and do this : and then, what was to become 
 
56 
 
 of the infant cause of Christianity ? The whole power of the Roman 
 government would have been brought down upon it, to crush it in 
 the bud, and never to suffer it again to rise up. Paul, Peter, and 
 other disciples, thought it best to wait with patience for the greater 
 prevalence of Christianity, and its more matured state, before they 
 urged obligations on masters to free their servants. " The accepta- 
 ble year of the Lord" had not yet fully arrived. 
 
 It is on this ground that I explain the silence of the New Testa- 
 ment, in respect to breaking the bonds of servants. I shall, however, 
 endeavor hereafter to show, in due time, that there is enough in the 
 New Testament forever to burst these bonds asunder. But it lies in 
 a kind of occult state. I mean that it is so expressed, as not to excite 
 the jealousies of heathen masters. It comes to us in simple moral 
 costume, like the ordinary precepts of morality and piety. In this 
 shape it excited no alarm. It roused up no jealousies. But — sim- 
 ple and seemingly enveloped as it is, it amply covers, after all, the 
 Avhole ground in question. This was regarded by Christ and his 
 apostles, as the safer and better way of leading men successfully to 
 understand and to do their ultimate duty. But I shall leave the 
 consideration of this most important part of the subject before us, to 
 another and subsequent part of these Remarks. 
 
 § 4. The injluence which Christian Principles should have on our 
 minds, i7i relation to Conscience, and to the agitated questions of 
 the day. 
 
 There is yet one more passage to be quoted from Paul, which has 
 a direct bearing on the most fiercely agitated question of the day. 
 That question may therefore be put first in order, that we may com- 
 plete, in a continuous course, our examination of those parts of the 
 New Testament, which have a direct and explicit bearing upon the 
 matter of slavery. 
 
 There is a clause in the Constitution of the United States, which 
 has given occasion, perhaps more than anything else, to the excite- 
 ment which now exists. Art. IV. § 3 says : "No person held to ser- 
 vice or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into 
 another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be 
 discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on 
 claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." 
 
57 
 
 My first question is: Had the compacting States a riijht to make 
 such an agreement? 
 
 Why not? Observe that the word slave or shivery is not once 
 named. The Dechiration of Independence had, eleven years before, 
 published to the world the following noble sentiments, worthy of 
 Christians, of patriots, and of advocates for the rights of man, viz., 
 "We hold these truths to be sklf-evidkxt; that all mkn are cre- 
 ated EQUAL ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
 UNALIENABLE rights; and that among these are life, liberty, and 
 the pursuit of happiness." There these words stand, emblazoned in 
 light which even the blind can see, and never — never to be erased 
 or obscured. After such a declaration before heaven and earth, 
 without one dissenting voice, how could the immortal men, whose 
 names are appended to that Declai'ation, publish to the world in 
 their Constitution of government, that they fully admitted in practice 
 what they had solemnly denied in principle ? How could they say : 
 We authorize the practical denial of equality and liberty, and hold, 
 that the right to them of a part of the community is not inalienable ? 
 How would the despotisms of the old world have pointed the finger 
 of scorn, at the palpable disagreement between the Declaration of 
 Independence, and the Constitution of the United States ! 
 
 It will be seen, by a moment's reflection, that the appearance of 
 such a contradiction is in some measure saved, by the softened lan- 
 guage employed, viz., held to service or labor, ^'or is this idl. As 
 the matter now is, the article in question does not apply to slaves 
 only, but equally to all other persons lawfully bound to service or 
 labor, to apprentices, to men under special contract, to all in such a 
 predicament, whether free men or slaves. All this shows the domi- 
 nant feeling, at the South as well as the North, on the subject of 
 slavery at that time, viz., the feeling of repugnjmce. Moreover, it 
 is a correct index of the then dominant slate of feeling, Jis we shall 
 see further on. 
 
 But allowing all that has now been said, still, could not the States 
 mutually bind themselves to tlu; compact before us? vSurdy they 
 could. We must begin the examination of this subject by calling to 
 mind, that each State was, and still is, a sovereignty within itself. 
 Then, it was absolutely and entirely so ; but now, in u more modi- 
 fied and limited manner, since it ha^i a.'*signed over a part of its sovo- 
 reignty-rights to the General Government. Kaeh State, then. 
 
58 
 
 could, and can now, form laws for itself regulating all rights of pro- 
 perty or of citizenship. It could admit any particular class of men 
 to the privileo-es of citizenship, or it could exclude them. It could 
 decide what rights one man had, or could have, over another, as to 
 demandinf» service or labor. The compact in the Constitution merely 
 declares that the decisions of each State, shall be respected and 
 admitted as valid by all the others. 
 
 This being all plain and certain, it follows, that when men held to 
 service or labor by the laws of one State fly to another, the property 
 or service can be reclauned and enforced, as by law belonging to the 
 citizens of that State from wliich the fugitives came. The words of 
 the compact are : " Shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to 
 whom such labor or service is due." Now what does or can this 
 mean ? First, it certainly does not mean, that obstacles can lawfully 
 be thrown in the way of such claimants. Secondly, it implies of 
 course, that the claim to the fugitive should both be valid and be 
 duly established. Thirdly, the article has, very unfortunately, omit- 
 ted all special direction or provision, as to the manner of establisliing 
 said claim, and all definition of delivering np. .This language of 
 itself would seem to imply, that the State to which the fugitive 
 comes, has him, some how or other, in its custody ; if not, how can 
 he be delivered up ? It cannot well mean, that the State to which 
 the fugitive has come, is bound at once to take active measures for 
 the purpose of accomplishing a restoration ; for how can this be 
 done, except the right of the claim be first established by the owner? 
 But where and how is this to be done ? The question of property, 
 or right of ownership, in the case before us, is one which can be law- 
 fully decided nowhere but in the State to which the fugitive belongs. 
 The ownership is wholly dependent on the laws of the State where 
 the owner lives, not on the laws of another State. And in accord- 
 ance with this view of the matter, has the decision of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States been made. All that is to be done by 
 another State, to which the fugitive comes, is, not to throw any 
 obstacle in the way of reclamation. To Congress, and to that body 
 alone, it belongs to legislate, as to the mode of carrying into execu- 
 tion the compact which has been made. They have thus far failed 
 to do it effectually ; and now the evil resulting from this failure has 
 become very great, and the diflaculty of legislation at present is im- 
 mensely augmented. 
 
59 
 
 It is plainly beyond the power of any one State to say to another : 
 'You shall not claim this or that as i)r()p('rty.' It may teel that 
 other States have wrongly ;uid injuriously decided this question. 
 It may have a moral or admonitory Christian dlity to perform toward 
 her ; but on the ground of national law, how can one sovereignty 
 usurp authority to decide for another, in regard to their internal rela- 
 tions and concerns ? 
 
 What now has the constitutional compact actually done ? It has 
 simply bound all States to acknowledge as property, that which any 
 particular State, acting within its own jurisdiction has decided to be 
 property, and of course it ibrbids all detaining of it, and connnands 
 deliverance of it, wherever the claim is properly made out. 
 
 What participation then have we of the North, in any injustice 
 that may be done to the slave, in making him property ? Not the 
 least in the world. We have simply agreed, to deliver up to the 
 inhabitant of another State, that to which he has a claim sanctioned 
 by the law of that State. We have merely renounced, in an express 
 manner, a jurisdiction which in fact we never had, and cannot have. 
 The renunciation removes all ground of doubt or dispute. What is 
 the harm or sin of this ? And what is the use of assuming a juris- 
 diction, which never did, and never can, belong to us ? 
 
 ' But the States have no right to make men property,' it is said. 
 That may be so, I reply ; and considered merely in a Christian light, 
 I believe it to be true. But what right now has Massachusetts to 
 decide for Virginia, on such a question ? Virginia may do wTong, 
 (I fear she is so doing), but Virginia is not under our supervision or 
 jurisdiction ; nor are we, in any degree, accountable or responsible 
 for her errors or sins ! The simple question before us is : " Whether 
 full faith and credit shall be given in each State, to the acts of an- 
 other ? " The Constitution declares, that this shjdl be done. Art. 
 IV. § 1. Shall we now obey it? Every magistrate in the land 
 takes an oath to obey it. How can he do this, if he does not mean 
 to keep his oath ? 
 
 But we are told, that there is a higher law than the Constitution, 
 the law of heaven written on our hearts and consciences ; and that 
 we are to follow that law. Nay, it is not only proclaimed in some 
 of our journals, that there is a higher law than the Constitution, but 
 men are called upon, both in those journals and in tlic pulpit, to dis- 
 obey the Constitution. Conscience, it is said, has decided, and 
 
60 
 
 rio-htly decided that the Constitution should be disobeyed. But 
 how ? Why ? Can my private conscience prescribe to Virginia 
 how she shall regulate her laws of property ? Can my conscience 
 decide, that sovereignties are not to be left to their own sense of 
 duty ? I do not see how. I may think that Virginia, for example, 
 does a moral wrong by her slavery laws ; but it is clearly no polit- 
 ical wrong done to others. The matter belongs to her alone ; not to 
 her neighbors. 
 
 But let us here look into this matter a little farther about con- 
 science, and its alleged rights. Is the conscience in question a Chris- 
 tian conscience ? There are, as we well know, all sorts of consciences, 
 very di^^erse and even opposite ; but I am asking now for a Christian 
 conscience. To every such conscience I would say : Come along with 
 me now to another conference with Paul. I insist upon it that you 
 shall not decline. 
 
 "What did Paul do at Eome ? A slave of Philemon, at Colosse, 
 ran away and came to Rome. There he was converted to Chris- 
 tianity under Paul's preaching. The apostle was so pleased with 
 him, that he was desirous to retain him as a friend and a helper. Did 
 he tell the slave that he had a right, nay that it was his duty, to keep 
 away from his master, and stay with him ? Not at all. He sent 
 back Onesimus, the slave, to his master (Phil. v. 12), and he tells 
 the master, that he could not venture to retain Onesimus without 
 knowing whether he would consent, v. 14. " Perhaps," says the 
 apostle, " he departed for a season, that thou shouldst receive him 
 forever." He then expresses his ardent desire, that Onesimus may 
 be treated with great kindness, and as a CJiristian ought to be treated. 
 
 What now have we here ? Paul, sending back a Christian servant, 
 who had run away, to his Christian master ; and this even when 
 Paul had such an estimation of the servant, that he much desired to 
 keep him as a helper, while he himself was in bonds for the gos- 
 pel's sake. Yet he would not continue to do this ; although it was 
 so desirable to him. He enjoins it upon Onesimus to return to his 
 master forever. This last phrase has reference to the fact, that 
 Paul supposed that the sense of Christian obligation, which was now 
 entertained by Onesimus, would prevent him from ever repeating 
 his offence. And all this too, when Philemon, being an active and 
 zealous Christian, would in a moment have submitted to any com- 
 mand of Paul respecting Onesimus. Why then did Paul send him 
 
Gl 
 
 back ? There is only one answer to be given, viz. that Paul's Chris- 
 tian conscience would not permit him to injure the vested rights of 
 Philemon. He could not thiik of keeping the servant, even to 
 minister as a friend to his own necessities while in prison. Paul's 
 conscience, then, like his doctrines, was very dilferent from that of 
 the Abolitionists. Paul's conscience sent back the fugitive slave ; 
 theirs encourages Mm to run away, and then protects him in the mis- 
 deed, yea justifies, applauds, glorifies him, as a noble, independent 
 fellow. The conscience of Paul sends back the fugitive, without 
 any obligation at all on the ground of compact ; theire encourages 
 and protects his escape in the face of the most solemn national com- 
 pact. And all this for conscience' sake ! That may be the case, 
 perhaps ; for conscience, when misled by rashness and heated party- 
 spirit and enthusiasm, can turn into any shape whatever. Paul him- 
 self says, that he acted conscientiously, when he persecuted Christians 
 unto death, and laid waste the church of God, Acts 23: 1. Ignatius 
 Loyola had a conscience. Xavier had more conscience than most 
 men ever had. Yet the conscience of one founded the tribunal of 
 the Inquisition in Europe, and of the other, the same in Asia. St. 
 Dominic had a conscience. Mary queen of England had a strong 
 conscience. So had James the Second, and even Jeffries made noisy 
 claims to one. The Hindoo mother, who throws her child into the 
 Ganges, has a conscience. The hangers of witches among us surely 
 had a conscience. The Quaker men and women, who went about the 
 streets, and into public assemblies, in puris naturalibus, had a deal of 
 conscience. And so, when judgment is kept down, and passion set up, 
 and men become in their own conceit wiser than all others, they can 
 manufacture a conscience into any possil)le convenient shajie. 
 
 Such would seem to be the fashion of many consciences at pres- 
 ent. Conscience bids them violate the Constitution of our country. 
 There is a higher law than this, say they. But I ask : "Wlio has 
 discovered and determined such a law ? Tlie honest answer would 
 be, their own passions and prejudices. It is a conscience wlioily 
 subjective. Talk of conscience in violating a solemn compact ? Of a 
 conscience which condemns the coiuluct of Paul, when acting under 
 divine guidance? Must we trust in a conscience which plainly ac- 
 cuses him of either having no conscience, or else a vt-ry bad one ? 
 Can we respect a conscience, which puts the broad seal of disgrace 
 and infamy on those immortal men and patriots, who formed our 
 6 
 
62 
 
 Constitution, and who in all our States accepted and approved of it ? 
 And where now has conscience been, these 60 years past? What 
 sort of men have adorned our le^slative halls, our pulpits, our 
 churches ? Men, it would seem, who did not understand even the 
 first rudiments of rehgion, or of civil freedom and the rights of man. 
 Has conscience slept profoundly so long in the fathers, and noAv have 
 their children become all at once " wiser than Daniel," and discov- 
 ered what poor, grovelling, half-witted men their fathers were ? All 
 this is wonderful to me, I must confess. I am astounded at the rapid 
 railroad progress of new discovery. K there was not a syllable in 
 all the Bible respecting slavery and the manner of treating it, it 
 could not be treated with more neglect than it now is, in regard to 
 tliis subject. 
 
 Look at some of the demonstrations. To recur to that respecta- 
 ble religious journal, which I have more than once made the subject 
 of remark ; not long since, a writer in tliis journal, who has chosen 
 a star for his signature, came out and told the public, that the article 
 in the Constitution about delivering up fugitive slaves, is a breach 
 of heaven's higher law ; that his conscience forbids him to obey it ; 
 and he tells his countrymen that he shall disobey it. If now a star 
 cannot give better light than this, methinks it will but " disastrous 
 twilight shed." I hailed with joy the rising of that star above the 
 horizon, and heartily welcomed it. I did fondly hope, that in its 
 progress it would come and stand over Bethlehem, " the place where 
 the young child was." I watched with interest its movement. Alas ! 
 how was I giieved by the last observation I had of it, during the 
 recent anniversaries at New York — grieved to find that it had 
 passed on from Bethlehem, and was hovering over the land of the 
 Philistines. May its return to Bethlehem be speedy! A noble 
 star it may be if it does not wander from its orbit. 
 
 The question : Where was conscience, when our Constitution was 
 formed and approved, brings to my mind another question, viz. '\Yhat 
 would those exalted and noble patriots have thought, or how Avould 
 they have felt, could they have been called forth from their graves, 
 and have made their appearance in the midst of the two different 
 anti-slavery meetings recently held at New York? I could not 
 help thinking more particularly on one great and good man, who 
 took an active pail in all the formative process of our genei-al govern- 
 ment, and by his skill and wisdom saved our new settlements from 
 
C3 
 
 the horrors of Indian aggression. Every one will of cour>e know, 
 that I speak of the illustrious John Jay. What if his portrait had 
 been hanging in the hall where the ^Vnti-slavory Society n-cenfly 
 met, under the presiding ausj)ices of his descendant ? Would it not 
 have brought to every mind, the recollection of what the earl of Chat- 
 ham said, when addressing a descendant (then in the house of Com- 
 mons) of a noble ancestor, whose picture was in full view ? His 
 words were: "From the tapestry whiih adorns tlu'se walls, the 
 immortal ancestor looks down, and frowns upon his degenerate 
 offspring." I must except, in my application of this declaration, the 
 last two words. They should not be applied to such a man as the 
 Hon. William Jay. But I may say : Would not his innnortal ances- 
 tor have looked down with a mixture of sorrow and of frowning, 
 on a descendant who could exhort his countrymen to disregard and 
 trample under foot the Constitution which his father had so signally 
 helped to establish ; and who could pour out an unrestrained torrent 
 of vituperation upon Mr. Webster, who has taken up the Constitu- 
 tion where JVIr. Jay's ancestor left it, and stood ever since in the 
 place of the latter as its defender and expounder ? How would that 
 agitated and frowning face, moreover, have gathered blackness, when 
 the presiding otiicer of that meeting went on to say, that ]SIr. 
 Webster had not made his Speech from any conviction of sentiment, 
 but because the cotton merchants and manufacturers of Boston 
 demanded such views to be maintained, and these gentry had of 
 course given it their approbation. This — all this — of such a man 
 as jMr. Webster ! And all tliis too — of the Boston gentlemen who 
 commended Mr. Webster's Speech ! To one who knows them as 
 well as I do, this is absolutely shocking. At all events, it is ungen- 
 tlemaidy ; it is passionate ; and what is more than all — it is abso- 
 lutely false. To see the Hon. AV. Jay, presiding over such a meeting, 
 and opening it with declarations which degrade and villify his illus- 
 trious ancestor, and hold him up to conteinj)t, forces from one the 
 spontaneous exclamation : quantum mu/aliis ab illo! 
 
 And what did the meeting do, who were thus presidid over? 
 They passed a long string of resolutions, which are about as g(M>d 
 proof of the matters which they assert, as the resolve of Anai-harsis 
 Cloots was, which he proposed to the National Assembly of Fninoe, 
 and which ran thus: "Resolved, That there is no (lod; r«';u»oii 
 dethrones equally the King of heaven and the kings of earth." Here 
 is a specimen of the Hon. Mr. Jay's Society-doings: 
 
64 
 
 Resolved, That Daniel Webster, by his disregard of early professions, his 
 treachery to Humanity and Freedom, and his servility to the Slave power, has 
 forfeited the respect and confidence of his constituents and country. 
 
