<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "http://docsouth.unc.edu/dtds/teixlite.dtd" [
<!ENTITY % external-entities SYSTEM "./extEntities.dtf">
<!ENTITY % internal-entities SYSTEM "./intEntities.dtf">
<!ENTITY strintp SYSTEM "strintp.jpg" NDATA jpeg>
<!ENTITY strinvs SYSTEM "strinvs.jpg" NDATA jpeg>
<!ENTITY strinad2 SYSTEM "strinad2.jpg" NDATA jpeg>
<!ENTITY strinad1 SYSTEM "strinad1.jpg" NDATA jpeg>
<!ENTITY stringcv SYSTEM "stringcv.jpg" NDATA jpeg>
<!ENTITY strin151 SYSTEM "strin151.jpg" NDATA jpeg>
<!ENTITY strin150 SYSTEM "strin150.jpg" NDATA jpeg>
]>
<TEI.2>
  <teiHeader type="" status="new">
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title><emph>Scriptural and Statistical Views in Favor of Slavery:</emph>
Electronic Edition.</title>
        <author>Stringfellow, Thornton</author>
        <funder>Funding from the Library of Congress/Ameritech National Digital Library Competition supported the electronic publication of this title.</funder>
        <respStmt>
          <resp>Text scanned (OCR) by</resp>
          <name>Adam Gori and Richard Musselwhite</name>
        </respStmt>
        <respStmt>
          <resp>Images scanned by</resp>
          <name>Richard Musselwhite</name>
        </respStmt>
        <respStmt>
          <resp>Text encoded by </resp>
          <name>Andrew Leiter and Jill Kuhn Sexton</name>
        </respStmt>
      </titleStmt>
      <editionStmt>
        <edition>First edition, <date>2000</date></edition>
      </editionStmt>
      <extent>ca. 250K</extent>
      <publicationStmt>
        <publisher>Academic Affairs Library, UNC-CH</publisher>
        <pubPlace>University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, </pubPlace>
        <date>2000.</date>
        <availability status="unknown">
          <p>© This work is the property of the University of North Carolina 
at Chapel Hill. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text.</p>
        </availability>
      </publicationStmt>
      <sourceDesc>
        <biblFull>
          <titleStmt>
            <title type="title page">Scriptural and Statistical Views in Favor of Slavery</title>
            <title type="cover">Slavery Scriptural &amp; Statistical</title>
            <author>Thornton Stringfellow, D. D.</author>
          </titleStmt>
          <editionStmt>
            <edition>Fourth edition, with additions</edition>
          </editionStmt>
          <extent>  149 p.</extent>
          <publicationStmt>
            <pubPlace>Richmond, VA.</pubPlace>
            <publisher>J. W. Randolph</publisher>
            <date>1856</date>
            <authority/>
          </publicationStmt>
          <notesStmt>
            <note anchored="yes">Call Number E449 .S912        
(Rare Book Collection, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)</note>
          </notesStmt>
        </biblFull>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
    <encodingDesc>
      <projectDesc>
        <p>The electronic edition is a part of the UNC-CH
digitization project, <hi rend="italics">Documenting the American South</hi>.</p>
      </projectDesc>
      <editorialDecl>
        <p>This electronic edition has been created by Optical
Character Recognition (OCR). OCR-ed text has been compared against the
original document and corrected.  The text has been encoded using the
recommendations for Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines.</p>
        <p>Original grammar, punctuation, and spelling have been preserved.  Encountered
typographical errors have been preserved, and appear in red type.</p>
        <p>All footnotes are inserted at the point of reference within paragraphs.</p>
        <p>Any hyphens occurring in line breaks have been removed, and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line.</p>
        <p>All quotation marks, em dashes and ampersand have been transcribed as
entity references.</p>
        <p>All double right and left quotation marks are encoded as ” and “
respectively.</p>
        <p>All em dashes are encoded as —</p>
        <p>Indentation in lines has not been preserved.</p>
        <p>Running titles have not been preserved.</p>
        <p>Spell-check and verification made against printed text using Author/Editor (SoftQuad) and Microsoft Word spell check programs.</p>
      </editorialDecl>
      <classDecl>
        <taxonomy id="lcsh">
          <bibl>
            <title>Library of Congress Subject Headings, </title>
            <edition>21st edition, 1998</edition>
          </bibl>
        </taxonomy>
      </classDecl>
    </encodingDesc>
    <profileDesc>
      <langUsage>
        <language id="eng">English</language>
        <language id="gre">Greek</language>
      </langUsage>
      <textClass>
        <keywords scheme="lcsh">
          <list type="simple">
            <item>Fuller, Richard, 1804-1876. Domestic slavery considered as a 
scriptural institution.</item>
            <item>Galusha, Elon, 1790-1856.</item>
            <item>Slavery -- Justification.</item>