 Resolved, That we view with astonishment the abetting of the Massachusetts' 
 Senator in his apostasy and inhumanity by men eminent in the learned profes- 
 sions, in literature and in the church ; and that the Chain recently presented to 
 him in this city is a fit emblem of the spirit of those who bestowed and him who 
 received it. 
 
 " Angels and ministers of grjtce defend us ! " my respected Friends, 
 and Fellow-signers of the Letter of Commendation. What are we 
 to do, since we are placed in such an awful predicament ? Where 
 hide our heads, after thus endorsing "apostasy, inhumanity, and 
 treachery ? " Yet — wait a moment. From whom, now, does such 
 a bill of attainder proceed ? is a question, after all, which we, my 
 Fellow Signers, may stop to ask, before we flee for terror into exile. 
 Yes,/ra»i whom'? From a Secretary of the Society, who is every 
 way worthy of such resolutions as these ; from one who has long 
 since lost caste among all respectable and sober men, and exhibits 
 marked signs of preferring to reign in a certain bad place, rather 
 than serve in a certain good one. Courage, then, my Friends ! Pos- 
 sibly we may yet survive and weather the storm. If so, then, 
 
 "Blow winds, and crack your cheeks ! " 
 
 I now take my leave of this American and Foreign Anti-Slavery 
 Society, and turn for one moment to the so-named American Anti- 
 Slavery Society, the father and prototype of all the others, presided 
 over by the Genius of slander, vituperation, and profaneness. But 
 what liave I to say to them ? Nothing ; if possible, less than noth- 
 ing. They may be assured that their words pass by as the idle wind, 
 and are as little regarded. 
 
 But — I am making too long an episode. Let us go back to the 
 conscience, which bids us to violate our solemn compact contained in 
 the Constitution ; that conscience, which stigmatizes Paul as a cow- 
 ard and a pro-slavery man. I will present one more, and only one, 
 exhibition of it, and then gladly make my retreat. 
 
 A member of Congress from Ohio, not long since, declared in his 
 place in the House of Representatives, that " he would sooner hang 
 a man for sending hack a runaway slave, than for any other crime 
 whatever." Alas ! for the apostle Paul, if he were now among us 
 
 \ 
 
65 
 
 and should fall into his clutches. This noble martyr received from 
 the Jews, five times, forty stripes save one ; thrice was he beaten 
 with cudgel-rods; once was he stoned; thrice he sutfered shipwreck, 
 besides enduring an intinitude of other vexations and annoyances; but 
 now he would fare worse still, lie would be " hanged by the neck, 
 until he was dead," in the very midst of a Christian land ! The 
 gentleman who said these decent things, has once been virtually sent 
 home to his constituents, for his disgraceful conduct in the House to 
 which he belongs. It were well for the country and our good name 
 and peace, if he were sent for good to an Insane Hospital, where he 
 properly belongs. 
 
 Enough, and more than enough, of such revolting exliibitions. 
 They cover our land with disgrace, and hold us up to the nations as 
 an object of derision, or of exultation in the hope of our speedy dis- 
 solution. "Well may the advocates of despotism forbode evil, when 
 defiance to sacred compacts stalks abroad, and waves over our land 
 the sceptre of truce-breaking and of disunion. They must needs 
 forebode evil, when the precepts of Paul are ignored, and the blessed 
 apostle is threatened with the halter, for sending back a fugitive 
 slave. America has already become a by-word juuong the nations, 
 for her repudiation of contracts and of laws. But a short time ago, 
 a friend of mine made the tour of Europe, and was everywhere 
 pointed at with the finger of scorn, where he staid long enough to 
 become known ; and often was he saluted by strangers, with Mon- 
 sieur Repudiation ! in France, and Repudiations Biirper .' in Ger- 
 many. Who does not feel shame mantling his cheek, when he reads 
 this ? American' — a name which was once an open passport to the 
 best society in Europe — and not long since, none so poor as to do it 
 reverence. We are now but just beginning to recover from that 
 disgraceful plight, when we are again threatened with the old sin on 
 a higher scale. 
 
 We have done for the present with a truce-breaking. Paul- 
 reproaching conscience. Let us look once more at tlie rci|uisitions 
 of the Constitution in regard to fugitive sLives, and inquire into the 
 expedients proposed, in order to remedy the evil of disobedience to 
 these requisitions. 
 
 A brief liistory of this matter seems necessary to a right under- 
 standing of it. In 1793, Congress pa-sscd a general law, emjwwering 
 all State magistrates regularly appointed by States, to adjudicate 
 6* 
 
66 
 
 cases of claim on fugitive slaves, and give certificates of transmission 
 back to the State from which they had fled. For fifty years this 
 was acquiesced in, and no serious disturbance or complaint arose. 
 But in 1842, in the case of Prigg vs. the State of Pennsylvania, the 
 Supreme Court of the United States decided, that the subject of 
 fugitive slaves belonged exclusively to Congress, and no State Le- 
 gislature had any right to intermeddle with it. The very next year, 
 the State of Massachusetts, (stung to the quick by the South Caro- 
 lina law, wliich imprisons colored Massachusetts' freemen without 
 judge or jury, and without the allegation of any crime subjects them 
 to the loss of liberty, money, and time, and all this without providing 
 for any remuneration), passed a law, that none of their magistrates 
 should henceforth take cognizance of fugitive slaves, and that no 
 sheriff or under officer of the like kind should aid in arresting, 
 detaining, or imprisoning any fugitive, and that no prison in the 
 commonwealth should be used in aid of those who claimed fugitive 
 slaves. A fine not exceeding SI, 000, or imprisonment not exceeding 
 one year, wa^ the penalty affixed to disobedience. 
 
 In 1847, Pennsylvania followed suit, by enacting laws equally 
 severe and prohibitory. Oliio also, by a series of laws at different 
 times, threw obstacles in the way of recovering fugitives, which 
 were equally difficult to be surmounted. Some other Northern 
 States have done the like ; while some have cooperated with the 
 Constitution, in aiding the restoration of fugitives. The Supreme 
 Court of the United States, in the case of Prigg, dechired, that 
 where State magistrates are not prohibited by a State Legislature, 
 they may lawfully exercise the poioer of giving certificates for the 
 return and restoration of fugitives, under the United States law of 
 1793. But a considerable number of States having enacted such a 
 prohibition, no remedy was left for the master but that of going 
 before the United States District Court, which would often be 
 attended with more delay and expense than the slave was worth. 
 
 Thus stood these matters, until what is called Mason's Bill 
 was proposed. That is now under discussion, and bids fair to rouse 
 up the whole country, and greatly increase the difficulties of the 
 case. That bill makes not only the United States District Court a 
 tribunal for the trial of cases under discussion, but empowers all 
 commissioners or clerks of said court, and all postmasters or officers 
 of the customs, residing or being within any State, to try and adjudi- 
 
67 
 
 cate all cases of this uature, and to issue a mandate of restoration. 
 Tills bill moreover declares, that every person obstnicting or hinder- 
 ing the claimant in his rescue, or assisting the fugitive (knowing 
 him to be such) to escape, shall forfeit $1,000, be imprisoned one 
 year, and be subject to a private action besides, on the part of the 
 master, for damages sustained. 
 
 This bill, which at the North has been familiarly named a BiU of 
 Abominations, if it is not quite worthy of so rej)roachful a name, 
 contains several things which, as I must believe, would lead to 
 abominations. The apprehension that Mr. Webster had jjjedged 
 himself to support this, in his speech belbre the Senate, has been, 
 perhaps more tlian everything else, the occasion of the unparalleled 
 excitement that now exists. As his speech was first published, 
 there was apparently no alternative but to believe such an appre- 
 hension to be well grounded. P^or myself, I always supposed, from 
 the first, that there must be some mistake, whicli had been over- 
 looked ; for I felt well ixssured in my own mind, tliat ]Mr. Webster 
 would never go the lengths of that bill. It is now fully apparent, 
 that I had good grounds for my suspicion. From one of our most 
 respectable papers, I have taken the following correction, premising 
 that it comes from the hand of a man who might claim a near 
 place to Mr. Webster in respect to talent, integrity, and patriotism. 
 The correction runs thus : 
 
 " The truth is, that no person wlio heard the speech, ami no candid man who 
 has read it, ever supposed Mr. Webster to have plcd>;ed himself to the particu- 
 lar and specific amendments suf,'f^estcd hy Mr. Mason. A change of location 
 of one sinj^le word, which probalily stands as it now does, hy the reiH)rter's mis- 
 apprehension or mistake, removes all the ground for the elaborate and fulminat- 
 ing censure of the Atlas. The speech now reads thus: — ' My friend at the 
 head of the Judiciary Committee has a bill on the subject, now l)efore the Sen- 
 ate, with some amendments to it, which I propose to support, with all its provi- 
 sions, to the fullest extent.' Change the position of the word ichirh. and the 
 sentence would read thus : — ' My friend at the head of the Judiciary Commit- 
 tee has a bill on the subject, now before the Senate, which, with some amend- 
 ments to it, I propose to support, with all its provisions, to the fnllest extent.' 
 It has been again and again repeated, but is entirely false, that Mr. Webster 
 named Mason's amcmlments as those which he intended to support. 
 
 "We arc authorized to state two things; first — That Mr. Webster did not 
 revise this portion of his speech, with any view to examine its exact accuracy 
 of phrase; and, second — That Mr. Webster, at the lime of the delivery of the 
 speech, hud in his desk three cmimdalury strtions, prejiared under consultation with 
 
68, 
 
 a h'vzh iudicial authority, who has had more to do with these questions than any 
 judge in the country, and one of which sections provides expressly for the right 
 of trial by jurv. These sections had already been suggested to members of the 
 Senate most interested in the question, with an intimation that it was intended 
 to propose them, when the bill should regularly come up for consideration. 
 
 " The writer of this article heard every word of the speech, and understood it 
 to be exactly what it would be with the change of the word as before men- 
 tioned." 
 
 I merely add, that Mr. Webster himself has personally assured 
 me, that his speech was in accordance with the correction here 
 made, and that he has now in his desk the amendments to which the 
 corrector refers. Thus much in respect to this matter, which has 
 given so great offence — an offence however which, as the matter stood 
 at first before the public, was not without some apparent ground. The 
 worst of the case is, that now, since this mistake has been corrected, 
 the high-toned Free-Soil and Abolition papers still continue to iffnore 
 the correction. Is this justice? Is this candor? 
 
 As to the bill itself, it plainly contains some preposterous provi- 
 sions. Any postmaster or collector whatever, whether resident in 
 the State, or merely being in it, (such is its language), may take 
 cognizance of a fugitive's case, and give orders for his remittance. 
 All this, too, without any trial whatever, or any other proof than 
 oral testimony, or an affidavit made before any one who can admin- 
 ister an oath. What hinders the master, then, coming from Virginia 
 or any other slave State, from bringing a Southern postmaster with 
 him ; and, when they have come to Massachusetts, it may surely be 
 said of such postmaster, that he is {being) in the State, where the 
 fugitive is. Wliat hinders a slave-catcher from the South from 
 coming to Massachusetts with his confederate postmaster, and laying 
 hold of any free colored man here, so as to bring him to trial before 
 the said postmaster, or before one of our own bribed postmasters, 
 and then to take the man off" to a slave-market ? Do you say : 
 ' There must be proof of bondage ? ' Very w-ell ; but is not the 
 manufacture of the proof required, completely within the power of 
 that slave-catcher ? A man who can engage in such a business, is 
 capable of forging any proof that he needs. 
 
 What now shall we say to all this? Is the great question of 
 man's natural right — that inalienable right, as our Declaration of 
 Independence calls it — is such a question as that to be put in the 
 power of every and any postmaster ? God forbid, that such trifling 
 
69 
 
 as this with a question of such moment to a fellow being, should 
 ever be allowed, or thought of! No ! never, never ! No, Mr. 
 Mason. We of the New England States believe that negroes are 
 men ; we believe that " God has made of one blood aU the 
 nations that dwell upon the earth" And if they are men, the question 
 of freedom cannot be so lightly dealt with as your bill projwses. 
 The next that we should hear of would be, that some Bruin is on 
 our soil, with a postmaster confederate, and hurrying off our freemen 
 to the land of slavery. This will not do. We caiuiot incur the 
 danger of such a thing. 
 
 And then the penalty for mterposing in the execution of such a 
 summary process — it looks very much like the expression of pas- 
 sionate severity. It is inmieasurably beyond the demerit of the 
 alleged crime ; although, I must confess, that the law of Ma.ssachu- 
 setts of 1843 stands pretty well by the side of it in this respect, and 
 has even less ground of excuse ; for the United States Court have 
 decided, that State-officers may adjudge such cases of fugitives, and 
 Massachusetts has said they shall not. At all events, however, any 
 such law as Mr. Mason's, is a perfect felo de se. It would operate 
 just as the bloody code did in England, when there were some 220 
 or 230 crimes punishable with death. No jury could at hu^t be 
 found to convict. Even murderers escaped, through the horror 
 which the juries had of legal cruelty. So would it be here. Could 
 I see Mr. Mason, I should feel disposed to say to him: 'Sir, I 
 regard you as an honorable and a talented man ; but you must par- 
 don me for saying, that you do not know the North ; above all, you 
 do not know New England. Why Sir, it would be as perfect a 
 piece of Quixotism as was ever exhibited, to bring the offendei-s which 
 you describe, Ijeforc (for example) a jMassaeliusetts jury. A juryman 
 who, for such an alleged crime as you describe, should vote to inflict 
 the penalty you propose, would lose caste as a New Englander for 
 ever. Your bill is, therefore, a bill of impossibilities. It utterly 
 overlooks the state of things and of society at the Nortli. We are 
 born here with an instinctive aversion to slavery; we believe that it 
 is not doing to others, what we would that others should do to us. 
 And to line a man in the enormous sum of SI, 000, to imprison him 
 moreover for a year, and then subject liim to a civil action besides, 
 for injury done to the master — and to do all tliis merely because of 
 an interference which humanity pleads for, although the law con- 
 
70 
 
 demns it, is Turkish justice, not American — at any rate not New 
 England justice. Such a bill is as much out of question here, as a 
 bill of Prudhomme's makmg would be, which defines ■property as 
 meaning crime.^ 
 
 I do not, be it noted, justify interference. It is against our 
 United States Court, and the law of international justice. And as . 
 to all the efforts to lead men to trample that Court under foot, I have 
 given my honest opinion at full length above. But the remedy 
 against such a breach of solemn compact, must be sought in a more 
 just and feasible way than that which ]Mr. Mason proposes. 
 
 The Committee of Compromise, in the Senate, have given to the 
 country a much more Acceptable proposal than Mr. Mason's. I 
 insert their own words here, so that all may read and interpret for 
 themselves. 
 
 " The owner of a fugitive from service or labor is, when practicable, to carry 
 •with him to the State in which the person is found, a record, from a competent 
 tribunal, adjudicating the facts of elopement and slavery, with a general descrip- 
 tion of the fugitive. This record, properly attested and certified under the offi- 
 cial seal of the court, being taken to the ^tate where the person owing service or 
 labor is found, is to be held competent aiid sufficient evidence of the facts which 
 had been adjudicated, and will leave nothing more to be done than to identify 
 the fugitive. 
 
 " The committee conceive that a trial by jury in a State where a fugitive from 
 service or labor is recaptured, would be a virtual denial of justice to the claim- 
 ant of such fugitive, and would be tantamount to a positive refusal to execute 
 the provisions of the Constitution ; the same objections do not apply to such a 
 trial in the State from which he fled. In the slave-holding States, full justice 
 is administered, with entire fairness and impartiality, in cases of all actions for 
 freedom. The person claiming his freedom is allowed to sue in forma paupe- 
 ris; counsel is assigned him; time is allowed him to collect his witnesses, and 
 to attend the sessions of the court ; and his claimant is placed under bond and 
 security, or is divested of the possession during the progress of the trial, to insure 
 the enjoyment of these privileges ; and if there be any leaning on the part of 
 courts and juries, it is always on the side of the claimant for freedom. 
 
 "In deference to the feelings and prejudices which prevail in the non-slave- 
 holding States, the committee propose such a trial in the State from which the 
 fugitive fled, in all cases where he declares to the officer giving the certificate 
 for his return, that he has a right to his freedom. Accordingly, the committee 
 have prepared, and report herewith two sections, which they recommend should 
 be incorporated in the fugitive bill pending in the Senate. According to these 
 sections, the claimant is placed under bond, and required to return the fugitive 
 to that county in the State from which he fled, and there to take him before a 
 competent tribunal, and allow him to assert and establish his freedom if he can. 
 affording to him for that purpose all needful facilities." 
 
71 
 
 I do not well see, what more wn be done, at present. Here is no 
 trifling with posttuaster jurisdiction. If this measure is carried, and 
 faithfully obeyed, I do not perceive what more we can demand or 
 expect at the North, so long as the Article in the Constitution 
 remains, respecting the restoration of fugitives. This looks like 
 sobriety, and political justice, to say the least. For one, I should be 
 satisfied to leave the matter in this position, ajid give it a fair trial. 
 I do not know what Mr. Webster's proposed amendments were ; but 
 I should suppose he might be satisfied with the present proposed 
 Committee Bill. 
 
 To the position of our honored Legislature, in tlu;ir recent Re- 
 solves, viz. that the case of the fugitive shall be tried " by jury in 
 the State where the claim is made," I am unable, highly as I respect 
 theu' motives, to yield my assent. How is it in all other like ciises ? 
 If a fugitive from justice in Massachusetts goes to New Jersey, and 
 he is there demanded by our Governor, must he have a jurj'-trial 
 there of New Jersey men, before they can agree to giye him up ? 
 Not at all. A^Tiat right have they to try the case of a Massachu- 
 setts criminal ? None, by any law or usage whatever. iVnd are not 
 fugitive slaves from the South, criminals in the eyes of Southern 
 law ? Most plainly they are. And have not the Southern States a 
 right to determine for themselves, what and whom they may regard 
 as criminal? Plainly they have. And when a fugitive slave comes 
 here, who has done what their laws regard as criminal, have they 
 not the right to have him remanded, and tried by a jurj- or court of 
 their own States respectively ? I must confess this seems a very 
 plain case to me; so plain, that I cannot in any way accord with the 
 resolve of our honorable Legislature. I cannot think that it is 
 based on the common principles of public law, and certaiidy not on 
 those of Jus Gentium. Besides, what the Committee have stated in 
 their Report above, is no doubt accordant willi what would be mat- 
 ter of fact, in case such trials were allowed. 
 
 I have done with this subject. The brief result, as it strikes my 
 own mind, is, that the Constitution in respect to fugitives held to 
 service or labor must be obeyed. It is useless to talk about con- 
 science as setting it aside. It is an imputation on the men who 
 framed our government. It is holding them up to the world as 
 having neither conscience nor humanity. Under the regulations 
 proposed by the Compromise Committee, I can at present, see no 
 
72 
 
 formidable difficulties in the way of obedience. I do not believe, 
 moreover, that pains and penalties for the aiding of fugitive slaves, 
 if they are severe, can ever be inflicted. In my own view, such 
 persons should be suable before the United Sta,tes District Court, by 
 the owner of the fugitives ; and he should be entitled, in case illegal 
 interference could be proved, to the fuU value of the slave, and to his 
 expenses in the prosecution. Beyond this, I do not believe penalty 
 can practically be inflicted. 
 
 I am happy to be able to introduce a paragraph here, from a late 
 Speech in the House of Representatives by one of Massachusetts' 
 most distinguished sous, who adorns private life as much by his vir- 
 tues, as he does the Halls of Legislation by his soul-stirring elo- 
 quence. I refer to the Hon. R. C. Winthrop of Boston. He is 
 speaking of the allegation made on all sides, of a law superior to the 
 Constitution of the United States, and of the right which conscience 
 has to trample on the requisition made by that Constitution. These 
 are his words : 
 
 " I recognize, indeed, a Power above all human law makers, and a Code above 
 all earthly constitutions ! And whenever I perceive a clear conflict of jurisdic- 
 tion and authority between the Constitution of my country and the laws of my 
 God, my course is clear. I shall resign my office, whatever it may be, and re- 
 nounce all connection with public service of any sort. Never, never, sir, will I 
 put myself under the necessity of calling upon God to witness my promise to 
 support a Constitution, any part of which I consider to be inconsistent with his 
 commands. 
 
 " But it is a libel upon the Constitution of the United States — and what is 
 worse, sir, it is a libel upon the great and good men who framed, adopted, and 
 ratified it; it is a libel upon Washington and Franklin, and Hamilton and 
 Madison, upon John Adams, and John Jay, and Rufus King ; it is a libel upon 
 them all, and upon the whole American people of 1 789 who sustained them in their 
 noble work, and upon all who, from that time to this, generation after generation, 
 in any capacity. National, Municipal, or State, have lifted their hands to Hea- 
 ven, in attestation of their allegiance to the Government of their country — it 
 is a gross libel upon every one of them, to assert or insinuate that there is any 
 such inconsistency ! Let us not do such dishonor to the Fathers of the Repub- 
 lic, and the Framers of the Constitution. It is a favorite policy, I know, of 
 some of the ultraists in my o\vn part of the country, to stigmatize the Consti- 
 tution of the United States as a pro-slavery contract. I deny it, sir. I hold, on 
 the other hand, that it is a pro-liberty compact — the most effective pro-liberty 
 compact which the world has ever seen, Magna Charta not excepted — • and one 
 which every friend to liberty — human liberty, or political liberty — ought stead- 
 fastly to maintain and support." 
 
73 
 
 Noble, independent, and manly woi-ds are these. I cannot read 
 them without thanking God, that we have men in INIa^sachusetts 
 who can speak as he does, and who are so well fitted to breast the 
 tempest, and keep steadily on the rounds of a leader in the corps 
 wliich constitutes the life-guard of the Temple of Liberty. 
 
 By the side of this extract from the Speech of this fearless cham- 
 pion of moral and civil obligation to honor and fulfil solemn engage- 
 ments, mutually made by neighboring nations once virtually 
 independent, I will place another paragraph, extracted from a late 
 Speech of Mr. Ashmun, one of our Massachusetts Representatives. 
 After reciting the article in the Constitution which demands the res- 
 toration of fugitive servants, he thus proceeds : 
 
 '"This reads very phiinly, aiifl admits of no doubt, hut, itiat so far as fugitive 
 slaves are concerned, tlie Constitution fully recotrnizcs the ri^jht to reclaim them 
 from within the limits of the free States. It is in the Constitution which we 
 have all sworn to support, and which I hope we all mean to support ; and I have 
 no mental reservation excluding any of its clauses from the sanction of that 
 oath. It is too late now to complain that such a provision is there. Our 
 fathers who formed that entire instmment, placed it there, and left it to us as an 
 inheritance; and nothing but an amendment of the Constitution, or a violation 
 of our oaths, can tear it out. And, however much we may abhor slavery, there 
 is no way for honorable, honest — nay — conscientious men, who desire to live 
 under our laws and our Constitution, but to abide by it in its spirit." 
 
 Par nohUe Frafriim ! I say, from the bottom of my heart. These 
 are the sentiments which are to save our coimtry if it be saved ; and 
 the good old Bay State has much reason to thank God that she has 
 men in our national Council, who can stand np in the face of tumult 
 and obloquy, and speak in behalf of cuvcnaiit-keei)ing and of the 
 Constitution. And what now becomes of the assertion, echoed and 
 re-echoed the world around, that Mr. Webster stands alone in Mas- 
 sachusetts in defending the requisitions of our national Constitution? 
 Alone, forsooth, with such men at his side ! Alone, when in the 
 single city where he resides and its near i)recincts. that List of names 
 was made out and proffered to biin, whidi has .so excited the 
 jealousy and the indignation of impassioned agitators I 
 
 I come next to the .so long agitated Wilmot JVon'so. as it is called. 
 
 Mr. Winthrop has shown, that this Proviso originated some years 
 
 ago, from his own hand, when the Oregon question wa.s agitated, and 
 
 that it was originated at first only for a particidar purpose, which is 
 
 7 
 
74 
 
 exhibited and exiilained in his Speech. But it is no matter whence 
 it originated. The principle itself, asserted by the Proviso, viz. that 
 the freemen of the North ought not voluntarily to consent in any way 
 to the extension of slavery, is one to which I give my most unlimited 
 and hearty assent. But the expediency of applying tliis Proviso to 
 new Territories, and even the legal power to do so, is a matter that 
 may be called in question. For such an opinion, I am bound to 
 assign some good reason, and I will endeavor to meet my obligation. 
 
 I begin with the original relations of the United States to any 
 territorial domain. The United States possess the land. On this 
 new settlers cluster, not within the bounds of any specific State, and 
 of course not belonging to any State. Then who and what are they ? 
 Are they our subjects, as citizens? A citizen must belong to a 
 State ; and unless he does, he can of course claim none of the spe- 
 cific privileges of a citizen. More than this ; unless he does belong 
 to some State, then what is our right of legislation over him ? He 
 occupies our land ; but this does not confer on him the privileges, 
 nor subject him to any of the onerous and peculiar duties, of a citi- 
 zen. The United States have never ventured to tax Territories. 
 They have never ventured even to legislate for them. The most 
 wliich they have claimed, is the right to appoint a kind of guardian- 
 governor. A Territory must have its Representatives, or Senate, or 
 both, within itself, and from its own population. So it always has 
 been, and so it must be, unless we assume the attitude of Euro})ean 
 despots, who govern Colonies by a military governor and a military 
 regime. "We, who guarantee a republican government to all under 
 our supervision, cannot assume this attitude. 
 
 In permitting Territories to have their own self-appointed legis- 
 latures, we renounce the power of internal, civil and domestic con- 
 trol. But is not the question of slavery, a matter under their own 
 control ? The United States never meddle with that question ; at 
 least they never should, for the Supreme Court have decided, that 
 they have no right to meddle with it. Whence then comes our right 
 to say, either that a Territory shall, or shall not, admit slavery ? K 
 there be any such power, how are we to exercise it? We commit 
 internal and domestic relations to a legislature of the Territory's 
 own choosing. Wlience comes our right then to exempt slavery 
 from their own control ; and above all, how do we possess a right, 
 since our Supreme Court have decided, that we cannot legislate at 
 ail in Congress on the matter of civil and domestic relations ? 
 
75 
 
 But suppose that as guanUans pro tempore we dictate to the Ter- 
 ritories on this subject to-day, and say to them: " You shall have no 
 slaves." To-morrow, they ask for a(hnission as States, ami we of 
 course agree to it in case they are republican, and thus constitute 
 them States. As States, all control about the matter of slavery of 
 course is completely and cntivvly ;\ud r.rcliisireli/ in their hands. All 
 feel obliged to concede this. They then convene their Lejrishiture. 
 the very next week. That Legislature has ade(|iiMte ])ower, and 
 exclusively the only right or power, to say : "We admit the privilege 
 of holding slaves." Is there any power on earth to gainsay or oppose 
 them? None whatever. They are a, State; they are sovereign to 
 all intents and purposes, a.s to their internal polity. No j^^evious 
 legislation, on our jtart, can in the leivst degree affect them. 
 
 These I take to be princii)les plain and incontrovertible. Eut if 
 so, what is the use or good of Wilmot Provisos ? None, or at the 
 most, none excepting that for a few days, or months, we may prevent 
 slavery ; although our right or power to do that is, as has already 
 been shown, certainly very questionable. Besides, were they to 
 make a compact with us as a mere Territory, (there is no political 
 ■ corporation as yet to make one), were they to submit to our dicta- 
 tion of a compact, it would not be binding at all on them as a 
 State. But as we have no right to make or demand such a compact, 
 of course it is null ; and as they have no acknowledged corporation 
 to make it, it is therefore doubly null. It must be true of both, 
 that quod non hahet, non dot. 
 
 Suppose now we put the old simple question — Cni bono? "\i\1iat 
 is the answer ? No one, I think can be at a loss to give it. It is 
 profitable to nobody ; for the state of things in which we have even any 
 show of right to dictate, is one which can usually la.'^t but a few months ; 
 or at most not more than two or three yetu-s. And is this worth a 
 four years' contention, and half of the time of Congress during most 
 of that period, and of late the whole ? If there was ever a case on 
 earth of much ado almtt nothing, this is plainly one of them. Four 
 years' dispute about a Proviso, which, if made, is ipso facto annulled 
 by a Territory's becoming a State! I would we could stop with 
 saying that it is a mert' good for nothing; but we cannot. It Jul-* 
 occasioned much embittered feeling. It h;is called into activity all 
 the heated passions of both parties. It luvs threateneil tiie Union 
 itself. It has alienated the North and South, perhaps irrccoiicila- 
 
76 
 
 bly. And all this — for what ? Why for the assertion of a right 
 to dictate, where none existed ; or even if the right be admitted, it 
 can continue to be valid only a few months, or a year or two at most. 
 
 I must confess, that to me, a humble, quiet country-dweller, who 
 never descended into the arena of political controversy, there has 
 seldom a <Treater nonsense ever presented itself to my notice, than 
 this said Proviso. It is impossible to defend it, on any stable grounds 
 of Jus Gentium which a republic admits. 
 
 Mr. Winthrop declares himself ready to drop the matter. He 
 never originated it for the purpose to which it is now applied. He 
 meant only to defeat a wrong measure in respect to Oregon. Mr. 
 Ashmun declares that he will not insist upon it. Mr. Webster says 
 that it does no good ; that it amounts to nothing in the end ; and 
 that it is not Avorth quarrelling about, at all adventures. The North 
 gives up nothing that belongs to it, in abandoning it ; it can gain 
 nothing by insisting on it, even if it should carry the point. It can 
 decide notliing for the State yet to come into being. Is it not, then, in 
 reality much ado about nothing ? And if so, why should another 
 word ever be spoken in favor of urging it ? 
 
 Is Mr. Webster now to be ostracised^ because he looks on the 
 whole affair as merely jumping up and down, without an inch of 
 progress? He may be ; but — shame on those who are concerned 
 in such an ostracism ! 
 
 The next great stumbling block is the admission of new States, 
 carved out of Texas. When the act for receiving Texas as a State 
 in our Union was passed, a clause was inserted in the resolutions 
 (eh. 3, § 2) of the following tenor : 
 
 " New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to 
 said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the con- 
 sent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be enti- 
 tled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution. And such 
 States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of 
 thirty-fiix degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known sis the Mis- 
 souri Compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without 
 slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire ; and in such 
 State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri 
 Compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be 
 prohibited." 
 
 Several things lie on the face of this clause. (1) Four additional 
 States may be made hereafter, by the leave of Texas. (2) That if 
 
77 
 
 any portion of Texas has a sufficient number of inhabitants and 
 presents a republican Constitution, (these are the proinsioyis of the 
 Federal Constitution), "it shall be entitled to admission." If the 
 State to be formed, is north of 30° 30', it must exclude slavery; if 
 south of that line, it may admit or reject. The first of these pre- 
 scriptions is a matter of coram 7um Jiidire. There is not, until the 
 State is actually formed, any party in that section of countr}^ wliich is 
 a corporate body, and entitled to make such a contract. If the Terri- 
 tory has declared for independence, then Congress has no riglit to 
 legislate for it. If it has not, then there is only one legitimate party 
 for the making of the compact, and it is of course null. But leap- 
 nig over all this, (and a large leap it must be), then comes up again 
 the old cui bono question. The very day that the new State is made, 
 it can tread mider foot all the provisos that Congress can put upon 
 it, when they respect things over which they have- no lawful power 
 to legislate. That they have none, in the present case, is just as 
 clear, as that a State has the only sovereign right to decide on the 
 civil and social relations of its citizens, and that Congress have no 
 right to legislate where the Constitution has not conferred this right 
 upon them. 
 
 So then, a new State or States north of 36° 30' have, and can 
 have, no legal obstacles in the way of admitting slavery. But as to 
 the new States south of the line, the sovereign dispensers of civil 
 and social rights at Washington have graciously permitted them to 
 do as they please, about the matter of slavery. Well however 
 might these new States say : We thank you, most benevolent gen- 
 tlemen, for your consent that we should do as we please ; but we 
 expect to do so, and have a right to do so, whether you consent or 
 refuse. 
 
 All this now lies on the very face of this whole matter. And yet 
 Mr. Webster is assailed with the cry o( apostasy, and with the charge 
 of deserting New England, or Northern principles, and catering for 
 the votes of the South. But what, let us coolly inciuirc, what luis ho 
 done ? He has said : ' We are bound on our part, to abide by our 
 solemn compact with a sovereign SUUe. We are obUged to admit 
 four new States from Texas, if they come with the requisite qualifi- 
 cations to ask for such a privilege. Be they formed how or where 
 they may, if Texjis consent, and they have a sufficient luunbcr of 
 inhabitants, and present us with a republican Constitution, we have 
 7* 
 
78 
 
 solemnly pledged the faith of the nation to admit them.' Is this 
 now not a matter of fact ? Is there not such a pledge ? Can we 
 recall it? Can we violate it? Yes, we can — but never again 
 could the United States lift up its face among the nations, if the 
 faith of solemn treaties or compacts is to be violated. Mr. Webster's 
 crime is, that he insists upon it, we shall be a covenant-keeping 
 nation. Is he to be treated with insult and contumely for this? 
 Heaven forbid ! 
 
 I am aware of the game that has been played by some ingenious 
 and talented men with the words may and shuU in the resolution 
 of Congress above exhibited. There is no good foundation, however, 
 for playing tliis game v/ith success. The first may confers power 
 and liberty for any desired new State formed out of Texas, to ask 
 for admission ad libitum, provided they come under and comply with 
 the usual conditions of States to be admitted. The next declaration 
 is, that coming in this way, " they shall be entitled to admission." 
 In other words, the United States positively pledge themselves to 
 receive and admit a new State, on the conditions expressed. These 
 conditions being complied with, where is the may tliat some inge- 
 nious gentlemen find in this resolution of Congress ? The 7nay 
 depends on Texas and the new State ; the sJadl l)eloMgs to us, when 
 a new State is desired, and is in a constitutional state of preparation 
 for admission. 
 
 I am not a little surprised at a paragraph in the Hon. Horace 
 Mann's Letter to his constituents, in respect to the matter before us. 
 He makes it out, that Mr. Webster could not tell how much four, 
 minus one or two, would amount to. This is capital. What next ? 
 Mr. Webster, says he, has declared that we have guarantied that 
 four slave States shall come in ; and that such as are south of 3G° 
 30' may come in as slave States. But Mr. Webster's words are so 
 placed by Mr. Mann, as to convey a meaning quite different from 
 that which Mr. Webster intended. Mr. Webster had not the lea^t 
 intention of saying, that the United States shall, on their part, make 
 four new States at all adventures ; but that if Texas and said new 
 States agree, and the proper qualifications are exhibited, then the 
 United States have bound themselves to admit new States to the 
 number of four. Mr. Mann wishes to know where the four slavery 
 States are to be found, when one or more free States have been 
 formed north of the line in question. In this way he endeavors to 
 
79 
 
 show, tliat IMr. Webster cannot count four minus one, and also that 
 he has made five new States instead of four. In answer to all this 
 special pleading, and (if I had not a high regard for ]Mr. Maiui I 
 should be tempted to say) trickery of argumentation, it needs only to 
 be said, that neither Mr. Mann, nor any body else, can at present tell 
 where the four new States will be first formed, and first ajjply for 
 admission. The highest probability is, that they will all be south 
 of the line in question. There is no temptation to go north. The 
 land on the south is beyond measure more jjromising and capable of 
 cultivation. Suppose now that the four States which first seek 
 admission are all south of 36° 30', then of course the United States 
 have pledged themselves to admit them ; and this done, Texas can 
 ask for no more, under the old compact. If another State comes in 
 north of the line, it must be on the ground of a new contract and 
 new liberty of admission. Where then is the absurdity of Mr. 
 Webstei-'s statement ? Nowhere. The only expression in it which 
 can give occasion to doubt, is, that " the guaranty is, that new States 
 shall be made out of it" [Texas], which mfght be interpreted as 
 meaning, that the United States have pledged themselves to cause so 
 many to be made. But the context removes every doubt as to his 
 real meaning. 
 