            <item>Slavery -- United States.</item>
            <item>Slavery in the Bible.</item>
            <item>Slaves -- United States -- Statistics.</item>
          </list>
        </keywords>
      </textClass>
    </profileDesc>
    <revisionDesc>
      <change>
        <date>2001-01-26, </date>
        <respStmt>
          <name>Celine Noel and Wanda Gunther </name>
          <resp/>
        </respStmt>
        <item> revised TEIHeader and created catalog 
record for the electronic edition.</item>
      </change>
      <change>
        <date>2001-01-04, </date>
        <respStmt>
          <name>Jill Kuhn Sexton, </name>
          <resp>project manager, </resp>
        </respStmt>
        <item>finished TEI-conformant encoding and final proofing.</item>
      </change>
      <change>
        <date>2000-12-13, </date>
        <respStmt>
          <name>Andrew Leiter</name>
          <resp/>
        </respStmt>
        <item> finished TEI/SGML encoding</item>
      </change>
      <change>
        <date>1999-12-27, </date>
        <respStmt>
          <name>Richard Musselwhite</name>
          <resp/>
        </respStmt>
        <item> finished scanning (OCR) and proofing.</item>
      </change>
    </revisionDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <text>
    <front>
      <div1 type="cover image">
        <p>
          <figure id="cover" entity="stringcv">
            <p>[Cover Image]</p>
          </figure>
        </p>
      </div1>
      <div1 type="advertisement image">
        <p>
          <figure id="ill1" entity="strinad1">
            <p>[Advertisement Image]</p>
          </figure>
        </p>
      </div1>
      <div1 type="avdertisement image">
        <p>
          <figure id="ill2" entity="strinad2">
            <p>[Advertisement Image]</p>
          </figure>
        </p>
      </div1>
      <div1 type="title page image">
        <p>
          <figure id="title" entity="strintp">
            <p>[Title Page Image]</p>
          </figure>
        </p>
      </div1>
      <div1 type="title page verso image">
        <p>
          <figure id="verso" entity="strinvs">
            <p>[Title Page Verso Image]</p>
          </figure>
        </p>
      </div1>
      <div1 type="advertisements">
        <list type="simple">
          <head>BOOKS<lb/>
PUBLISHED BY<lb/>
J. W. RANDOLPH,<lb/>
RICHMOND, VA.</head>
          <item>CAMPBELL'S COLONIAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA,<lb/>
8vo muslin, . . . . . $1 50</item>
          <item>
BEVERLEY'S HISTORY OF VIRGINIA,<lb/>
New edition, with a Biographical Sketch of the Author, by Charles
Campbell, 8vo muslin, . . . . . 2 50</item>
          <item>
MARTIN &amp; BROKENBROUGH'S HISTORY OF VIRGINIA AND
DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA,<lb/>
8vo sheep, . . . . . 2 00</item>
          <item>
JEFFERSON'S NOTES ON VIRGINIA,<lb/>
New edition, with Maps and Plates and new notes, never before
published,
8vo Muslin, . . . . . 5 00</item>
          <item>
VIRGINIA POLITICS IN 1855,<lb/>
With life and portrait of Gov. Wise, 8vo muslin, . . . . . 2 50</item>
          <item>
JEFFERSON'S MEMOIR, CORRESPONDENCE AND
MISCELLANIES,<lb/>
Edited by T. J Randolph, 4 volumes, 8vo boards, . . . . . 5 00</item>
          <item>
LEE'S REMARKS ON THE WRITINGS OF JEFFERSON,<lb/>
New edition, edited by C. C. Lee, 8vo muslin, . . . . . 1 25</item>
          <item>
BYRD'S WESTOVER MANUSCRIPTS,<lb/>
Containing a history of the dividing line betwixt Virginia and N.
Carolina,
Journey to the land of Eden, &amp;c., 1733, 8vo boards, . . . . . 1 25</item>
          <item rend="italics">
BLAND'S REVOLUTIONARY PAPER, AND MEMOIRS,<lb/>
Edited by Charles Campbell, 2 volumes in 1, 8vo 1/2 sheep, . . . . . 1 25</item>
          <item>GRIGSBY'S HISTORICAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1776,<lb/>
8vo muslin, . . . . . 1 50</item>
          <item>
EDITH ALLEN, OR LIFE IN VIRGINIA,<lb/>
By Lawrence Neville 12mo. muslin gilt, . . . . . 1 00</item>
        </list>
      </div1>
      <div1 type="advertisements">
        <pb id="pad2" n="ad2"/>
        <list type="simple">
          <head>BOOKS<lb/>
PUBLISHED BY<lb/>
J. W. RANDOLPH,<lb/>
RICHMOND, VA.</head>
          <item><sic corr="VIRGINIAN">VRGINIAN</sic> HISTORY OF AFRICAN COLONIZATION,<lb/>
By Rev. P. Slaughter, 8vo muslin, . . . . . $1 00</item>
          <item>
LIFE AND SERMONS OF REV. WM. DUVAL,<lb/>
City Missionary, with portrait, 12mo muslin, . . . . . 1 00</item>
          <item>
MAGRUDER &amp; ORVIS' DEBATE,<lb/>
on the punishment of the wicked and the kingdom of God, 12mo muslin, . . . . . 1 25</item>
          <item>
FAMILY CHRISTIAN ALBUM,<lb/>
Edited by Mrs. Elam, 8vo muslin gilt, . . . . . 1 50</item>
          <item>
PROFESSOR DEW'S ESSAY ON SLAVERY,<lb/>
8vo paper, . . . . . 50</item>
          <item>
UNCLE ROBIN IN HIS CABIN IN VIRGINIA, AND TOM
WITHOUT
ONE IN BOSTON,<lb/>
By J. W Page, 2nd edition with plates, 12mo muslin, . . . . . 1 00</item>
          <item>