 Of BIr. Mann I can never speak but with respect. The glowing 
 ardor and eloquence of his compositions, the intense love of liberty 
 with which he is inspired, the humanity by which he is actuated, 
 the fine scholar-like accomplishments which he exhibits, all com- 
 mand my respect and admiration. Whether his judgment and 
 prudence are equal to his ardor and his energy, is another question, 
 which is not before my tribunal. He professes the strongest regard 
 and the highest respect for ]Mr. Webster, and avows solemnly his 
 intention to treat him in a manner tliat corresponds with this 
 avowal. I doubt not that he was sincere in making his avowal. 
 But his impetuosity led him astray, after all. After repeating Mr. 
 Webster's words, that he regarded the compact with Texas na 
 solemn and binding, as binding as any legislation could make it, he 
 goes on to say, that " he knows no form of statement, nor process of 
 reasoning, which can make it more clear, that this [viz.. what Mr. 
 Webster had said] is an alrsolute and wanton surrender of I lie rights 
 of the North, and of the rights of humanity." And this — from a 
 man who professes the highest respect and regard for Mr. Webster ! 
 £t tu, Brule ? 
 
80 
 
 Such are the envenomed arrows, which tliis new Free-Soihsra and 
 AboUtionisin stores up in the quivers of its advocates. I know of 
 no better exhibition or proof of the tendency of the spirit which it 
 engenders, than is to be seen in the cases of such men as Judge Jay 
 and the Hon. Mr. Mann. It can furnish gentlemen, scholars, men 
 of cultivated minds and hitherto blameless lives, with the whole 
 stores of annoyance that exist in the magazine of vituperation and 
 calumny, and prompt them to the active appropriation of these stores. 
 This is enough to make any sober quiet man pause, and ask whether 
 such is " the armor of truth and of God." 
 
 No, lilr. Mann ; "a wanton surrender of the rights of the North,'' 
 is not to be said of Daniel Webster. Swords would leap, if it were 
 lawful and necessary, from hundreds of thousands of scabbards, 
 to defend him against such an assault. The Athenians, led on by 
 Themistocles, may ostracise Aristides to-day ; but soon — soon I 
 trust, will they recall him from his banishment, and give him the 
 honors due. 
 
 I pass over declarations of Mr. Mann in his letter, which, if not 
 equally ungentlemanly and violent, are at least as little capable of 
 sober defence. Mr. Mann is evidently exposed to many a thrust, 
 for his paralogisms, and his colored and imperfect statement of facts. 
 I leave tliose things, however, to others, who know how to espy the 
 places which Mr. Mann's shield does not protect. I am proud of 
 him as a man, a scholar, an orator, and a lover of liberty ; but when 
 he plays a game like the present, I can only say, that I heartily 
 wish him a more creditable employment. It is eclipsing a sun, that 
 might do something much better than ' shed disastrous twilight over 
 half the nation.' 
 
 I do not suppose, that such a gentleman as I take Mr. Mann to 
 be, designed to compliment himself, when he speaks of ' his words 
 being as cool as the iron of the telegraph wire, while his mind is 
 like the lightning which darts through it.' I am ready to acknow- 
 ledge that there is not a little of the electric fire in Mr. Mann. But 
 I cannot overlook the fact, that this fire can sometimes scorch and 
 smite down, as well as be the swift messenger of tidings. If IVIr. 
 Mann has performed something of the last office of electricity, he 
 has also given us a pretty fair specimen of the first. 
 
 A few questions more, and I quit the subject of new States out of 
 Texas. To begin back ; Has IVIr. Webster ever voted for or advo- 
 
81 
 
 cated the admission of Texas? No. How then did she come in? 
 By the recreant votes in the Senate of two Free Soilers, now riding 
 on the whirlwind and directing the storm of disunion. Did Mr. 
 Webster vote in any case whatever, for the extension of slavery, or 
 of slave Territory ? Never. Will he so vote ? Never, so long 
 as he is Daniel Webster. Did he ever vote to make a war of con- 
 quest, in order to extend slavery-ground ? Never. Did he not 
 contend to the last against Texas union and Texjis contracts ? He 
 surely did. Has he lost any of his feeling of repugnance and opj>o- 
 sition to slavery? Not in the least. It has been strengthened 
 by all that he has lately seen and heard; and with good reason. I3 
 there a man in the United States Senate, who has a more deep, 
 sohd, lasting, unchangeable dislike of slavery and all its attendant 
 evils? Not one. There are many men who make much more 
 noise about it, and labor to turn the world upside down in order to 
 throw it off; but not one of such, I venture to say, has so deep, 
 steadfast, and immutable a dishke to it and disapprobation of it, 
 as he. 
 
 What has he done, then ? He has declared, that bitter as the 
 task may be, to allow of new slavery States, still he must lifl up his 
 hand to carry solemn contracts into execution, to keep the plighted 
 faith of this nation. There is — there can be no repudiating of such 
 contracts. Even a had bargain must be kept. If not, who after 
 this can ever trust to the faith or honor of this nation ? 
 
 And is Mr. Webster to be maligned, and vituperated, and thrust 
 out of the confidence of his fellow-citizens, because lie will not vote 
 to violate solemn compacts? If this must be done, such a day 
 awaits this nation, as no politician has yet imagined, and no prophet 
 yet foretold. I will never believe that sucli a day is coming, upon 
 the State in which are to be found Fanueil Hall, and Uunker Hill, 
 and Concord, and Lexington, and the descendants of the men who 
 immortalized themselves there. If such a day must dawn on us, for 
 one I would say, rather than gaze ui>on it : '• Hung be tlie lieavena 
 with black ! " Patriotism, integrity, firmness, sound jutlgment, lof\y 
 soul-thrilling eloquence, may thenceforth despair of tinding their 
 reward among us. 
 
 In looking back over the ground that we have travelled, I cannot 
 suppress my tribute of gratitude to our worthy President, for having 
 taken tlie ground of laissez faire toward our newly forming States 
 
82 
 
 and Territories. There is where prudence, Jus Gentium, and a 
 proper re^^ard to our new neighbors, call on him to leave the matter. 
 I do not expect that the man, who coolly declined the condescending 
 offer of Santa Anna, when surrounded by more than triple the num- 
 ber of soldiers under the American commander — the offer, that in 
 case the latter would capitulate, liberal terms should be granted him, 
 and much blood be saved — I do not expect such a man to quit his 
 position, and bow to the dictates of partizan zeal. God bless him 
 in his steadfastness, and bless the wise and prudent policy which he 
 is pursuing! 
 
 With all becoming respect for our honored and honorable Con- 
 gress of the United States, I would say, that I hope they will 
 forgive a humble, but from the heart faithful, adherent to the Union, 
 when he says, from the deep conviction of his soul, that he is much 
 afraid, lest the spirit of legislating about everything and every 
 body is becoming dangerously prevalent in our national Councils. 
 It can do nothing but mischief. Such Proviso articles, as the whole 
 country have been quarrelling about these four years, never can 
 promote the public good. Much, very much, better is our Presi- 
 dent's plan of " letting well enough alone." 
 
 One word on the use that has been made of Mr. Webster's decla- 
 ration, that the Wilmot Proviso was useless, because the God of 
 nature has so formed California, New Mexico, etc., that slavery is 
 impossible ; and that we need not reenact the laws of Heaven. 
 The Plon. Mr. Chase, of Ohio, and our own Hon. H. Mann, have 
 both so harped on this string, as to make it produce no very melo- 
 dious sounds. They know of only two powers, and these, as they 
 say, are God and the devil. The laws, then, which are not made 
 under the guidance of the former, must of course be made under 
 the influence of the latter ; — and then they ask : What sort of laws 
 will these be ? I might answer, perhaps, that they would be some- 
 what like the Wilmot Proviso law; but I fear these gentlemen 
 might begin to talk about demanding satisfaction. Quitting this, 
 then — for I am a man of peace — let me ask, in my turn, whether 
 there is any example of a numerous and prosperous slave popula- 
 tion, in any country, like these quondam Mexican States ? Has a 
 man any inducement to keep slaves, where he cannot raise and 
 export enough to pay for their maintenance ? The countries in 
 question are neither sugar nor cotton countries. Tobacco may be 
 
83 
 
 raised, perhaps, in the valleys ; but what luu-^ become of Vii-frinia 
 tobacco-lands? Can slavery ever thrive, where slaves cost more 
 than they can earn ? I know of no such thing. It has not been, 
 and it cannot be ; at least it never can be from choice. 
 
 Of what use is it, then, to occupy four sessions of Congress with 
 the discussion of Provisos, which are directed against what can 
 never happen ? Suppose now tliat Congress should say, by their 
 solemn legislation: We will protect and foster New Mexico and 
 other neighboring Territories, j)rovided tlicy will let water run 
 down hill, and iron be hard, and lead sink in water, and trees and 
 grass grow. Another additional resolve declares, that the new Ter- 
 ritories shall permit the sun to rise, and shall not stop the moon, or 
 the tides, in their course. Would not all this be sapient legislation? 
 Just about as sapient, in my view, as the AVilmot Proviso. How 
 much time, and money, and effort has this absolute nihility cost our 
 country already ! A mere chase after a Jack-o'-lantern is it ; and, 
 like such wandering meteors, it has led us, in the cliase after it, chin- 
 deep into the swamp. And now, while we are foundering about 
 there, some are beginning to open their eyes at last, and perceive, 
 by the time that they are merely half-opened, that they have been 
 pursuing a veritable phantom. But others still say : " We would 
 make assurance doubly sure by the AYilmot Proviso." Assurance of 
 what ? There is not a man in the Union, in his sober senses, but 
 knows, that if Congress vote that Proviso to-day, and to-morrow 
 admit a Territory to become a State, that State luis, from that hour, 
 full power and right to convene the next day, and adopt slavery if it 
 pleases. Wliat is it, then, which is assured ? 
 
 It is impossible to justify clamorous d«Mnand for such a perfect 
 non-entity as said Proviso. Is it not a matter of grave, yea of 
 alarming and melancholy reflection, that the North and South are to 
 be put at irreconcilable variance and hatred, the Union severed, 
 and the country deluged in blood, for such a pragmatic and trithn>i' 
 affair as this? My hope is in (Jod, tliat our national Council will 
 soon view this thing in its proper light, and ail(i|)t tlie wise and salu- 
 tary policy of our chief magistrate. 
 
 Enough, and more than enougli, ot' lliis Proviso. 1 liavc only a 
 few words more to say, on points touching Mr. Webster, and then I 
 shall pass on to anoth<;r part of my tju^k. 
 
 From Dan to Beersheba the changes have been rung, on Mr. 
 
64 
 
 "Webster's omission in his speech, of the topic of the South Carolina 
 law, which imprisons our colored freemen of the North ; and espe- 
 cially his failing to say a word about the treatment which our 
 honored, and well deserving to be honored, fellow citizen (Mr. 
 Hoar) received, in his mission to the aggressive State in question. 
 A few facts I will state in relation to this matter, and then dis- 
 miss it. 
 
 Mr. Webster had selected ten different topics for his speech, and 
 had written out his thoughts to the amount of from two to three 
 sheets on each topic. He carried with him to the Senate Chamberv 
 only a little scrap of paper, on which was merely a notation of each 
 head. He was called on to speak, before he expected to do so ; for 
 others had the right of speaking before him, and he did not suppose 
 they would choose to relinquish that right. Thus situated, and 
 having no time for immediate preparation to commence speaking, he 
 was constrained to begin speaking forthwith, and to go on continu- 
 ously, (a thing which he did not anticipate or mtend). In this 
 pressure, his eye passed over two of the ten topics marked for dis- 
 cussion ; the one was the South Carolina proceedings, the other the 
 territorial boundaries of California. The former he inserted in his 
 Speech as corrected for the press; the other was reserved for 
 another occasion. 
 
 As to inserting, in his printed speech, matter which was not 
 delivered in the Hall of Legislation ; tliis is a thing done every day 
 of the Congressional Session, and no one thinks of objecting to it. 
 But that this affair should be put to the account of Mr. Webster, as 
 an intended bait for the South, and as a currying of favor in that 
 quarter by keeping silence in respect to what was disagreeable to 
 their feelings, and thus making a sub rosa bid for the Presidency — 
 all this is passing strange to me. Silence, forsooth! Silence? 
 when Mr. Webster forthwith published to South and North too, the 
 very thing that he is accused of ignoring. And has it come to this, 
 that such a shallow trick (which is even no trick) at electioneering, 
 which none but a half-witted sciolist in politics could ever play — 
 that such a piece of wonderful cunning, can be attributed to Daniel 
 Webster ? And yet, many of our sapient editors keep up the din 
 about this matter, down to the present hour. I have a strong suspi- 
 cion, that a good part of their credence in this case is subjective. 
 They attribute to Mr. Webster, what they might be apt to have 
 
85 
 
 done tbemst'lvc'S. It will take a long time, lis I hope and appre- 
 hend, before the public can be made to believe, that the Defender 
 of the Constitution pursues a wily, a crooked, a mean, or a con- 
 temptible policy, for the sake of elevation to office. However, the 
 bruit has not yet ceased. It has about as much substance in it aS 
 the Wilmot Proviso, and therefore it is not a matter of any great 
 wonder that the agitation should be kept up, even after the matter is 
 explamed to the satisfaction of every candid mind. 
 
 If any of those concerned in echoing and reechoing such bruits, 
 are desirous of knowing how Mr. "Webster bears up under such an 
 oppressive load as this, I can give them some information, in;israuch 
 as I have seen him, not long since, for a few minutes, and had some 
 conversation on the point in question. "When I witnessed his per- 
 fect calmness and dignified composure, it brought to my mind the 
 story of the Ox and the Fly ; which, if I may be permitted to tell it, 
 will convey to all inquirers on this subject, the information they 
 need, and all that they can reasonably desire. I owe the story to 
 Burke ; but not having his "Works by me, I am obliged to forego 
 the exhibition of his exquisite humor and diction, and to tell the 
 story as well as I can in my own way. The tenor of it runs 
 thus : 
 
 A stately ox, after satisfying himself, on a summer's day, in a 
 luxuriant pasture, repaired to the wide-spread shade of a lofty oak, 
 and there laid himself down, quietly to enjoy his meal a second 
 time, and to prepare it for digestion. In the meanwhile, a buzzing 
 noisy fly, which had also taken shelter under the tree, seeing the 
 soothing quiet of the ox, began to envy him, and finally to m:Uve an 
 effort to annoy him. She lighted on the ox's horn, and there began 
 a furious buzzing and darting about, hoping to rouse her neighbor 
 from liis repose. It was all in vain. She renewed her eflbrts, and 
 made all the racket that such a little creature could miUce. Still, it 
 was all in vain. The noble ox kept on, niminating his jilc;u<ant 
 dinner, and just as quiet as ever. Finally, the fly, dctcnniiiod at 
 all adventures to attract his notice, spake out and said to him : Mr. 
 Ox, I beg leave to say, that if I am troublesome to you, and annoy 
 you, you will be so good as to let me know it, and I will stop buz- 
 zing on your horn. O not at all, IVIiss Fly, said the ox, you have 
 not troubled me at all ; fur I should not so much :is have known you 
 
 8 
 
86 
 
 were there, unless you had taken the pains to tell me. Yerbum sat, 
 etc. 
 
 I think we may now leave Mr. Webster under his overshadowing 
 tree, for the present, where I wish him quiet and undisturbed en- 
 joyment. 
 
 By this time, I begin to fancy that I hear some thousands of 
 voices crying out, and accusing me of being " a Northern man with 
 Southern pripciples." Not a word, they say, have you yet said 
 against tlie South, but all your arrows are aimed at Northerners. 
 It seems as if you had drained out the very hist drop of Northern 
 blood that was in yom* veins. You have turned renegado to your 
 native soil, and have joined the ranks of the slave-holders, and be- 
 come their ajx)logist. 
 
 But wait, my good friends, until I have finished my task, and then 
 you will have a better opportunity to judge. I am now going to 
 say something to my respected fellow citizens of the South ; not 
 indeed in the way of reproach and vituperation and calumny, but in 
 the way of respectful and friendly and faithful expostulation. I am 
 one of those who have come thoroughly to believe, that all weapons 
 in such a warfare, except those of truth and kindness and due 
 respect, ai'e not only unholy and carnal weapons, but also power- 
 less and inefficient. I cannot knowingly consent to employ them. 
 
 As a counterpart to acts of Northern Legislatures forbidding 
 their magistrates to aid in the restoration of fugitive slaves, I pro- 
 duce here a law of South CaroUna, dated Dec. 21, 1822. The 
 second section decides as follows : 
 
 " If any vessel shall come into any port or harbor of this State, from any 
 other State or foreign port, having on board any free negroes, or persons of 
 color, as cooks, stewards, mariners, or in any other employment on board of 
 said vessel, such free negroes or persons of color shall be liable to be seized 
 and confined in jail until said vessel shall clear out and depart from this State ; 
 and that when said vessel is ready to sail, the captain of said vessel shall be 
 bound to carry away the said free negro or free person of color, and to pay the 
 expenses of his detention ; and in case of his neglect or refusal to do so, he 
 shall be liable to be indicted, and on conviction thereof, shall be fined not less 
 than $1,000, and imprisoned not less than two months; and such free negroes 
 or persons of color shall be deemed and taken as absolute slaves, and sold in 
 conformity to the provisions of the act passed Dec. 20, 1820." 
 
 A more recent act of the same State, dated Dec. 18, 1844, declares 
 
87 
 
 that no such person as is described in the preceding act, shall be 
 entitled to the writ of habeas corpus. 
 
 Let us now place by the side of these acts, a part of tlit; Constitu- 
 tion of the United States. 
 
 Art IV. ^ 2. The citizens of each State sliall be entitled to all the privileges 
 and immunities of citizens in the several States. 
 
 Here follows another extract from tlie same Constitution. 
 
 Art. I. § 9, c. 2. The privileirc of the -writ of luiheas corpus shall not he sus- 
 pended, unless when, in cases of rebellion and invasion, the public safety may 
 require it. 
 
 Look first at the severity of the penalty, on the captain of a ves- 
 sel coming into the port of Charleston. One of his colored hands, 
 probably liis cook, is taken without any allegation of crime, or even 
 suspicion, and put in prison ; and if the captain does not take hira 
 away when he sails, and pay all tlie expenses of his detention, he is 
 liable to a fine of not less than SI, 000, and imprisonment for two 
 months. In view of such a process of imprisonment, without judge, 
 or juiy, or allegation of any crime, we may naturally inquire, what 
 the Amendment, Art. V., of the Constitution of the United States 
 says : 
 
 No person .... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or pnjpcrly, without due 
 process of law. 
 
 Due process of law means of course the usual and sanctioned 
 process of examination and commitment for some crime or misde- 
 meanor, by a regular court or mjigistrate. And beyond this ; a law 
 which subjects any one to loss of lifn'rfi/ or proper/j/, must be a 
 valid, constitutional law. If the law of Soutli Carolina, wliidi sub- 
 jects free colored persons to imprisonment, be not a ronsfitufioncd 
 law, then of course no due process can be liad under it. 
 
 Is it then sudi a law? No argument is necessary to show that it 
 is not. " The citizens of each State s/iall be entitled to all the privi- 
 leges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Tlie colored 
 persons wlio go from IMjissachusetts to South Carolina, are in all 
 respects citizens. They can no more be imprisoned without crime 
 or misdemeanor, than a white man who is a citizen can be put in 
 prison. The statute of South Carolinji, then, is a direct, a palpable, 
 
88 
 
 an open violation of the Constitution of the United States ; it is an 
 affront and an injury of the highest and grossest kind to the State 
 of Massachusetts, thus to imprison one of her citizens, and subject 
 him both to the loss of liberty and of property, without any cause 
 whatever, except the color of his skin. 
 
 The crowning part of all, is the suspension of the writ of habeas 
 corpus. Such a thing in Great Britain would overturn the govern- 
 ment. Such a law is bidding defiance to the Constitution of the 
 United States, and to all the principles of Jus Gentium. It has been 
 pronounced, by Judges in the State of South Carolina herself to be 
 unconstitutional. That State was well aware, that she could not 
 stand for an hour before the tribunal of any United States Court. 
 Hence she has refused to let the question of constitutionality be car- 
 ried there. She has expelled one of our most honored and respected 
 citizens, sent by the Massachusetts Legislature to claim our rights 
 and peaceably adjust this matter, without even giving him a hear- 
 ing. And is this treating the citizens of another State, as entitled 
 to all the privileges and immunities of a citizen ? 
 
 But the case needs no argument. No possible defence can be 
 made for such an infraction of all law, of even all the rights of 
 humanity, and (what is no small matter, and a thing which I should 
 least of all have expected from South Carolina), of tlie rights of 
 courtesy. Never, never can South Carolina come to us with a good 
 grace, holding an impeachment against us in her hands, for aiding 
 fugitive slaves, while her hands are reeking with the blood of free- 
 dom. She must cleanse them, before she can point the finger of 
 menace or reproach at us. 
 
 With all due submission to our jurists and legislators, I beg leave 
 to ask, why they have not followed up this matter ? Have they any 
 right silently to suffer their innocent fellow citizens to be treated as 
 criminals ? If South Carolina be in some respects a sovei'eign State, 
 and, like the king of Great Britain, incapable as a State of doing a 
 wrong which is cognizable before courts of justice, yet surely it is in 
 the power of the wronged individual, who is a citizen of Massa- 
 chusetts, to prosecute, before the United States Court there, the 
 sheriff or jailor who deprived him of his liberty and property. If 
 not, then the old maxim of the law, that " for every wrong there is 
 a redress," is not true. In my humble opinion, Massachusetts has no 
 right at all to be silent or inactive in respect to such a matter. The 
 
89 
 
 injustice is so flagrant, that sho is bound to aid a wron;rod citizon to 
 seek redress in Carolina. Surely she must protect her own citizens 
 in the enjoyment of their constitutional rights, or else lose her good 
 name as to impartial justice. 
 
 I am no lawyer ; but if I read aright the Constitution of the United 
 States, Art. IIL § 2, " the judicial power of the United States ex- 
 tends to caitses between citizetis of different Stales." "What then 
 hinders the imprisoned man from instituting a process for dejiriva- 
 tion of liberty and property, before the United States Court in 
 Carolina, against the sheritF or jailor? Their defence would be, 
 that they had acted under the law of their State. But this law has 
 already been decided to be unconstitutional, even by their own 
 Court, and with good reason. Of course, then, the State law is 
 null and void, and therefore it can protect no one who acts under it. 
 K an appeal is taken from the District to the Supreme Court, by the 
 sheriff or jailor, so much the better. This is the very thing that Mas- 
 sachusetts most of all desires. The question will then receive an tdti- 
 mate decision. K the decision be, as it certainly would be, against 
 the constitutionality of the Carohna law, then has Massachusetts a 
 guaranty of her rights in the United States Executive, who is bound 
 to see that the decision of the Supreme Court is enforced. In this 
 way, it will come about, that South Carolina has not to contend with 
 Massachusetts, but with the whole power of the general Govern- 
 ment. The repeal of such an utterly indefensible law. must of 
 course be the necessary sequence. 
 
 I repeat it once more in the ears of our General Court, that to 
 my humble capacity it seems plainly to be their duty, to see that 
 the Carolina question be settled by the highest tribunal in the coun- 
 try. Our peaceable citizens are not to be torn from their lawful 
 business, and incarcerated, and subjected to large expenses and loss 
 of time, while we stand by with our arms folded, saying: "Will the 
 Lord do good, or will the Lord do evil ? 
 
 I advocate proceedings in this case, on the very ground of peace 
 and ultimate concord and unity. These can never liave a |)lace, 
 while causes of bickering and complaint are every day occurring. 
 The causes themselves must be removed. They should be removed 
 peaceably, and in an orderly manner, and in a final ami eouchisive 
 one. \Miat other way so peaceable, so decorous, so pi-oini-ing :is to 
 success, as to bring the whole matter before the Supreme Tribunal 
 8* 
 
90 
 
 of our Republic ? If Carolina refuses, why need that hinder us 
 from proceeding in our duty ? Let the first colored man of our 
 State, who is illegally seized and imprisoned, without any other 
 crime than the color of his skin, be encouraged and sustained in 
 brinsing an action before the District United States Court in Caro- 
 lina, and let the Commonwealth to which he belongs, see to it that 
 the process is maintained and carried to the Supreme Court. We 
 have then done with the quarrel ; and to the President of the 
 United States, our Executive, it belongs, to see that the judgment 
 of the Court is respected. He may be safely entrusted with such a 
 matter. 
 
 While I am writing this paragraph, the New York Observer is 
 brought to me, which contains a letter from a " Southern Clergy- 
 man," (I presume of Charleston), which undertakes to defend the 
 constitutionality of the South Carolina law. As it touches the gist of 
 the question, and contains undoubtedly the sentiments of the leading 
 politicians in that city, with respect to the obnoxious law, I think it 
 proper for a moment to dwell on the main positions which it as- 
 sumes. He says, (1) That ' South Carolina has an exclusive right 
 to determine citizenship for itself.' Very well; I accede. (2) That 
 ' such being the case, she is not bound to deal any better with free col- 
 ored persons from abroad, than with her own free colored population. 
 These,' he goes on to say, ' when they go out of the State, and 
 attempt to return, are warned off; and if they do not obey, they are 
 taken and subjected to corporeal punishment [i. e. whipping] ; and 
 if they still refuse to go, they are to be sold as slaves.' So ? The fact 
 that there is such a law is true ; but how does this prove, that a cit- 
 izen of another State is to be treated in the same manner as the free 
 colored men of South Carolina are ? These are not citizens in that 
 State, they have no right of franchise. Now what does the Consti- 
 tution of the United States say? It says, that "the citizens of each 
 State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens 
 in the several States." When this is said, the meaning plainly is 
 not, that a citizen of Massachusetts can go to Carolina, and claim to 
 vote there, or set up himself as a candidate for office. These are 
 merely specialities and appendages of citizenship, but not the essence 
 of it. The essence is defined in the Declaration of Independence, 
 viz. " an inalienable right to life, liberty and property." This right 
 the Massachusetts citizen, although a colored man, possesses as truly 
 
91 
 
 and fully as any white man. \Il' \s a cilizcti in the eonstiiutionftl 
 sense of that worth Of what use is it tlien, for the " Southern Cler- 
 gyman" to tell us, in the way of appeasing our dislike towards the 
 South Carolina law, that she treats our free colored persons as well 
 as she does her own ? And how does she treat her own ? They are 
 not citizens, but a kind of non-deseript animals, a genus monstrosum. 
 But how can she transmute our citizens into this genus ? She has 
 no control over our citizenship. The Constitution of the United 
 States demands of her, that she shall treat our ctiizeris, as she does 
 her oion citizens, not as she treats her own n(jn-descripts. The right 
 of a colored citizen in Mju<sachusetts to life, libcrtij, and property, in 
 South Carolina, or any other State, is just the same as that of her 
 own citizens. Notliing but what is local, and which pertains pecu- 
 liarly to the civil government of South Carolina, with which a 
 stranger of course cannot intermeddle, can be exempted from the 
 demands of the United States Constitution. 
 
 It is strange that men of sense, like this " Southern Clergyman," 
 can overlook the evident paralogism which is contained in such rea- 
 soning. But, (3) He employs another argument, viz. the right and 
 duty of self-defence and self-preservation. This right, he avers, is 
 inherent and inahenable. Certainly, I reply, if it is reasonably and 
 humanely exercised. But this is an important, yea, an essential 
 condition. The danger must be plainly great and nearly certain, 
 before we have a right to deprive others of liberty, and subject them 
 to fines and imprisonment. But how is Carolina to make out this 
 part of her case ? I cannot see. Is the arrival at Charleston of a 
 few colored persons, cooks in vessel-cabins, otfensive or iuotfensive 
 though they be, a thing to be so dreaded, as to call forth all the 
 thunder of State artillery to stay the threatening evil ? lUit our 
 " Southern Clergyman," says : " "We oidy have tiie right to judge 
 who are dangerous persons, and to prohibit their coming among us." 
 Be it so ; yet that right, as I have already said, must be reasonably 
 exercised, in order to be respected. "What if Carolina should say : 
 "We will not suffer an Abolitionist to come among us, be he Avhite 
 or black." Is Judge Jay, or the Hon. C. F. Adams, or the Hon. 
 Horace Mann, to be taken up ami i)Ut in jail, on tlieir arrival at 
 Charleston? Yet according to our "Clergyman," South Carolina 
 can do this, if she plea-^es. I doubt not she would do it, if she dare. 
 At all events, she might do it with just as nuich right, in e\ery point 
 of view, as to do what she is now doing. 
 
92 
 
 But there is another point of view, which the " Clergyman " 
 seems not to have considered. What sort of a confessioii is this, 
 which is pleaded as an apology for the law in question ? Simply 
 this, viz., that the State of South Carolina is in imminent danger, 
 (for nothing less than this can be a valid apology), of being over- 
 turned, or thrown into domestic war, by the arrival of a few dozen 
 of colored persons from the North, who are cooks and sailors. Is 
 this so ? Then is this one of the most cogent arguments against 
 slavery, that I have ever yet heard. How in danger ? Certainly 
 not from a few cooks and scullions. No, not in the least. But the 
 combustible material is within the edifice of the State, and it needs 
 no more than a cook or a sailor to fire a train, which will blow up 
 the whole building. That is the danger. Our bretliren of the South 
 tell us, in conversation and in their journals, that they have not the 
 least fear in the world of the negroes. Why then such precautions 
 as these, which go even to trampling under foot the rights of their 
 neighbors, and violating the Constitution of the United States which 
 South Carolina has sworn to support ? They are not afraid, for- 
 sooth ! So said a gentleman from the South, not long since, to a 
 friend of mine, who asked him, whether he did not sometimes fear 
 that danger was nigh. Not in the least, said he. Afraid ? No ; for 
 every night, when I go to bed, I take care to have a double-barrelled 
 gun, a cutlass, and a six-barrel revolving Colt's pistol, at the head of 
 my bed. What should I be afraid of? But what, rejoined my 
 friend, if the blacks should set fire to your house in the dead of 
 nio'ht, when you are asleep ? This question seemed somewhat to 
 embarmss the gentleman ; but at length he rallied a little, and 
 replied : They are too great cowards to do any such mischief. 
 
 My friend did not press him with any further questions. Had I 
 been there, I could have suggested to the gentleman from the South, 
 some reasons for abating the confidence which he manifested in his 
 last reply — reasons dra^vn from what I personally witnessed, some 
 25 or more years ago, in Charleston. I arrived there a few weeks 
 after the plan of an insurrection of the blacks had been concerted, 
 and was within one day of being executed. The plan was, to set the 
 city on fire in all parts simultaneously, in the dead of night ; to mas- 
 sacre the whites in detail, as they came out of their houses ; and 
 then to take possession of all the shipping in the harbor, and compel 
 or bribe the masters on board of the vessels, to carry them off to St. 
 
93 
 
 Domingo. A servant, who had been treated as a child, out of com- 
 passion to his master and liis family, hetraycd the secret of tlie con- 
 spirators. The leaders were forthwith apprehended, and speedy 
 execution followed. , Some 20 or 25 were hung before I left the 
 North. But, for some two weeks before I left home, the papers had 
 ceased to give us any more intelligence respecting the conspirators. 
 When I arrived at Charleston, one of the magistrates of that city took 
 me to his home, Avith the noble hospitality which characterizes the in- 
 habitants of that city. From a room where we sat conversing, the next 
 day after my arrival, there were visible soni»? hillocks of sand, of con- 
 siderable height and extent. Pointing to them my friend said : Do 
 you see that highest hillock ? Yes, said I. There, said he, were 
 executed our insurgent blacks. Well, I rejoined, and how did the 
 black population behave, who went to witness the execution ; and 
 how did the criminals demean themselves ? Behave ? said he. why 
 they marched by my house by thousands, in perfect triumph. They 
 sung ; they danced ; they shouted, so as to make the welkin ring. 
 And the criminals ? said I. As to them, replied he, they considered 
 themselves as martyrs to the glorious cause of liberty ; and so did 
 all the procession. They ascended the scaffold exultingly, and 
 shouting as if their masters were within hearing, they said : Now we 
 are going to have freedom, the glorious liberty of the children of 
 Grod, and you can no more deprive us of that. But how is it, said 
 I, that not a word has been said in your journals, for these three 
 weeks, about the conspirators ? For a very cogent reason, replied 
 he, for we found that all the best servants in the city, male and 
 female, were coming forward, and accusing themselves iis partners in 
 the conspiracy, even those who were as innocent of it as the child 
 unborn. The spirit of martyrdom had got among them, and they 
 had a burning thirst for the honors of a martyr's death, who per- 
 ishes in the cause of liberty. The gentleman himself, i. e. my friend, 
 had two slaves, man and wife, who were inherited by the mistress of 
 the house, and who had been tempted to go to Liberia by ofT'ering to 
 them their freedom and SoOO besides, and yet they would not look 
 at the offer. " Massa," said they, ''you better care for us, than we 
 for ourselves ; we cannot go." I (loul)t not, from what I saw myself, 
 that there are many such masters and mistresses in the South. 
 
 During all my stay in the city, not a black man could appear in 
 the streets, after evening twilight commenced, without a p» nnit in 
 
94 
 
 his hand from his master. The city-guard was trebled and quadru- 
 pled. No man could exempt himself from the duty of a watchman ; 
 not even the ministers of the gospel or the magistrates. Dr. Pal- 
 mer, a highly respectable minister of the first Presbyterian church 
 there, told me that the magistracy would not sufier him to hire a 
 substitute. Gov. Hayne himself went the rounds of a watchman's 
 duty, and supervised the whole. 
 
 And what does all this mean now ? That they were not afraid ? 
 Why private watchmen of individual houses, in addition to the pub- 
 lic ones, were employed every night, in places where danger might 
 lurk. How long this state of things continued, I know not, for my 
 stay there was only brief But my feelings were much wrought 
 upon by the state of that city. How often did I say to myself: " For 
 all the wealth that sinews bought and sold have ever earned," I 
 would not subject myself to such a condition ! 
 
 What hold now can any community have, on a population like 
 these blacks, so excitable, so enthusiastic, so capable of being wrought 
 up to a desperate fury, and mthal so ignorant, and incapable of feel- 
 ing any moral restraint ? At that very time, there was a law of 
 Carolina, that no black should be taught to read ; and of course the 
 influence of the Bible could not be summoned to the aid of peace 
 and good order. But here the Legislature had invaded the high 
 prerogatives of Heaven's Court. Their law was unlawful, antichris- 
 tian, and utterly inexpedient even on the ground of prudence. A 
 more dangerous policy could not be pursued. It was fore-closing all 
 moral restraint upon the blacks. It was commanding masters to do, 
 what Heaven has forbid their doing. " Search the Scriptures " is 
 as much addressed to the colored man, as to the white ; and the 
 command is equally binding in every case where obedience is possi- 
 ble. Dr. Palmer told Gov. Hayne, that he should not obey that 
 law. Through inheritance his wife owned two slaves, and they had 
 children, who were under his care. He taught them all to read. He 
 told the Governor so; and he, in his gentlemanly and noble-hearted 
 manner replied : Well, Doctor, we are not afraid that you will teach 
 them anything bad. Do as you please, only keep it to yourself 
 
 But to return : what now if the Union be severed, and a civil war 
 ensues, (as it certainly will in case of severance), and the blacks 
 everywhere have arms put into their hands, and are encouraged to 
 revolt ? What must become of all those places where the colored 
 
95 
 
 population constitute by far the greater i>ortion of the community? 
 Think of St. Domingo, of Guiana, of Northampton county in Vir- 
 ginia, and other places. But no ; I cannot think of these without 
 disturbing my peace. "Would God, that jill my countrymen were 
 free from all danger, even the most distant, of such scenes as were 
 there enacted ! 
 
 I have been thus far implicating South Carolina in the charge of 
 having made a law, which is opposed to the Constitution of the 
 United States, and to mutual brotherhood and mutual rights between 
 the different States. I take it that Louisiana has had the same law ; 
 but for many years I have heard nothing of it, and therefore must 
 presume that it is repealed. But after all, let us of the North remem- 
 ber, that South Carolina does not stand alone. Xorthem States, in 
 some instances, have as really, although not so fl;igrantly, stood up 
 in the face of the Constitution. What else is the law of Ohio, and (I 
 believe) of some other States, and the hoped-for law even of our new 
 would-be free Sister, California, but a breach of the Constitution ? 
 These States declare, that no free blacks shall come to them, and 
 settle among them. What says the Constitution ? It says that the 
 citizens of each State shall have the same privileges and immunities^ 
 as belong to the citizens of the States to which they may come, while 
 Ohio and other States, say : ' Xo colored freemen shall ever come 
 among us to settle down.' "\Miat difference there is, now, as to prin- 
 ciple, between this legislation and the Carolina law, I cannot see. It 
 cannot be made out. 
 