SOUTHERN AND SOUTHWESTERN SKETCHES, FUN,
SENTIMENT,
AND ADVENTURE,<lb/>
12mo paper, . . . . . 37</item>
          <item>
BARTLEY'S LAYS OF ANCIENT VIRGINIA, AND OTHER POEMS,<lb/>
12mo muslin, . . . . . 75</item>
          <item>
PLANTATION AND FARM BOOK, RECORD, INVENTORY AND
ACCOUNT
BOOK,<lb/>
By a Southern Planter, 4to 1/2 sheep, . . . . . 2 00</item>
          <item>
RUFFIN'S ESSAY ON CALCAREOUS MANURES,<lb/>
5th edition, 12mo muslin, . . . . . 1 25</item>
          <item>
RUFFIN'S <sic corr="AGRICULTURAL">AGRICUTURAL</sic> ESSAY AND NOTES,<lb/>
12mo muslin, . . . . . 1 25</item>
        </list>
      </div1>
      <titlePage>
        <docTitle>
          <titlePart type="main">SCRIPTURAL
<lb/>
AND
<lb/>
STATISTICAL VIEWS
<lb/>
IN
<lb/>
FAVOR OF SLAVERY,</titlePart>
        </docTitle>
        <byline>BY
<docAuthor>THORNTON STRINGFELLOW, D. D.</docAuthor></byline>
        <docEdition>Fourth edition, with additions.</docEdition>
        <docImprint><publisher>J. W. RANDOLPH:</publisher>
<pubPlace>121 MAIN STREET, RICHMOND, VA.</pubPlace>
<docDate>1856.</docDate></docImprint>
        <pb id="pverso" n="verso"/>
        <docImprint>CLEMMITT, PRINTER.</docImprint>
      </titlePage>
    </front>
    <body>
      <div1 type="chapter">
        <pb id="p3" n="3"/>
        <head>SCRIPTURAL VIEW</head>
        <div2 type="essay">
          <pb id="p5" n="5"/>
          <head>SCRIPTURAL VIEW
<lb/>
OF
<lb/>
SLAVERY.</head>
          <p>Circumstances exist among the inhabitants of these United States, which
make it proper that the Scriptures should be carefully examined by
Christians in reference to the institution of Slavery, which exists in
several of the states, with the approbation of those who profess
unlimited subjection to God's revealed will.</p>
          <p>It is branded by one portion of people, who take their rule of moral
rectitude from the Scriptures, as a great sin; nay, the greatest of sins
that exist in the nation. And they hold the obligation to exterminate it, to
be paramount to all others.</p>
          <p>If slavery be thus sinful, it behooves all Christians who are involved in
the sin, to repent in dust and ashes, and wash their hands of it, without
consulting with flesh and blood. Sin in the sight of God is something
which God in his Word makes known to be wrong, either by preceptive
<pb id="p6" n="6"/>
prohibition, by principles of moral fitness, or
examples of inspired men, contained in the sacred
volume. When these furnish no law to condemn human
conduct, there is no transgression. Christians should produce a “thus
saith the Lord,” both for what they condemn as sinful, and for what they
approve as lawful, in the sight of heaven.</p>
          <p>It is to be hoped, that on a question of such vital importance as this to the
peace and safety of our common country, as well as to the welfare of the
church, we shall be seen cleaving to the Bible, and taking all our
decisions about this matter, from its inspired pages. With men from the
North, I have observed for many years a palpable ignorance of the divine
will, in reference to the institution of slavery. I have seen but a few who
made the Bible their study, that had obtained a knowledge of what it did
reveal on this subject. Of late their denunciation of slavery as a sin, is
loud and long.</p>
          <p>I propose, therefore, to examine the sacred volume briefly, and if I am
not greatly mistaken, I
shall be able to make it appear that the institution of slavery has
received, in the first place,</p>
          <p>1st. The sanction of the Almighty in the Patriarchal age.</p>
          <p>2d. That it was incorporated into the only National Constitution which
ever emanated from God.</p>
          <p>3d. That its legality was recognized, and its
<pb id="p7" n="7"/>
relative duties regulated, by Jesus Christ in his kingdom; and</p>
          <p>4th. That it is full of mercy.</p>
          <p>Before I proceed further, it is necessary that the
terms, used to designate the thing, be defined. It is not a name, but a
thing, that is denounced as sinful; because it is supposed to be contrary
to, and prohibited by the Scriptures.</p>
          <p>Our translators have used the term servant, to
designate a state in which persons were serving,
leaving us to gather the <hi rend="italics">relation</hi> between the party served, and the party
rendering the service, from other terms. The term slave, signifies with
us, a definite state, condition, or relation, which state, condition, or
relation,
is precisely that one which is denounced as sinful. This state, condition,
or relation, is that in which one human being is held without his consent,
by another, as property;<ref id="ref1" n="1" rend="sc" target="note1" targOrder="U">∗</ref>
<note id="note1" n="1" rend="sc" place="foot" anchored="yes" target="ref1"><p>∗The property in slaves in the United States is their <hi rend="italics">service or labor</hi>. The
Constitution
guarantees this property to its owner, both in apprentices and slaves.