 Let Northerners then cast out the beam from their own eye, be- 
 fore they cry out at the mote in the eye of South Carolina. Cer- 
 tain it is, that Ohio has immeasurably less ai)ology, (with her views, 
 her light, and her circumstances), for her Acts, than Carolina for 
 hers. 
 
 I now take my leave of South Ciu-olina in particular ; luid in what 
 else I have to say about slavery, I say it in respect to all the 
 slaveholding States in common. But I cannot take my leave of 
 her, witliout testifying my deep conviction, that there arc not, in any 
 State in the Union, among tlie uj)pcr chvsses of men, in general, 
 persons of more generous feeling, more abounding hospitality, more 
 gentlemanly comity and courtesy, more high-soulcd chivalry, and 
 more ardent love and pride of country, tlian are to be found in this 
 State. Add to all this, that she has within her a large number of 
 
96 
 
 true and warm-hearted Christians. I have been acquainted with 
 not a few of her citizens, and can bear personal testimony, as far as 
 my experience goes, and I can truly say of her : " With all thy faults, 
 I love thee still." 
 
 There are some other topics which I wish to dispose of, before I 
 come to my expose of what I deem to be the fundamental and irre- 
 pealable enactment or principle of the New Testament doctrine, in 
 regard to the matter of slavery. I shall be very brief as to these 
 previous topics. 
 
 I do not see but that the South and the North have about equal 
 ground of complaint, as to the journals and periodicals of the day. 
 I do not think there is any room to be worse than many of them are, 
 on both sides. I do not believe that this comes from the fact, that 
 the editors in general are worse than any other class of men. They 
 are everywhere goaded on by partisans, who are aspirants to popu- 
 lar favor. They must yield, or else give up their journal or maga- 
 zine. Some of them, however, need no spurring on. Every few 
 days we hear of duels among these hot-headed gentry. The only 
 pity is, that nailing to each end of a chest, as is sometimes practised 
 by boxers, is not a part of the law of duelling ! Our blessed Eepub- 
 lic would, in this way, be rid of some of the most formidable adver- 
 saries to its peace, that it has at present in its bosom. 
 
 I am certain that nothing can exceed some of our New England 
 journals — some even in the very heart of this Northern domain. 
 I seldom see Southern papers, except in the way of extracts ; and 
 there is a plenty of these, which would make any Northerner's 
 blood boil, who has not the mastery over his spirit, and who does hot 
 also know, that certain animals which bark loudest and longest, sel- 
 dom have courage to do much mischief. 
 
 But to extend these remarks in respect to either side, over the 
 whole editorial corps, would be great injustice ; such surely as I 
 shall never be guilty of. There are certainly not a few of able and 
 gentlemanly and peace-making journals ; and I am exceedingly 
 rejoiced to see and know it. As to the violent ones, nothing but 
 extremities will satisfy them. All their own points must be car- 
 ried ; and that to the very extreme. If the reign of terror does not 
 soon follow, it will be no thanks to them. They are doing all in 
 their power to hasten it. And all this under the specious pretence 
 of claiming right on one side, and liberty on the other. Talk of 
 
97 
 
 right and liherty! So did the Sans Culottes of Paris in 1703, A 
 friend of my early days was in Paris, when Danton, Kohcspicrre, 
 and Marat were in the zenith of their power. He had considerable 
 acquaintance among the Girondist party. "When they fell, the 
 guillotine was summoned to new energies. Sixty or seventy in a 
 day were its usual victims. Come, said a French friend to him, one 
 day after its energies had been put to their utmost stretch — come, 
 let us go to the Place de Guillotine to-day, and see how our friends 
 the Girondists fare. They went. The first thing which my friend 
 saw, was the gigantic tri-colored banner of the so-called Republic. 
 On this was emblazoned, in most conspicuous letters, Lihkkty and 
 Equality. Soon the heads began to be rolled off from the scaf- 
 fold. Pray, said my friend to his companion, after witnessing the 
 execution of his Girondist friends as lung as he could bear it — 
 pray, what sort of liberty do you call this ? Liberty, Sir, replied he 
 — Liberty ? Why it is liberty to think as the Director)- do, or else 
 to lose our heads. Our liberty is the choice that we have between 
 these two. 
 
 Very much like to this, at present, is the liberty of sober, mode- 
 rate, and peace-loving men throughout our country, wliether they 
 live among the fanatics of the North, or among those of the South. 
 It is time, it is high time, that the sober, earnest, patriotic, peace- 
 loving, law-{ibiding, and truce-keeping part of our community, should 
 rise in the majesty of virtue and united strength, and frown into 
 insignificance the Ledru Rollins and Prudhommes who infest our 
 country, and are preying upon its vitals. 
 
 One word as to some men, not unlike these in character, who 
 occupy higher stations, and even find a place in our national Senate 
 and House of Representatives. What painful, what shocking words 
 have we heard from sOme of them, during the past winter I These 
 are the men to carry with them dirks and revolving ])istols, ami to 
 produce them (hide thy face, O sun, and look not on it!) in (lie halls 
 of legislation. Catiline himself would dwindle into a dwarf-agitator, 
 in comparison with tlicm. These are (he men to thn-atfi), and to 
 swa"-"'er, and to bully, and to brandish dirks, in order (o scare the 
 poor Northerners out of their wits, and to suspend by a hair, over 
 the heads of all who are oppf)sed to slavery, (he drawn sword of 
 Union-dissolution. These are the men to compare our Nortliem 
 laborei-s witli (lie slaves of the Soutli, and linld up (lie latter a^ 
 
 9 
 
98 
 
 superiors. And like to them are some of the North also ; men who 
 would hang the apostle Paul for sending back a fugitive slave; men 
 who can seldom utter a word about the subject of slavery without 
 a tirade against all slave-holders, or talk of anything but lashes, and 
 starvation, and Bt'uins ; men who scruple not to call every mode- 
 rate peaceable man of the North, a coward, a renegado, a betrayer 
 of his country, a base deserter to the South, a caterer for good 
 opinion there, and the like. Such are the profanum vulgus of high 
 places, of whom, if one must not say Odi, he may venture to say 
 Arceo. It is such men, on both sides, that for the present moment 
 have got the public ear, and are attempting to ride on the whirl- 
 wind they have raised), who, if they are not put down, are soon to 
 steep our soil with blood, and to fill our land with widows and 
 orphans. It will not do for those who love their country, love 
 peace, love their neighbor although he may have some faults, to fold 
 their arms, and wait in silence the approach of the desolating tor- 
 nado. It is their solemn, imperious duty, to rise in the majesty of 
 their strength, and present a united host, which shall scatter to the 
 winds these reckless and boisterous destructives. 
 
 Just at the moment of finishing this paragraph, I received another 
 anonymous admonition. My worthy correspondent shows himself 
 to be an ardent Free-Soiler; and as some one has informed him 
 that I am opposed to insisting on the Wilmot Proviso, and am writ- 
 ing against it, he grows warm in the expression of his feelings, and 
 asks me several (I will not say impertinent, but rather bold) ques- 
 tions. They run thus : " Who and what are yoti ? And what have 
 you to do in the discussion of questions that belong to Jurists and 
 Legislators ? I would, with all due respect, invite you to take the 
 old warning into consideration : Ne sutor ultra crepidamy 
 
 I will give a very brief answer. (I) " ^Yho are you?" I am a 
 citizen of the United States, the most glorious Republic that the sun 
 ever shone upon. (2) " What are you?" Ans. Nothing extraor- 
 dinai'y, but like most New England men, who love peace and good 
 order and the perpetual union of all the States. I have in my veins 
 some of the blood which has flowed in the veins of the old Coven- 
 anters, in the time of Mary Queen of Scots and James the First of 
 England, and which is still flowing in the veins of some of the Free 
 Church party in Scotland. Just before I saw the light, the British 
 troops, who burned Danbury in Connecticut, passed by my mother's 
 
99 
 
 door, while slie kopt at liomt' witlioiit attonipting to fly. Mv faflicr 
 was summoned to tlie army, but tlio state of his family oI)li'jt'(l him 
 to hire a substitute. Near my home, a stragirler from tli<^ British 
 army for the purpose of pillajring a house, was shot down by the 
 owner, and the gun (yclep'd Kind's Arms) which he had, was bought 
 by my father, and used by me in all my boyish hunting excui>i(>ns. 
 Often, while I had it in my liaiuls, did 1 listen to the stories of those 
 who had been in the battles of the Revolution ; and my young blood 
 coursed swiftly through my veins, while I heard narration.s about 
 resistance to English oppression. For half a centin-y have I been a 
 citizen of the Union; and what I ardently admired and loved in 
 youth, I have continued to admire and love in riper, in maturer, and 
 in old age. By the favor of heaven, " I am ir/iat lam " — a repub- 
 lican, a Unionist, from the crown of my head to the soles of my 
 feet. 
 
 (3) As to the warning, (which, when translated, runs thus : Cob- 
 bler, do not go beyond your last), I bow in submission to old Horace's 
 authority ; for there was more in him, than what any other half 
 dozen of the Roman poets would make, if they were distilled and 
 their essence combined into one. But then, there is a diiference, 
 you know, in the size of lasts ; and Horace only says, that no one 
 should go beyond his own la^t. Perhaps I have fiiiled, in respect to 
 finding out the size of mine. Still, in the discussions of Jurist,s, it 
 sometimes happens, that plain common sense, untrammelled by tech- 
 nics, may make a suggestion that may be useful. Far enough am 
 I, from assuming a place among the jurisconsults, or wishing to 
 invade their province. But I claim a right to utter my humble 
 opinion, when and where I feel a deep interest for my country's wel- 
 fare. And if jurisconsults, who are warm partisans, happen to rea<l 
 my remarks adunro naso. I shall neither wonder nor be oflended. 
 Even if they are of the opinion, that I have betrayed my ignoninee 
 of political and legal matters, still 1 beg them to call to min.l. that a 
 Phidias, the immortal statuary of Athens, was criticise<l upon to 
 excellent purpose bv a colibler. who pointed out a defect in the san- 
 dals of his magnificent stalu<'-god. If I can do no more than this 
 even this is doing something. 
 
 At any rate, I write neither for fame nor for otlice. I am altH)t 
 from all partisan views, and have no incense to offer with those who 
 cry out: Great is Diana of the Kj-hesians! My opinions are not 
 
100 
 
 formed or uttered, with a view to any office which the people can 
 bestow ; and I have no inducements to flatter the multitude, nor any 
 special reasons to fear their deafening noise. This is more, than 
 many a member of our national council can say with truth. 
 
 And when my unknown correspondent very politely suggests, 
 that I must remember that I am nothing more than a country par- 
 son, I have the pleasure of telling him that I wish for nothing more. 
 There is not a class of men on earth, to which I would rather 
 belong than to this one ; which, however, he evidently means to 
 depreciate. There is not on earth a more honorable employment 
 than theirs ; nor is there a class of men more useful, more honorable 
 in the best sense of the word, more pious, or more patriotic than 
 they. Let my lot be with theirs, and heaven knows that I shall 
 deem it " a goodly heritage." 
 
 But we must, for the present, dismiss these themes, in oi'der to 
 come to the most solemn and important part of all that I have to 
 discuss, viz., The attitude in which the radical principles of Chris- 
 tianity now place slavery. 
 
 I shall be very biief ; for all that I wish to quote from the records 
 of Christianity may be written on the palm of one's hand. I need, 
 and shall quote, only four texts. 
 
 Matt. 22: .39. And the second [great commandment] is : Thou shalt lovb 
 
 THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF. 
 
 Matt. 7: 12. Whatsoever ye would that mex should do to you, do 
 
 YE even so TO them. 
 
 Acts 17: 26. [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men, for 
 TO dwell on all the face of the earth. 
 
 Rom. 3: 29. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is hi: not also op 
 
 THE GENTILES 1 YeS, OF THE GENTILES ALSO. 
 
 To these I might add a very significant text in Eph. 2: 14 : " For 
 he [Christ] is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken 
 down the middle wall of partition between us," i. e. between Jews 
 and Gentiles. 
 
 These then are the texts, from which I entreat my friends and 
 brethren of the South to let me deliver a short discourse in their 
 hearing. 
 
 Christ has declared all men to be our neighbors. We are to love 
 them as ourselves. Love to ourselves is permitted, (not selfishness), 
 and it is taken for granted that we shall exercise it. If we do our 
 
101 
 
 whole duty, we shall as sincerely desire tin- luippiness and prospe- 
 rity of our neighbor, as we do our own, ;ind retrain from everything 
 that will interfere with it. 
 
 Our second text is an excellent commentary on the first, and 
 shows how the proper love of our neighbor will develop itself, when 
 reduced to practice. It is a^ plain as any commentary can possibly 
 make it, and needs not a word of explanation. 
 
 I solemnly invite now my friends and fellow citizens to ponder on 
 these texts. It is impossible for any man to suy, that he does as he 
 would be done by, in case he subjects his neighbor, a human being, 
 to slavery. This is not — cannot be — loving our neighbor, or 
 doing as we would be done by. Is there a man in all the South, 
 who is a voluntary holder of slaves, or trallieker in them, who can 
 lay his hand on his heart, and look up to heaven, and, appealing to 
 the God of love and Justice who reigns there, say : I am doing to 
 others as I would be done by, when I compel my fellow beings to 
 labor all their lives for my ease and comfort, without any reward or 
 even a hope of remuneration ? Is there one, in that position, who 
 can sincerely say, that he loves his neighbor as himself, when he 
 degrades him from the rank of a human being, and places him in 
 the rank of goods and chattels ; when he cuts oil' all hope of rising 
 to the possession of any propei'ty, or of acquiring any education, or 
 of sustaining even the sacred relations of husband and wife, parent 
 and child, brother and sister ? There is not a man in all the South, 
 (that believes there is a God and a Bible of sacred authority), who 
 would dare to say this, in presence of that God who is no respecter 
 of persons. This is enough. This test is better than a thousand 
 arguments, and I solemnly and aHectionately invite all men, who 
 expect soon to appear betbre the tribunal of Eternal Justice, to put 
 themselves to this test. 
 
 Will it be said, by any, that the African is not a proper man, but 
 an inferior species of animal between a monkey and a man. and 
 therefore we may enslave him, as we do the lower animals ? It so, 
 (and this has often been said), then does our third text directly c(»>i- 
 tradict this: God has made of one blood. Besides, Paul has 
 elsewhere declared in the most explicit miumer, that by the offence 
 of Adam all men were made sinners, (Rom. 5: I'J) : »dso that in 
 Adtun all have died, (1 Cor. 15: 22). There is one (Jml, one Medi- 
 ator, one Sanctifier of all. Even if the Scriptures hud not decided 
 
 9* 
 
102 
 
 the point of homogeneous origin, nature speaks it out, in very intelli- 
 gible language. It is an irreversible law of nature, that different 
 species cannot amalgamate and form a new one, to which the law of 
 continual propagation attaches. But men of all classes and colors 
 can and do commingle and propagate. Beyond this, facts demonstrate 
 the thing in question. The Jews in Malabar are black ; in China, 
 Tartarian ; in Palestine and its neighborhood, of olive hue ; in Ger- 
 many and the north of Europe, they commonly have a wliite delicate 
 skin, and light hair with blue eyes. Climate changes pyramidal 
 skulls to elliptical ones, woolly hair to long Caucasian hair. The 
 hair on the heads of the negro, is real hair, and not wool, as chem- 
 istry demonstrates. These facts are all certain ; and being so, they 
 prove that the difference of races is occasioned by climate and adven- 
 titious causes, and not by diversity of origin. 
 
 I take it that Pritchard, and his Reviewer in the Edinburgh Quar- 
 terly, and Balbi, and Adelung, and Mr. Owen of the British Museum, 
 have placed the question about the unity of the human race, as to 
 origin, on a foundation never to be shaken. I have seen, indeed, 
 with deep regret, an opinion of Prof. Agassiz diverse from this, as 
 announced at the late literary meeting in Charleston, S. Carolina. 
 No one more highly respects his talents and skill, than myself. But 
 with the Bible in my hands, and as a believer of its teachings, it is 
 absolutely impossible for me to accede to his views. They are not 
 indeed like those mentioned above, in one very important respect. 
 They do not degrade any portion of men below proper humanity ; 
 and this is probably the salvo in the mind of the Professor, which 
 keeps him from feeling that he is arrayed against the Bible. The 
 decisive maimer in which he has spoken out against the transmutation 
 theory of the author of Vestiges of the Creation, and of the impos- 
 sibility of one genus passing into another, shows that he is no athe- 
 ist. May I respectfully solicit, that he would investigate the Sacred 
 Record with as much impartiality and candor and thoroughness as 
 he has the Book of Nature ? If he should, I feel certain that he 
 would come to no other conclusion than that stated above, and de- 
 fended by comparative anatomists of the highest rank. Most assur- 
 edly the Bible must be ignored, by any one who concludes that there 
 is a diversity of origin among the human race. 
 
 The intellectual and moral constitution of mankind establishes a 
 unity of the race beyond all reasonable question. There is no per- 
 
103 
 
 ceptible difference, excepting that which circuinstanccs have brought 
 about, between black, and yellow, and white, and red men. Were not 
 such men as Origen, and Clement of Alexandria, and Cyi»rian, and 
 Athanasius, and Arius, and Jerome, and Augustine, and others like 
 them, Africans ? Not Guinea negroes indeed, but still with hair and 
 skin approaching somewhat near to theirs. And were not the Jews 
 of the yellow-brown hue? Yet intellect sj)rings up in nearly equal 
 mea^sures, whei-ever it is cultivated aiid called forth. And a^ to all 
 the sympathies of father and mother, husband and wife, brother and 
 sister, they are everywhere the same, when equally cultivated. But 
 what is the most decisive of all, is, there is the same moral sense, the 
 same perception of good and evil, the same conscience, the same fear 
 of the wrath to come, the same feeling of the necessity of forgive- 
 ness, the same hopes of eternal blessedness, the same God and 
 Father, the same Redeemer, and the same Sanctitier. If all these 
 in common do not denote a common origin and unity of the race, I 
 do not know how anything of this nature can be proved. And if all 
 this be true, then, for one part of mankind to enslave another, stands 
 on the simple ground of might prevailing over rigid. Neither the 
 law of love, nor doing as we would be done by, permits any man to 
 act on such a ground, and be guiltless before God. 
 
 But we will, for a moment, look at the other nnbiblical, if not anli- 
 Mblical, theory. It maintains that the Caucasian race are superior 
 in origin as well as talent. Be it so, for argument's sake. Then 
 where is the liberality, the generosity, the kindness of the stronger, 
 in oppressing and degrading the weaker? It seems as if all these 
 virtues were calling upon the stronger, to treat the weaker and 
 degraded with all possible kindness and tenderness, and to make all 
 practicable effort to elevate them in the scale of civilization and 
 refinement. This is what the gospel demands. It is what Jesus 
 came down from heaven to accomplisli ; and tliat same divine Lord 
 and Master requires all his disciples to walk in his steps. 
 
 No principle of Christianity can ever be violated with impunity. 
 Heaven has ordained that the way of transgressors should be hard. 
 Accordingly, the evils of slavery develop themselves in a manner 
 not to be mivstaken. Let us c^ost but a single glance upon them, and 
 it may suffice for our present purpose. 
 
 (1) It is a glaring contradiction of the first and tumhunental 
 principle, not only of the Bible which declares that all are of one 
 
104 
 
 Hood, but of our Declaration of Independence, which avers, that all 
 men are born with an inherent and inalienable right to life, liberty, 
 and property. The South have unanimously subscribed this, as well 
 as the North. 
 
 (2) As existing among us, slavery has taken its worst form ; it 
 degrades men made in the image of their God and Redeemer, into 
 brute-beasts, or (which makes them still lower) converts them into 
 mere goods and chattels. 
 
 (3) In this form of slavery, all the sacred social relations of life 
 are destroyed. Husband and wife, parent and child, brother and 
 sister, are not known in law, nor protected nor cognized by it. In 
 conformity with this, these relations are every day severed by some 
 slave-dealers, without regard to the feelings of the wretched beings 
 who are torn asunder ; and all their parental, conjugal, and filial sym- 
 pathies are the subject of scorn if not of derision. No invasion of 
 human rights can be worse than this ; none more directly opposed to 
 the will of God, inscribed upon the pages of the Scriptures, and on 
 the very natui'e of mankind. 
 
 (4) As the inevitable consequence of this, the mass of slaves must 
 live, and do live, in a virtual state of concubinage ; which, so far 
 from being restrained, is often encouraged for the sake of increasing 
 slave-property. 
 
 (5) Ignorance profound, and nearly universal, is the inevitable 
 lot of the great mass of all who are held in bondage. In some of 
 the States, the learning even to read is forbidden ; thus contravening, 
 with a high hand, the command of Heaven to " search the Scrip- 
 tures." In such a case, obedience to a human law is crime ; it is 
 treason against the Majesty of heaven and earth. 
 
 (6) The inevitable consequence of all this is, that the young 
 females, ignorant and without a sense of delicacy implanted and 
 cherished, are at the mercy of their masters, young and old. And 
 although the accusation of universal pollution among the masters of 
 the South, is far from being true, yet one cannot walk the streets of 
 any large town or city in a slave-holding State, without seeing such 
 a multitude of mulattos, mestitzos, quadroons, etc., as proves, beyond 
 all possible question, a widely diffused profligacy and licentiousness. 
 It is in vain to deny it. There they are, stamped by heaven with 
 the indelible marks of their polluted origin — a spectacle which 
 might make the sun to blush as he looks down upon them. I know 
 
105 
 
 well that this is a delicate subject I know well also, that universal 
 and indiscriminate charges of this nature, extended to the wliolc of 
 the Southern masters, would be utterly fidse. But I have heard so 
 much testimony in relation to this subject, from ministers of the 
 gospel and Christians wlio live and belong tliere, that it is impossi- 
 ble for me to doubt. With my own eyes liave I seen the proofs of 
 what I have alleged, in regard to the ditlerent classes of mulattos 
 — proofs so ample that no room was left for douljt. 
 
 Besides; it is not in the nature of things, that this should be 
 otherwise. Young men in the strength of pa?sion, rendered more 
 intense by a warm climate, having young females at. their command, 
 and none to protect or avenge them when seduced, cannot, in any 
 country be kept from licentiousness. They begin it as soon as they 
 are capable ; and they continue it, in very many cases, even through 
 life — through a married life as well as a single one. Of course the 
 females are undone forever, as to any delicacy or sense of modesty 
 and shame ; and Heaven avenges the pollution of the males, by 
 denying them all the exquisite joys of chaste wedded life. Retribu- 
 tion begins here, in this life ; but O, what will it be in the life to 
 come ? " AVhoremongers and adulterers God will judge," Heb. 13: 
 4. "Ulien I think on the utter callousness which such vices generate 
 in the hearts of men and women, the insensibility tliat is superin- 
 duced upon all that is delicate, and refined, and pure, and chaste, 
 and lovely, I might well say with Jeremiah : " Mine eyes nm down 
 with tears." If there were no other argument against slavery, this 
 alone would be amply sufficient to secure the reprobation of it, in the 
 eyes of every impartial and enlightened Christijui man. 
 
 (7) Slavery in its best attitude in our country, even among 
 humane and Christian masters, is a degradation of a whole class of 
 the community, below their proper rank as men. Even where the 
 colored men are free, and educated, and well bcliavcd. they are con- 
 sidered as unworthy of any civil consideration. They cannot 
 become citizeiis, in a slave-holding State. No civil, no patriotic sym- 
 pathies, can be theirs. " Stand by thyself, for I am holier than 
 thou," is tlie universal answ(»r to all aspirations after citizaisliip. 
 And this is not all. They are degraded in their own eyes. They 
 are discouraged from all attempts to rise, by a knowledge of the utter 
 impossibility of rising. Wliat were the whole (Jretk nation, a fcW 
 years ago, when under the domination of the Turks ? Just what 
 
106 
 
 every people will be, who have masters over them, and who are 
 denied their political and civil rights. 
 
 Where now did one class of our race obtain a license to keep down 
 and degrade another, when " there is one and the same God of the 
 Jews and the Gentiles ? " And how will they answer before the tri- 
 bunal above, on which that God sits, who is no respecter of persons ? 
 
 (8) Slavery produces an unhappy influence, on the morals, man- 
 ners, and temper of the masters. Of course there are many — very 
 many — exceptions to this, where the masters are Christians, and of 
 naturally a gentle spirit. But the habit of absolute and uncontrolled 
 commanding, even from childhood, prepares men to become dicta- 
 torial, assuming, unyielding, impetuous, and haughty. It is inevita- 
 ble. It cleaves to the very nature of such an irresponsible relation. 
 Even good men are sorely tempted and tried by it. Bad ones ai'e 
 made into petty despots. 
 
 (9) Another crying evil is, that men grow rich without industry, 
 and become luxurious, and enervated, and prodigal, because they do 
 not know the worth of money, having never labored to acquire it. 
 Hence the extremes of high luxury and degraded poverty, in every 
 slaveholding country. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. 
 
 (10) Not only the temporal, but the eternal welfare of the slaves 
 is often grievously neglected. Many masters there are at the South, 
 to my certain knowledge, who are noble exceptions to this remark, 
 and who take great pains to have their slaves instructed in the things 
 of religion. But how many are there, who will never expend a 
 dollar for this purpose? And when these masters appear before 
 Him, who has made one both Jews and Gentiles, and broken down 
 the wall of partition between them, and placed himself in the same 
 relation to all, what answer can they give to Him for neglecting the 
 eternal interests of those for whom he has purchased redemjition by 
 liis blood ? 
 
 But enough, and more than enough, on this painful — this revolt- 
 ing subject. When a true hearted Christian runs his eye over such 
 an assemblage of evils, which of necessity stand connected with our 
 present system of slavery, is it possible that he can have a doubt as 
 to what Christianity demands ? Can he doubt whether all this is 
 loving our neighbor as ourselves, or doing as we would be done by ? 
 ISiO — no — it is not possible. He that runneth may read the will 
 of Heaven, in regard to this matter. 
 
107 
 
 For myself, my childish aspirations, in the very dawn of my life, 
 were all in favor of universal freedom. I have never changed them ; 
 I never can. In childhood I read witli thrilling dehght the lines of 
 that heaven-horn bard, who, in singing the Sofa, rose speedily to 
 higher themes. I cannot refrain from quoting some of his thoughts : 
 
 " There is no flesh in man's obdurate heart ; 
 ****** 
 He finds his fellow guilty of a skin 
 Not colored like his own ; and having power 
 T' enforce the ■N\Tonfr, for such a worthy cause 
 Dooms and devotes liim as his law ful jirey." 
 
 Then after speaking of war and bloodshed for the purposes of 
 ambition and avarice, he thus proceeds : 
 
 " Thus man devotes his brother and destroys ; 
 And worse than all, and most to be deplored, 
 As hum.an nature's broadest, foulest blot, 
 Chains him and tasks him, and exacts his sweat 
 With stripes, that Mercy with a bleeding heart 
 Weeps when she sees inflicted on a beast. 
 
 ****** 
 I would not have a slave to till my ground, 
 To carry me, to fan me while I sleep, 
 And tremble when I wake, for all the wealth 
 That sinews bought and sold have ever earned." 
 
 Thus feel and think, also, the New Englanders. I low many 
 thousand times have I repeated these lines, and dwelt on the heaven- 
 bom spirit which they breathe ! And yet, I have seen and con- 
 versed with many a kind-hearted, well-instructed, moiid, high- 
 minded Southerner, who wore the api)earance of never having on(* 
 had such sentiments pass through his mind ; and to whom such a 
 passage in Cowper would be quite revolting. What a diflerence do 
 our early training, liabits, and circumstances make in our views ! I 
 could, however, look on these friends with a feeling of sincere friend- 
 ship and attachment, on account of the virtues which they possessed 
 and exhibited. I looked on tiieir state as, in very many ciuses, not a 
 voluntary one, but the result of circumstances over which they had 
 had little or no control. 
 
 At present, such is the excitement at the South, roused up by the 
 
108 
 
 violence of Abolitionists at the North, that I can hardly expect a 
 calm and patient listening to my short discourse on Slavery. By 
 and by, when the tempest is past, they may perhaps consent to listen 
 patiently for a few minutes, if nothing more. I do not wonder that 
 they are excited. To be called men-stealers, murderers, tyrants, 
 villains, and every other reproachful name which the rich vocabulary 
 of Abolitionism affords, is enough to awake the dead to life. I view 
 the AboUtion proceedings just in the light that I should the following 
 case, which 1 put for the sake of illustration : I see some fault in my 
 neighbor, who, by the way, has also a great many excellencies of 
 character. But my mind begins to wax warm about his faults, and 
 my conscience greatly presses me to take some measures with him. 
 Well, I hasten to him and say : Neighbor, I wish to have a serious 
 conference with you, on a matter of great importance. When will 
 you hear me ? This evening, he says, at 7 o'clock. I go accord- 
 ingly, and after the usual salutations are past, I say to him : Sir, I 
 have come on a grave errand, that presses my conscience very much. 
 What is it ? says he, speak out. Why, say I, it is, that in the first 
 place I expect to prove to you that you are a fool ; and in the sec- 
 ond place, that you are a rascal. And when I speak this last word, 
 I lay a strong emphasis upon it, and shake my fist in his face. 
 How many ears, now, will this neighbor open, to listen to my re- 
 buke ? If he does me common justice, instead of listening to me, he 
 will open his door and say : Sir, please to walk out ! When you 
 come to me with proper respect and in a good temper of mind, I 
 wiU patiently hear you ; but never until then. 
 
 Is my neighbor now altogether a bad man because he is indignant at 
 such treatment ? I trow not. Yet this is the very method in which 
 Abolitionists have assailed the South ; and they would be more or 
 less than men, if they were not indignant. 
 
 Yet ]Mr. Webster has been more or less maligned, because he has 
 found fault with such conduct on the part of Northerners. I have 
 not a doubt, that the sentence of his, (in which he expressed his 
 opinion, that Abolitionists had helped to rivet the chains of the 
 slave, and make his bondage the more severe and certain), has 
 roused up more ire in that class of men than all the rest of his 
 Speech. Such men cannot bear to be told the truth, to be told that 
 all this noise and confusion and- perpetual vituperation and con- 
 tumely, are much ado about nothing. With them it is the great, 
 
109 
 
 the only, the all-importunt business. And all this — is it in con- 
 formity with Paul, in my motto? Not quite — not quite, gentle- 
 men. 
 
 To me nothing is more palpable than tlu' trutii of Mr. Webster's 
 remarks on this topic. I cannot have a doubt, that the liberation of 
 the slaves is put back at least half a century, by this ill-timed, 
 violent, and most injudicious movement. I am aware that I shall 
 of course incur their displeasure. I cannot help it. I think it to be 
 a call of duty, calmly and fearlessly to tell them what I fully be- 
 lieve is the simple truth. 
 
 As to Mr. Webster, I imajjine he will still continue his repose 
 under his Oak, notwithstanding all the buzzing around Iiini. If he 
 has nothing more serious than this to disturb his repose, I conjecture 
 that he may enjoy quite a tolerable requiem. At any rate, I hope 
 this will be the case. 
 
 It is time to hasten to a close, although a multitude of questions 
 press upon my mind, in which I feel a deep interest. But it is not 
 for me to discuss everytliing, and above all the intricate questions 
 that Jurists and Civilians may raise. But I should be doing injus- 
 tice to my own views of duty, if I did not say a few words on two 
 or tliree very important topics. 
 
 I first address the Northerners, and specially my fellow citizens 
 of Massachusetts. In looking back on the history of slavery in our 
 country, whence do we find it to have originated? From Great 
 Britain ; and from her alone. All the Colonies fought pitched bat- 
 tles against it ; but the king and Parliament of Great Britain de- 
 feated them. North and South were united on this question — 
 united before the Declaration of Independence, and united for a 
 long time after it. I can liave room to jiroduce but one specimen 
 of protest ; and this is from the pen of Mr. Jefferson, who originally 
 inserted it in our Declaration of Independence which he drew up. 
 It was omitted afterwards merely from delicacy of feeling toward 
 some gentlemen of the South (S. Carolina and Georgia), and also, 
 as Mr. Jefferson intimates (3 Madison Papers), from the same feel- 
 ing toward some of the delegates from the North, who were en- 
 gaged in the Guinea trade. Here it is a.«? it came from the luuid 
 of Mr. Jefferson. He is speaking of the king of England : 
 
 " lie hns wiigcd cruel war npainst liuninn iintnrc itself, violntiu^ its most saerid 
 rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never olTendcd 
 
 10 
 
110 
 
 him ; capturing and carrj-ing them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to 
 incur a miserable de-ath in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, 
 the opprobrium of infidel Powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great 
 Britain. Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and 
 sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to 
 prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce." 
 
 The like to this was expressed by most of the Southern States, 
 in one form and another. The general feeling on the subject of 
 slavery at that time, is fully disclosed in the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence at the outset ; see p. 57 above. This Declaration has the 
 broad basis of loving our neighbor as ourselves, and of doing as 
 we would be done by — a truly Christian and gospel principle. It 
 is the unquestionable index of all but universal American feeling 
 in 1776. 
 
 The Hon. Mr. Chase, in a historical development of slavery m 
 the early part of the United States' career, has exhibited, in his re- 
 cent, courteous, valuable, and able speech, documents which show 
 that there never was a vote by any Southern State, in favor of 
 slavery, until after the famous Territorial Ordinance of 1787. 
 Indeed, I have repeatedly heard it from the lips of some of the 
 Framers and Signers of the Constitution of the United States, that 
 it was then universally understood among all the States who formed 
 it, that slavery was to be got rid of, just as soon as it could be done 
 peaceably and with safety. All the public documents of that period 
 do in fact testify to this. Wliat has made the astounding change ? 
 I do not feel myself to be sufficiently cognizant of facts and occur- 
 rences at the South, to decide this question ; but one thing, I believe 
 may be safely said, viz. that no enlightened Christian people would 
 ever admit or foster slavery, unless they were tempted to it by 
 great prospects of gain. There could be no other efficient mduce- 
 ment. 
 
 But there slavery now is, spread over almost one half of the 
 States in number, although not in point of population. Three 
 MILLIONS OF slaves! "Who are accountable for this ? On whom 
 does the guilt fall ? for in the sight of God there must be guilt some- 
 where, if the declarations or commands of the New Test, are to be 
 our rule of moral appreciation and judgment. 
 
 Do not we of the North, often speak on the subject of Southern 
 slavery, just as if the present owners of slaves there, were impli- 
 
Ill 
 
 cated in the guilt of bringing them there, and placing thera in their 
 present condition ? Nothing is more common than such declara- 
 tions. But are they just ? Surely they are not. Few indeed in 
 those States have been concerned in foreign importation ; and what 
 has been done in that way by smuggling slaves in, has been done 
 more by New England Vessels than by any other. So it wai in 
 the Colonial times. Several towns in New England were built up, 
 as every one knows, by the Guinea trade. I doubt not, that there are 
 vessels now employed in carrying slaves to Brazil and to Cuba, 
 whose real owners are New England men. A sham sale and a 
 foreign flag protects them. 
 
 In the South only a few have been directly concerned in that 
 iniquitous traffic. "What then has the South of the present day 
 done, to increase the number of their Slaves? Nothing, if we 
 speak of the mass, nothing but omitting to free them, and of course 
 they have multiplied by natural increase. If we then of the North 
 are to tax them with sin, as to this matter, we ought, in all fairness, 
 to place the matter on its true basis. Thousands of slave-owners 
 have never trafficked in them ; and I apprehend, that the mass of 
 respectable men in the South regai'd this traffic with abhorrence. 
 Most of the Southern States have prohibited by law the introduc- 
 tion of slaves from other States, although such laws are often 
 evaded. If we tax our Southern brethren with sin, (and I think 
 we have good reason for so doing, provided we speak to them kindly 
 and respectfully), it must be on this specific point, viz. that they 
 have neglected to carry out the design of the framers of our Con- 
 stitution ; neglected to fulfil their implied pledges to the North, in 
 regard to this subject ; and neglected to make any provision for the 
 future abolition of slavery. Nay many of their statesmen have 
 recently declared that slavery is an important, if not a necessar}-, 
 ingredient in the Constitution and prosperity of a republic. Of 
 course, everything remains in statu quo, excepting that the State 
 laws of late have become far more rigorous than beturo. 
 