And the supreme
court has decided, Judge Baldwin presiding, that all the means
“necessary and proper” to secure this property, may be constitutionally
used by the master, in the absence of all statute law. The Roman law
made the slave of that law, to be, not a <hi rend="italics">personal <sic corr="chattel">chattle</sic></hi>, held to service
or labor only as is the American apprentice or slave, but to be a mere
thing; and guaranteed to the master the right to do with that <hi rend="italics">mere thing</hi>,
just as he pleased.—To cut it up, for instance, as the Master sometimes
did, to feed fishes.</p><p>Abolitionists are guilty of the inexcusable wickedness of holding up this
ancient Roman
slavery, as a model of American slavery. Although they know, that the
personal rights of apprentices and slaves, are as well defined and
secured, by judicial decisions and statute laws, as the rights of husband
and wife, parent and child.”</p></note>
to be bought, sold, and transferred, together with increase as property
forever. Now, this precise thing, is denounced by a portion of the people
of these United States, as the greatest
<pb id="p8" n="8"/>
individual and national sin that is among us, and is
thought to be so hateful in the sight of God,
as to subject the nation to ruinous judgments, if
it be not removed. Now, I propose to show from the
Scriptures, that this state, condition, or relation, did exist
in the <hi rend="italics">patriarchal age</hi>, and that the persons most
extensively involved in the sin, if it be a sin, are the very
persons who have been singled out by the Almighty, as
the objects of his special regard—whose character and
conduct he has caused to be held up as <hi rend="italics">models</hi> for
future generations. Before we conclude slavery to be a
thing hateful to God, and a great sin in his sight, 
it is proper that we should search the records he has
given us, with care, to see in what light he
has looked upon it, and find the warrant for concluding,
that we shall honor him by efforts to abolish it; which
efforts, in their consequences, may involve the
indiscriminate slaughter of the innocent and the guilty, the master and
the servant. We all believe him to be a Being who is the same
yesterday, to-day, and forever.</p>
          <p>The first recorded language which was ever uttered in
relation to slavery, is the inspired language of Noah. In
God's stead he says, “Cursed be Canaan;” “a servant
of servants shall he be to his brethren.” “Blessed be the
Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”
“God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents
of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” Gen. ix: 25,
26, 27. Here, language is used, showing the <hi rend="italics">favor</hi> which God would
exercise to
<pb id="p9" n="9"/>
the posterity of Shem and Japheth, while they were
holding the posterity of Ham in a state of <hi rend="italics">abject
bondage</hi>. May it not be said in truth, that God decreed
this institution before it existed; and has he not
connected its <hi rend="italics">existence</hi> with prophetic tokens of special
favor, to those who should be slave owners or masters?
He is the same God now, that he was when he gave
these views of his moral character to the world; and
unless the posterity of Shem and Japheth, from whom
have sprung the Jews, and all the nations of Europe and
America, and a great part of Asia, (the African
race that is in them excepted,)—I say, unless they are
all dead, as well as the Canaanites or Africans who
descended from Ham, then it is quite possible that his
favor may now be found with one class of men who are
holding another class in bondage. Be this as it may,
God <hi rend="italics">decreed slavery</hi>—and shows in that decree,
tokens of good-will to the master. The sacred records
occupy but a short space from this inspired ray on this
subject, until they bring to our notice, a man that is held
up as a model, in all that adorns human nature, and as
one that God delighted to honor. This man is Abraham,
honored in the sacred records, with the appellation,
“Father” of the “faithful.” Abraham was a native of Ur,
of the Chaldees. From thence the Lord called him to go
to a country which he would show him 
and he obeyed, not knowing whither he went. He
stopped for a time at Haran, where his father died. From
thence he “took Sarai his wife, and
<pb id="p10" n="10"/>
Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that
they had gathered, and the souls they had gotten
in Haran, and they went forth to go into the
land of Canaan.”—Gen. xii: 5.</p>
          <p>All the ancient Jewish writers of note, and
Christian commentators agree, that by the “souls
they had gotten in Haran,” as our translators
render it, are meant their slaves, or those persons
they had bought with their money in Haran. In
a few years after their arrival in Canaan, Lot
with all he had was taken captive. So soon as
Abraham heard it, he armed three hundred and
eighteen slaves that were born in his house, and
retook him. How great must have been the entire
slave family, to produce at this period of
Abraham's life, such a number of young slaves
able to bear arms.—Gen. xiv: 14.</p>
          <p>Abraham is constantly held up in the sacred
story, as the subject of great distinction among
the princes and sovereigns of the countries in
which he sojourned. This distinction was on
account of his great wealth. When he proposed
to buy a burying-ground at Sarah's death, of the
children of Heth, he stood up and spoke with
great humility of himself as “a stranger and
sojourner among them,” (Gen. xxiii: 4,) desirous
to obtain a burying-ground. But in what light
do they look upon him? “Hear us, my Lord,
thou art a mighty prince among us.”—Gen. xxiii:
6. Such is the light in which they viewed him.
What gave a man such distinction among such a
people? Not moral qualities, but great wealth,
<pb id="p11" n="11"/>
and its inseparable concomitant, power. When
the famine drove Abraham to Egypt, he received
the highest honors of the reigning sovereign.
This honor at Pharaoh's court, was called forth
by the visible tokens of immense wealth. In
Genesis xii: 15, 16, we have the honor that was
shown to him, mentioned, <hi rend="italics">with a list of his property</hi>,
which is given in these words, in the 16th
verse: “He had sheep, and oxen, and he-asses,
and man-servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses,
and camels.” The <hi rend="italics">amount</hi> of his flocks
may be inferred from the <hi rend="italics">number of slaves</hi>
employed in tending them. They were those he
brought from Ur of the Chaldees, of whom the
three hundred and eighteen were born; those
gotten in Haran, where he dwelt for a short time,
and those which he inherited from his father,
who died in Haran. When Abraham <hi rend="italics">went up</hi>
from Egypt, it is stated in Genesis xiii: 2, that
he was “<hi rend="italics">very rich</hi>,” not only in <hi rend="italics">flocks</hi> and <hi rend="italics">slaves</hi>,
but in “<hi rend="italics">silver and gold</hi>” also.</p>
          <p>After the destruction of Sodom, we see him
sojourning in the kingdom of Gerar. Here he
received from the sovereign of the country, the
honors of equality; and Abimelech, the king, (as
Pharoah had done before him,) seeks Sarah for a
wife, under the idea that she was Abraham's
sister.  When his mistake was discovered, he
made Abraham a large present. Reason will tell
us, that in selecting the items of this present,
Abimelech was governed by the visible indications
of Abraham's preference in the articles of
<pb id="p12" n="12"/>
wealth—and that above all, he would present him with
nothing which Abraham's sense of moral
obligation would not allow him to own. Abimelech's
present is thus described in Gen. xx: 14, 16, “And
Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and men-servants, and
women-servants, and a thousand pieces of silver, and
gave them unto Abraham.” This present discloses to us
what constituted the most highly prized items of wealth,
among these eastern sovereigns in Abraham's day.</p>
          <p>God had promised Abraham's seed the land of
Canaan, and that in his seed all the nations of the earth
should be blessed. He reached the age of 85, and his
wife the age of 75, while as yet, they had no child. At
this period, Sarah's anxiety for the promised seed, in
connection with her age, induced her to propose a
female slave of the Egyptian stock, as a secondary wife, from which to
obtain the promised seed. This alliance soon puffed the
slave with pride, and she became insolent to her
mistress—the mistress complained to Abraham, the
master. Abraham ordered Sarah to exercise her
authority. Sarah did so, and pushed it to severity, and the
slave absconded. The divine oracles inform us, that the
angel of God found this runaway bond-woman in the
wilderness; and if God had commissioned this angel to
improve this opportunity of teaching the world how
much he abhorred slavery, he took a bad plan to
accomplish it. For, instead of repeating a homily upon
doing to others as we
<pb id="p13" n="13"/>
“would they should do unto us,” and heaping reproach
upon Sarah, as a hypocrite, and Abraham as a tyrant,
and giving Hagar direction how she might get into
Egypt, from whence (according  to Abolitionism) she
had been unrighteously sold into bondage, the angel
addressed her as “Hagar, Sarah's maid,” Gen, xvi: 1, 9;
(thereby recognizing the relation of master and slave,) <sic>“</sic>and asks her,
“whither wilt thou go?” and she said “I
flee from the face of my mistress,” Quite a wonder she
honored Sarah so much as to call her mistress; but she
knew nothing of abolition, and God by his angel did not
become her teacher.</p>
          <p>We have now arrived at what may be called an <hi rend="italics">abuse</hi>
of the institution, in which one person is the property
of another, and under their control, and subject
to their authority without their consent;
and if the Bible be the book, which proposes to furnish
the ease which leaves it without doubt that God abhors
the institution, here we are to look for it. What,
therefore, is the doctrine in relation to slavery, in a case
in which a rigid exercise of its arbitrary authority is
called forth upon a helpless female; who might use a
strong plea for protection, upon the ground of being
the master's wife. In the face of this case, which is
hedged around with aggravations as if
God designed by it to awaken all the sympathy
and all the abhorrence of that portion of mankind,
who claim to have more mercy than God himself—
but I say, in view of this strong case,
<pb id="p14" n="14"/>
what is the doctrine taught? Is it that God abhors the
institution of slavery; that it is a reproach to good men;
that the evils of the institution can no longer be winked
at among saints; that Abraham's character must not be
transmitted to posterity, with this stain upon it; that
Sarah must no longer be allowed to live a stranger to the
abhorrence God has for such conduct as she has been
guilty of to this poor helpless female? I say, what is the
doctrine taught? Is it so plain that it can be easily
understood? and does God teach that she is a bond-woman
or slave, and that she is to recognize Sarah as
her mistress, and not her equal—that she must return
and submit herself unreservedly to Sarah's authority?
Judge for yourself, reader, by the angel's answer: “And
the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return unto thy
mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.”—Gen.
xvi: 9.</p>
          <p>But, says the spirit of abolition, with which the
Bible has to contend, you are building your house upon
the sand, for these were nothing but hired servants;
and their servitude designates no
such state, condition, or relation, as that, in which one
person is made the property of another, to be bought,
sold, or transferred forever. To this, we have two
answers in reference to the subject, <hi rend="italics">before giving the
law</hi>. In the first place, the term servant, in the schedules
of property among the patriarchs, <hi rend="italics">does designate</hi> the
state, condition, or relation in which one person is the
legal property of another, as in Gen. xxiv:
<pb id="p15" n="15"/>
35, 36. Here Abraham's servant, who had been sent by
his master to get a wife for his Son Isaac, in order to
prevail with the woman and her family, states, that the
man for whom he sought a bride, was the son of a man
whom God had greatly blessed with riches; which he
goes on to enumerate thus, in the 35th verse: “He hath
given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and
men-servants, and maid-servants, and camels,
and asses;” then in verse 36th, he states the disposition
his master had made of his estate: “My master's wife
bare a son to my master when she was old, and unto
him he hath given all that he hath.” Here, servants are enumerated with
silver and gold as part of the patrimony. And,
reader, bear it in mind; as if to rebuke the
doctrine of abolition, servants are not only inventoried
as property, but as property which <hi rend="italics">God
had given to Abraham</hi>. After the death of Abraham, we
have a view of Isaac at Gerar, when he
had come into the possession of this estate; and
this is the description given of him: “And the
man waxed great, and went forward, and grew
until he became very great; for he had possession
of flocks, and possession of herds and <hi rend="italics">great store of
servants</hi>.”—Gen. xxvi: 13, 14. This state in
which servants are made chattels, he received as
an inheritance from his father, and passed to his
son Jacob.</p>
          <p>Again, in Genesis xvii, we are informed of a covenant
God entered into with Abraham; in which he stipulates
to be a God to him and his
<pb id="p16" n="16"/>
<hi rend="italics">seed</hi>, (not his servants.) and to give to his <hi rend="italics">seed</hi>
the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession.