 May I, with all due kindness and respect, speiUv a word here in 
 their hearing ? Are not the principles of the Gospel, in regard to 
 hving our neighbor as ourselves, and doing as we would be done by, 
 of high and sacred obligation, universal, irrepcnilabh- ? I brlieve 
 every impartial Christian on earth must think and say so. Will it 
 be a satisfactory plea, in Ihu High Court of E(iuity in heaven, 
 
112 
 
 for disobedience to tliese requisitions, that this disobedience was 
 profitable to your worldly interests? O never, never! Will it 
 satisfy that Court, when you ofier the plea of great inconvenience 
 and much perplexity in accomplishing the desired liberation ? I do 
 not think a Christian conscience can be quieted with this. It ought 
 not to be. There is something to be actually done, and done with- 
 out delay, if you desire to wash oiF the stain which slavery now 
 attaches to our nation. 
 
 What then shall we do ? you ask. It is a fair question, and I 
 would God I could answer it, to my own or to your satisfaction. 
 It is immeasurably the most difficult problem ever before this great 
 nation. Universal and immediate emancipation would be little short 
 of insanity. The blacks themselves would be the first and most 
 miserable victims. Stealing, robbery, rapine, and other evils, would 
 inevitably follow in the train of liberation, and thousands of ignorant 
 and starving men would seek their sustenance in preymg upon theii- 
 former masters and upon the community. They could not all be 
 hired, at the prices which they would demand. The ruin of the 
 planters would be inevitable, if high wages for labor must be given. 
 Does not Jamaica tell that tale in deplorable accents ? Many an 
 estate has been abandoned. Others, worth £30,000 or £40,000, 
 before the liberation, will now fetch no more than £3,000 or £4,000. 
 Indeed, sales can be made only at prices ruinous to the property- 
 holder. And then, when our slave-holders are thus impoverished, 
 who is to pay the enormous rates necessary to the maintenance 
 of paupers ? Plainly, the thing in this shape is an impossible mea- 
 sure. 
 
 What then is to be done? Examine, I would say, and weigh 
 well, the plan o{ gradual abolition, recommended by that great orator 
 and statesman, ]Mr. Canning, when he was prime minister. Had his 
 advice been followed, I doubt not that Jamaica would now be in a 
 flourishing condition. Begin the great work on some such ground 
 as his. Educate the young blacks, and let them acquire a moral 
 sense, and become enlightened as to the ways and means of in- 
 dustry. 
 
 This would be doing something, yea very much. Make the pros- 
 pect of eventual emancipation certain. Then your consciences will 
 be at peace, and the nations abroad and the North at home, will cease 
 to reproach you. 
 
113 
 
 In the meantime, let the rising African Republic be enlarged, 
 until it lines the whole coast of Africa, and thus puts a final end to 
 the increase of slaves by importation. I am astonished beyond mea- 
 sure, when I hear Abolitionists decrying the Colonization Society. 
 In what other way is the slave trade to be stopped, and Africa 
 Christianized ? All the ships in the British and American navies 
 could not stop the slave trade ; and nothing but the Christian pos- 
 session of the maritime coasts of Africa can ever achieve the desired 
 end. 
 
 The great wrong of our Southern brethren I think is tliis, that 
 they have not taken, and do not seem disposed to take, even initia- 
 tive measures to get rid of slavery, but legislate in order to establish 
 and perpetuate it. But it is too late to accomplish this. The spirit 
 of freedom is waking the world to new life. A new order of things 
 must be near. Shall American Republicans be the last to yield to 
 their fellow men the inalienable rights which their God and Re- 
 deemer has bestowed upon them ? May Heaven forbid ! 
 
 I am, I think, pretty fully aware of the great difTiculties that lie in 
 the way. Suppose the black population are made free ; then what 
 is to be done with them after this, specially in those States, or parts 
 of States, where they are more numerous than the whites ; how are 
 they going to live and. prosper ? They have no money to buy land : 
 and if they could buy it, or have it given to them, most of them are 
 too ignorant, and shiftless, and averse to labor, to manage land with 
 any success. Few of them are artificers ; and but few such could 
 find employment. "NVliat then I a.sk the Abolitionists, (and I insist 
 on some plain and direct answer) — what is to be done witli such a 
 population? If you say: 'Let their masters pay them for past 
 labor, and furnish them with the means of living ; ' I ask again : 
 How long would these wages (more or less) last them? jVs a body, 
 they would never do any more work, until this sum was expended. 
 Then what next ? Their m:isters have been, in the case sujjposed. 
 already impoverished by dividing among them tlieir pi-operty. These 
 cannot, with their habits, carry on plantations at the expense of hired 
 labor. It would reduce them speedily to absolute poverty. And 
 then, what is the next step, either for them or for tiie free blacks ? 
 I insist upon it, now, that the Abolitionists shall give a sober, 
 rational, /)rac^?*ca/ answer to these questions. This would be worth 
 ten thousand times more than all their outcries about tlie sin of 
 
 10» 
 
114 
 
 bondage, and their demands of immediate and universal emancipa- 
 tion. 
 
 In such a great movement, where the very frame- work of the gov- 
 ernment and the State is to be taken to pieces and receive a new shape, 
 there must be foresight, and caution, and prudence. One would be 
 apt to think when he hears the clamor for the negroes on all sides, 
 that the rights and interest of the white population are matters of 
 little or no consideration or importance. But this must not so be. 
 At all events, if this movement should be successful, and the blacks 
 be all liberated at once, it would not be long before the fair provinces 
 of the South would be a desolate waste ; and the blacks would be 
 by far the greatest sufferers. Gradual freedom is the only possible 
 practical measure. Three millions of people cannot be disposed of 
 and provided for, by an Abolition diatribe and decree on paper. In 
 a northern closet, we can sit down, and coolly legislate for the South, 
 on matters that must tear in pieces the very frame-work of their so- 
 ciety. We are not affected by any of the proposed measures, and 
 then we coolly wonder why they are so concerned about them. Is 
 this prudence, is it justice, is it kindness, is it loving our neighbor as 
 ourselves ? 
 
 But I must stop, and leave the plan for remedying the evils in 
 question to wiser heads than mine. It is plain enough, that Coloni- 
 zation, unless sustained by the United States Government at the rate 
 of at least 352,000,000 in a year, can be nothing more than a little 
 canal to empty out the Atlantic Ocean. This work must go on with 
 great power and efficiency, to do anything adequate to our necessities. 
 A noble work has the Society begun ; and may heaven grant that 
 the whole country may sustain it and carry it rapidly on. "Why not 
 appropriate two millions a year to such a humane, laudable. Christian 
 purpose ? It would be but a drop in the bucket. The sale of our 
 new lands would more than furnish the requisite sum. Can any 
 patriotic and humane man object to such an appropriation ? 
 
 The Abolitionists are continually bringing before us the noble 
 example of Great Britain, as to freeing slaves. It is well. But let 
 us have the whole of it. She gave to the masters one kundred mil- 
 lions of dollars, to buy off some 700,000 slaves. At this rate, our 
 slaves would cost the United States $400,000,000. Do the Aboli- 
 tionists ever say a word about this part of England's example ? I 
 have never heard one. No ; they flout at the idea of any compen- 
 
115 
 
 sation. What ! say they, are we to hire men to do what is just and 
 equitable ? But Great Britain said no such thing. She said : ' These 
 owners of slaves came into the possession of property by ways and 
 means sanctioned by the laws of their country. Tliey have, there- 
 fore, in the eyes of civil government, a just and lawful property. 
 They have committed no misdemeanor, as judged by the laws of the 
 realm, in acquiring it ; and we cannot dcmiuid that tliey shall give 
 it up without some compensation, a compensation which is as large 
 as the nation are able to miike it.' "Wlien Abolitionists begin to in- 
 sist on this part of British example, then we will begin to listen 
 with an attentive ear. 
 
 The last thing I have to say, is; to ask the question, (which Heave 
 to wiser men than I am to answer), whether it would not be a feasi- 
 ble thing, atld the best thing we can do, to colonize the blacks, as we 
 have the Indians ? Let them have a Territory and a government 
 of their own, we being merely watchful guardians over their welfare 
 and safety, and for a while reserving the ultimate control of impor- 
 tant measures, until they attain to a state in which they will be 
 competent to take care of themselves. Thenceforth we may be their 
 friends and allies, and do them all the good in our power. "We have 
 land enough and more than enough to do this ; and when done, let 
 us by fair agreement with masters and owners, and proper compen- 
 sation, stock the Colony until we get rid of tl>e pressure now upon 
 us. It must be a work of time ; and it may be such an one. The 
 measure cannot be at once completed. A hearty co-operation of the 
 South would easily effect it ; and by its being made gradual, they 
 could gradually accommodate themselves to their circumstaiices. If 
 any one can suggest a better plan, let him as speedily as may be 
 produce it ; and let the measure be under discussion. 
 
 I have done with my discussions, and now come to my closing 
 part. 
 
 First of all, I ask Christians and all who bow to the authority of 
 God's word, be they in the North or the South, whether any proper 
 regard is paid to the precept : " Follow after the Tnixoa tuat 
 MAKE FOR PEACE?" Rom. 14: 10. Let every such man retire to 
 his closet, and open his Bible, after humble and fervent sui)plioation 
 for divine light, and then read, and ponder well, the following texts : 
 "Recompense to no man evil for evil," Rom. 12: 10. ""When he 
 [Christ] was reviled, he reviled not sigain," 1 Pet. 2: 23. •• Being 
 
116 
 
 reviled, we bless," 1 Cor. 4: 12. "No reviler shall inherit the king- 
 dom of God," 1 Cor. 6: 10. " The servant of the Lord must 
 
 NOT strive, but BE GENTLE TO ALL MEN . . . PATIENT, IN 
 MEEKNESS INSTRUCTING THOSE THAT OPPOSE THEMSELVES," 
 
 2 Tim. 2: 24, 25. "Speak evil of no man; be no brawl- 
 ers, BUT GENTLE, SHOWING ALL MEEKNESS UNTO ALL MEN," 
 
 Tit. 3: 2. 
 
 Who now can read what issues every day from the press, in jour- 
 nals and pamphlets, or hear what is said in the Halls of our National 
 Council, without a deep feeling of conviction, that no more regard 
 is paid to these solemn injunctions, than would be had they never 
 existed ? The servant of the Lord must not strive, hut he gentle. Is 
 this so ? What then is to become of him, who from the pulpit, or 
 the press, and in every possible way, rouses up and urges on to strife, 
 and reviles aU men who will not go with him ? It is indeed a fearful 
 thing to fall into the hands of Him, " who is our peace," and who 
 came to send peace on earth, and promote good will among men, 
 after our having violated commands so plain, so practical, so funda- 
 mentally important as these. 
 
 Let us consider, for a moment, the nature and aspect of the great 
 contest now going on. Here are statesmen, ministers of the gos- 
 pel, lawyers, respected and honored citizens, men of talents, of 
 integrity, of fair character in all respects, who are opposed to each 
 other from hearty conviction on both sides. The contest waxes 
 warmer and warmer. The Union is threatened and in peril ; for 
 even if it is not formally dissolved, it will be virtually dissolved, 
 in a little time, by alienation and bitter hatred. How is such a 
 contest to be stopped? Can either party expect to stop it by 
 insisting on all which he would have, and which he demands? 
 How perfectly idle, and even absurd, is such an expectation! 
 Yet Abolitionists say : ' We must and will have the Wihnot Pro- 
 viso ; ' heated partizans of the South say : ' We will have all new 
 States open to slavery ; and if not, we will break up the Union.' 
 How are we to remain together, without giving up something on 
 each side ? And yet, I do not ask that either party shall give up 
 any thing essential or very important. As to the Wilmot Proviso, 
 we have seen that it of course is annihilated the moment a Territory 
 becomes a State. It is not, therefore, worth one hour of contention. 
 Let us go here with our worthy Chief Magistrate. As to new States 
 
117 
 
 from Texas, (O the dreadful deed of taking Texas and bringin"' a 
 Mexican war upon us !), there is now no remedy. The solemn com- 
 pact is made ; and therefore it must be kept. There was not a man 
 in our country more strongly opposed to making it, than Mr. Web- 
 ster ; he fought manfully against it ; but now his crime is, that he 
 has declared that solemn compacts must be observed. 
 
 I ask now all my Northern brethren, whether, in letting Provisos 
 alone, they sanction slavery, or come under any responsibility what- 
 ever for it? Not in the least. If the question wjus, whether they, 
 conceding to them the power and the right to dictate concerning 
 slavery, should vote in its favor, then comes a case which is to the 
 point and fundamental. No ! No ! I say ; I would hold out my 
 right hand to have it cut off, sooner than lift it up for such a vote. I 
 would not have upon my conscience tlie guilt of turning God's image, 
 (redeemed by the blood of his Son, and made free by the Lord Jesus 
 Christ himself), into goods and chattels. I would not bring on my 
 soul that guilt, for ten thousand worlds. And I am quite certain that 
 Mr. Webster has the same feeling, in its fullest extent. 
 
 Nothing else is wanting in the present state of things, but to fol- 
 low the counsels of Paul, as exhibited above. The North can never 
 lift her hand, to extend the domain of slavery a single inch. But 
 the North must keep solemn compacts, and take care never again to 
 send such men to Congress as will betray her. All the Texas trouble 
 comes from tliis ; for it was two northem Senators that brought defeat 
 on those, who were opposing the Texan Resolutions. 
 
 But if heated enthusiasts on both sides, will listen to no caution, 
 and brook no delay of their measures, then let them take the awful 
 responsibility on themselves. I wash my hands of the guilt of my 
 country's blood. And when they have carried their measures, on 
 either side, what is the next step? A war — a war compared with 
 which, the horrors of St. Domingo are but a faint image. — And when 
 the South, by united forces of enemies without and within, is turned 
 to a desolate wilderness, where is the Union, the once blessod and 
 prosperous and glorious Union ? The North have prevailed ; the 
 slaves are free ; but how many of them arc left, to enjoy their free- 
 dom ? And where are our white Southern brethren and fellow citi- 
 zens? Buried beneatli the ruins of houses and towns, set on fire 
 and attacked by raging enemies. 
 
 This view of dreaded scenes brings to my mind the story of an 
 
118 
 
 eastern Caliph in Bagdad. He had a factious Absalom for a son. 
 He sent him, in order to get rid of his intrigues at Court, into the 
 province of Aderbijan, as governor. He soon heard that he was 
 making efforts, to excite that large and fertile province to revolt. The 
 next news was, that he was in the field, with allied Turcomans as 
 his assistants. The Vizier, who received this intelligence, imme- 
 diately went and told the Caliph. Call, said he, the commander in 
 chief of my troops. Speedily he came. ' Go,' said the enraged 
 monarch, ' and gather all the forces of the empire that you can mus- 
 ter with speed, and march instantly to Aderbijan, and kill every 
 man, woman, and child there ; bum every house, and cut down every 
 fruit tree.' The Vizier dared not interpose for the moment, for his 
 Master's face was black with rage. The commander in chief of the 
 army dared not to interpose. But after a little time, the Vizier 
 returned, and prostrating himself on the earth before the Caliph, he 
 said : Will my Lord suffer me to ask one question ? Yes, said the 
 monarch, if it does not interfere with my will and my orders. It 
 shall interfere with neither, said the Vizier. My question is this : 
 When your Majesty has laid your fairest province utterly waste 
 and made it desolate, what domain will your Highness have over 
 Aderbijan ? The Caliph dismissed him, slept upon the matter, and 
 the next morning countermanded his orders. 
 
 I put now that solemn question to all who are urging the nation 
 on to disruption and a war of desolation : Where will be the domain 
 of the United States, when nearly one half of them is in smoking 
 ruins? 
 
 One word more concerning Mr. Webster, and then I have 
 done. 
 
 Suppose the violence of the present time succeeds in withdrawing 
 the public confidence from him ; and he retires from office and from 
 public life. Suppose even the worst his enemies can wish him 
 should come upon him, and he should go into the shades of retire- 
 ment, and live and die there, unnoticed (if this be possible) and as 
 it were unknown. The contest goes on, the country is involved in 
 bitter and bloody war, and still his counsel is rejected and despised. 
 But he soon leaves this earthly stage of action and of contest, and 
 is gathered to his fathers, it may be without a monument or a eulogy 
 to preserve his name. If all this can be supposed, and should actu- 
 ally take place ; what then ? Can the memory of such a man per- 
 
119 
 
 ish ? No ; posterity, divested of partizan feeling and prejudice, wiU 
 erect to him a lofty monument, wliich will be inscribed, on one fa- 
 jade, with these most signiiicant words : 
 
 Justum et tenacem propositi virum, 
 
 Non civium ardor prava jubentium, 
 
 Non vultus instantis tyranni, 
 
 Mente quatit soUda- 
 
 On another facade, under his simple name, will be carved in high 
 relief: 
 
 O NOSTRUM ET DECUS ET COLUMEN! 
 
^ 
 
 RD-5 '^1 
 
"^^^ 
 
 A 
 
 •^ 
 
 5V .'^^i!^^L. ^<y .-->----- 
 
 o V 
 
 o » o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iq. 
 
 o 
 
 ^^•n^ 
 
 o 
 
 O * e ^ 0' 
 
 A^ c ^ " o . ^s- 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 3 V 
 
 
 a5 '^.s 
 
 
 
 
 ^0^ •* - <^v 
 
 
 iq. 
 
 
 0^ ,.-.-. '^O. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ "^ ^r ° 
 
 
 
 
 •^*5 
 
 
 •^ >•-'.. 
 
 ■^ C " " 
 
 ^0^ ^^ '^0\^^ 
 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 v^. 
 
 .0' 
 
 ■,/■« 
 
 ^^ -«^^; ?^*^. \t 
 
 ^"^^. 
 

 •V 
 
 
 i?-^ 'X 
 
 
 
 >. 
 
 
 ' B • » * . 'V 
 
 V^ 
 
 '"^* ^<{)^ 
 
 
 , DOUS 8R0S. 
 
 j LIBHAHV aiNOINO 
 
 HS>**1 ST. AURIKST.MC • *#^ 
 
 -'^ 
 
 e> '^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 . vu 
 
 .i>.