He expressly stipulates, that Abraham shall put the token
of this covenant upon every servant born in his house,
and upon every servant <hi rend="italics">bought with his money of any
stranger</hi>.—Gen. xvii: 12, 13. Here again servants are
property. Again, more than four hundred years afterwards,
we find the <hi rend="italics">seed</hi> of Abraham, on leaving Egypt, directed to
celebrate the rite, that was ordained as a memorial of their
deliverance, viz: the Passover at which time the same
institution which makes <hi rend="italics">property</hi> of <hi rend="italics">men</hi> and <hi rend="italics">women</hi>, is
recognized, and the <hi rend="italics">servant bought with money</hi> is given the
privilege of partaking, upon the ground of his being
circumcised <hi rend="italics">by his master</hi>, while the hired servant, over
whom the master had no such control, is excluded until he
<hi rend="italics">voluntarily</hi> submits to circumcision showing clearly that
the institution of involuntary slavery then carried with it a
right, on the part of a master <hi rend="italics">to choose</hi> a religion
<hi rend="italics">for the servant</hi> who was his money, as Abraham did, by
God's direction, when he imposed circumcision on those
he had bought with his money,—when he was
circumcised himself, with Ishmael his son,
who was the only individual beside himself, on whom he
had a right to impose it, except the bond-servants
bought of the stranger with his money, and their children
born in his house. The next notice we have of servants as
property, is from God himself, when clothed with all the
visible tokens of his presence and glory, on the
<pb id="p17" n="17"/>
top of Sinai, when he proclaimed his law to the millions that surrounded
its base: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet
thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his
ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.”—Ex. xx: 17.
Here is a patriarchal catalogue of property, having God for its author, the
wife among the rest, who was then purchased, as Jacob purchased his
two, by fourteen years' service. Here the term servant, as used by the
Almighty, under the circumstances of the case could not be understood
by these millions, as meaning anything but property, because the night
they left Egypt, a few weeks before, Moses, by divine authority,
recognized their servants as property, which they had bought
with their money.</p>
          <p>2d. In addition to the evidence from the context of
these, and various other places, to prove the term
servant to be identical in the import of its essential
particulars with the term slave among us, there is
unquestionable evidence, that <hi rend="italics">in the patriarchal age</hi>, there
are two distinct states of servitude alluded to, and which
are indicated by two distinct terms, or by the same term,
and an adjective to explain.</p>
          <p>These two terms are first, servant or bond-servant;
second, hireling or hired servant; the first indicating
involuntary servitude; the second, voluntary servitude
for stipulated wages, and a specified time. Although
this admits of the clearest proof <hi rend="italics">under the law</hi>, yet it admits of proof
<pb id="p18" n="18"/>
before the law was given. On the night the
Israelites left Egypt, which was before the law was given,
Moses, in designating the qualifications necessary for the
Passover, uses this language,—Exod xii: 44, 45: “Every
man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast
circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A foreigner and
an hired servant shall not eat
thereof.” This language carries to the human mind, with
irresistible force, the idea of <hi rend="italics">two distinct states</hi>—one a state
of <hi rend="italics">freedom</hi>, the other a state of <hi rend="italics">bondage</hi>: in one of which, a
person is serving with his consent for wages; in the other
of which a person is serving without his consent,
according to his master's pleasure.</p>
          <p>Again, in Job iii, Job expresses the strong desire he had been
made by his afflictions to feel, that he had died in his
infancy. “For now,” says he, “should I have lain still and
been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest.
There (meaning the grave) the wicked cease from troubling,
and there the weary be at rest. There the prisoners rest
together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor. The
small and the great are there, and the servant is free from
his master.”—Job iii: 11, 13, 17, 18, 19. Now, I ask any
common-sense man to account for the expression in this
connection, “there the servant is free from his master.”
Afflictions are referred to, arising out of <hi rend="italics">states</hi> or
<hi rend="italics">conditions</hi>, from which <hi rend="italics">ordinarily</hi> nothing but <hi rend="italics">death</hi> brings
relief. <hi rend="italics">Death</hi> puts an end to afflictions of body that are
incurable,
<pb id="p19" n="19"/>
as he took his own to be, and therefore he desired it.</p>
          <p>The troubles brought on good men by a wicked
persecuting world, last for life; but in <hi rend="italics">death</hi> the wicked
cease from troubling,—<hi rend="italics">death</hi> ends that
<hi rend="italics">relation</hi> or <hi rend="italics">state</hi> out of which such troubles grow. The
prisoners of the oppressors, in that age, stood in a
<hi rend="italics">relation</hi> to their <hi rend="italics">oppressor</hi>, which led the oppressed to
expect they would hear the voice of the <hi rend="italics">oppressor</hi> until
<hi rend="italics">death</hi>. But <hi rend="italics">death</hi> broke the <hi rend="italics">relation</hi>, and was desired,
because in the grave they would hear his voice no more.</p>
          <p>All the distresses growing out of inequalities in human
condition; as wealth and power on one side, and poverty
and weakness on the other, were terminated by death;
the grave brought both to a level: the small and the great
are there, and there, (that is, in the grave,) he adds, the
servant is free from his master; made so, evidently, by
death. The relation, or state out of which his oppression
had arisen, being destroyed by death, he would be freed
from them, because he would, by death, be freed from his
master who inflicted them. This view of the case, and this
only, will account for the use of such language. But
upon a supposition that a <hi rend="italics">state</hi> or <hi rend="italics">relation</hi> among men is
referred to, that is <hi rend="italics">voluntary</hi>, such as that between <hi rend="italics">a
hired servant</hi> and his <hi rend="italics">employer</hi> that can be <hi rend="italics">dissolved</hi> at
the pleasure of the <hi rend="italics">servant</hi>, the language is without
meaning, and perfectly unwarranted; while such a
<hi rend="italics">relation</hi> as that of <hi rend="italics">involuntary</hi> and <hi rend="italics">hereditary</hi> servitude,
where the master
<pb id="p20" n="20"/>
had <hi rend="italics">unlimited power</hi> over his servant, and in an age
when cruelty was common, there is the greatest
propriety in making the servant or slave, <hi rend="italics">a companion
with himself, in affliction</hi>, as well as the oppressed and
afflicted, in every class where <hi rend="italics">death alone</hi> dissolved
the <hi rend="italics">state</hi> or <hi rend="italics">condition</hi>, out of which their afflictions
grew. Beyond all doubt, this language refers to a state
of <hi rend="italics">hereditary bondage</hi>, from the afflictions of which,
<hi rend="italics">ordinarily</hi>, nothing in that day brought relief but <hi rend="italics">death</hi>.</p>
          <p>Again, in chapter 7th, he goes on to defend himself in
his eager desire for death, in an address to God. He says,
it is natural for a servant to desire the shadow, and a
hireling his wages: “As the servant earnestly desireth
the shadow, and as the hireling looketh for the reward of
his work,” so it is with me, should be supplied.—Job
vii: 2. Now, with the previous light shed upon the use
and meaning of these terms in the <hi rend="italics">patriarchal
Scriptures</hi>, can any man of candor bring himself to
believe that two states or conditions are not here
referred to, in one of which, the highest reward after toil
is mere rest; in the other of which, the reward was wages
how appropriate is the language in reference to these
two states.</p>
          <p>The <hi rend="italics">slave</hi> is represented as earnestly desiring
the <hi rend="italics">shadow</hi>, because his condition allowed him no
prospect of anything more desirable; but the
<hi rend="italics">hireling</hi> as looking for the <hi rend="italics">reward of his work</hi>,
because <hi rend="italics">that</hi> will be an equivalent for his fatigue.</p>
          <p>So Job looked at <hi rend="italics">death</hi> as being to his <hi rend="italics">body</hi>
<pb id="p21" n="21"/>
as the servant's <hi rend="italics">shade</hi>, therefore he desired it; and like
the <hi rend="italics">hireling's wages</hi>, because <hi rend="italics">beyond the grave</hi>, he
hoped to reap the fruit of his doings. Again, Job (xxxi:)
finding himself the subject of suspicion (see from verse
1 to 30) as to the rectitude of his past life, clears himself
of various sins, in the most solemn manner, as
unchastity, injustice in his dealings, adultery, contempt
of his servants, unkindness to the poor, covetousness,
the pride of wealth, &amp;c. And in the 13th, 14th, and 15th
verses, he thus expresses himself: “If I did despise the
cause of my man-servant, or my maid-servant, when
they contended with me, what then shall I do when God
rises up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer
him? Did not he that made me in the womb, make him?
And did not one fashion us in the womb?” Taking this
language in connection with the language employed by
Moses in reference to the institution of involuntary
servitude in <hi rend="italics">that age</hi>, and especially in connection with
the language which Moses employs <hi rend="italics">after the law was
given</hi>, and what else can be understood, than a
reference to a class of duties that slave owners felt
themselves above stooping to notice or perform, but which,
nevertheless, it was the duty of the righteous man to
discharge: for whatever proud and wicked men might
think of a poor servant that stood in his estate, on an
equality with brutes, yet, says Job, he that made me,
made them, and if I despise their reasonable causes of
complaint, for injuries which they are made to suffer,
and for the redress of
<pb id="p22" n="22"/>
which I only can be appealed to, then what shall I do,
and how shall I fare, when I carry my causes of
complaint to him who is my master, and to whom only I
can go for relief? When he visiteth me for despising
<hi rend="italics">their cause</hi>, what shall I answer
him for <hi rend="italics">despising mine</hi>? He means that he would feel
self-condemned and would be forced to admit the
justice of the retaliation. But on the supposition that
allusion is bad to <hi rend="italics">hired servants</hi>, who were <hi rend="italics">voluntarily</hi>
working for wages agreed upon,
and who were the <hi rend="italics">subjects of rights</hi> for the <hi rend="italics">protection of
which</hi>, their appeal would be to “the judges in the gate,
as much as any other class of men, then there is no
point in the statement. For <hi rend="italics">doing that</hi> which can be
<hi rend="italics">demanded as a legal right</hi>, gives us no claim to the
character of <hi rend="italics">merciful benefactors</hi>. Job himself was a great
slave-holder, and,
like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, won no small portion of
his claims to character with God and men from the
manner in which he discharged his duty to his slaves.
Once more: the conduct of Joseph in Egypt, as
<hi rend="italics">Pharaoh's counsellor</hi>, under all the circumstances,
proves him a friend to absolute slavery, as a form of
government better adapted to the state of the world at
that time, than the one which existed in Egypt; for
certain it is, that he peaceably effected a change in the
fundamental law, by which a <hi rend="italics">state, condition</hi>, or
<hi rend="italics">relation</hi> between Pharaoh and the Egyptians was
established, which answers to the one now denounced
as sinful in the sight of God. Being warned of God, he
gathered up all the
<pb id="p23" n="23"/>
surplus grain in the years of plenty, and sold it out in
the years of famine, until he gathered up all the money;
and when money failed, the Egyptians came and said, “Give
us bread;” and Joseph said, “Give your cattle,
and I will give for your cattle, if money fail.” When
that year was ended, they came unto him the second
year, and said, “There is not aught left in sight of my
Lord, but our bodies and our lands. Buy us and our
lands for bread.” And Joseph bought all the land of
Egypt for Pharoah.</p>
          <p>So the land became Pharoah's, and as for the
people, he removed them to cities, from one end
of the borders of Egypt, even to the other end
thereof. Then Joseph said unto the people,
“Behold! I have bought you this day, and your
land for Pharoah;” and they said, “we will be
Pharoah's servants.”—See Gen. xlvii: 14, 16, 19,
20, 21, 23, 25. Having thus changed the fundamental
law, and created a state of entire <hi rend="italics">dependence</hi> and 
<hi rend="italics">hereditary bondage</hi>, he enacted in his
sovereign pleasure, that they should give Pharoah
one part, and take other four parts of the productions
to themselves. How far the
hand of God was in this overthrow of liberty, I
will not decide; but from the fact that he has
singled out the greatest slaveholders of that
age, as the objects of his special favor, it would
seem that the institution was one furnishing
great opportunities to exercise grace and glorify
God, as it still does, where its duties are faithfully discharged.</p>
          <pb id="p24" n="24"/>
          <p>I have been tedious on this first proposition, but I
hope the importance of the subject to Christians as well
as to statesmen will be my apology. I have written it, not
for victory over an adversary, or to support error or
falsehood, but to gather up God's will in reference to
holding men and women in <hi rend="italics">bondage, in the
patriarchal age</hi>. And it is clear, in the first place, that
God decreed this state before it existed. Second. It is
clear that the highest manifestations of good-will which
he ever gave to mortal man, was given to Abraham, in
that covenant in which he required him to circumcise all
his <hi rend="italics">male servants, which he had bought with his
money</hi>, and that were born of them in his house. Third.
It is certain that he gave <hi rend="italics">these servants</hi> as <hi rend="italics">property</hi> to
Isaac. Fourth. It is certain that, as the owner of <hi rend="italics">these
slaves</hi>, Isaac received similar tokens of God's favor.
Fifth. It is certain that Jacob, who inherited from Isaac
his father, received like tokens of divine favor. Sixth. It is
certain, from a fair construction of language, that Job,
who is held up by God himself as a model of human
perfection, was a great slaveholder. Seventh. It is certain,
when God showed honor, and came down to
bless Jacob's posterity, in taking them by the
hand to lead them out of Egypt, <hi rend="italics">they were the
owners of slaves that were bought with money, and
treated as property; which slaves</hi> were allowed of
God to unite in celebrating the divine goodness
to their <hi rend="italics">masters</hi>, while <hi rend="italics">hired servants</hi> were excluded. 
Eighth. It is certain that God interposed to
<pb id="p25" n="25"/>
give Joseph the power in Egypt, which he used, to
create a state, or condition, among the Egyptians,
which <hi rend="italics">substantially agrees</hi> with <hi rend="italics">patriarchal</hi> and <hi rend="italics">modern
slavery</hi>. Ninth. It is certain, that in reference to this
institution in Abraham's family, and the surrounding
nations, for five hundred years, it is never censured in
any communication made from God to men. Tenth. It is
certain, when God put a <hi rend="italics">period</hi> to <hi rend="italics">that dispensation</hi>, he
<hi rend="italics">recognized slaves as property on Mount Sinai</hi>. If,
therefore, it has become sinful since, it cannot be from
the <hi rend="italics">nature of the thing</hi>, but from the <hi rend="italics">sovereign pleasure
of God in its prohibition</hi>. We will therefore proceed to
our second proposition, which is—</p>
          <p>Second. That it was incorporated in the only national
constitution emanating from the Almighty. By common
consent, that portion of time stretching
from Noah, until the law was given to Abraham's
posterity, at Mount Sinai, is called the patriarchal age;
<hi rend="italics">this is the period we have reviewed</hi>, in relation to this
subject. From the giving of the law until the coming of
Christ, is called the Mosaic or legal dispensation. From
the coming of Christ to the end of time, is called the
Gospel dispensation. The legal dispensation is the
period of time, we propose now to examine, in
reference to the institution of involuntary and
hereditary slavery; in order to ascertain, whether,
during this period, <hi rend="italics">it existed at all</hi>, and <hi rend="italics">if it did exist</hi>,
whether with the <hi rend="italics">divine sanction</hi>, or in <hi rend="italics">violation of
the divine will</hi>. This dispensation is
<pb id="p26" n="26"/>
called the legal dispensation, because it was the
pleasure of God to take <sic corr="Abraham">Abrabram's</sic> posterity by miraculous power, then numbering near three millions
of souls, and give them a written constitution of
government, a country, to dwell in, and a covenant of
special protection and favor, for
their obedience to his law until the coming of Christ.
The laws which he gave them emanated from his
sovereign pleasure, and were designed, in the first
place, to make himself known in his
essential perfections; second, in his moral character;
third, in his relation to man; and fourth, to make known
those principles of action by the exercise of which man
attains his highest moral elevation, viz: supreme love to
God, and love to others as to ourselves.</p>
          <p>All the law is nothing but a preceptive
exemplification of these two principles; consequently,
the existence of a precept in the law, utterly
irreconcilable with these principles, would destroy
all claims upon us for an acknowledgment of its divine original.
Jesus Christ himself has put his finger upon these two principles
of human conduct, (Deut. vi: 5—Levit. xix: 18,) revealed in
the law of Moses, and decided, that on them hang all
the law and the prophets.</p>
          <p>The Apostle Paul decides in reference to the relative
duties of men, that whether written out in preceptive form
in the law or not, they are all comprehended in this saying,
viz: “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” With these
views to guide us, as to the acknowledged design of the
<pb id="p27" n="27"/>
law, viz: that of revealing the eternal principle of moral
rectitude, by which human conduct to be measured,
so that sin may abound, or be made apparent, and
righteousness be ascertained or known, we may safely
conclude, that the institution of slavery, which
legalizes the holding one person in bondage as
property forever by another, if it be morally wrong, or
at war with the principle which requires us to love
God supremely, and our neighbor as ourself, will, if
noticed at all in the law, be noticed, for the purpose of
being condemned as sinful. And if the modern views of
abolitionists be correct, we may expect to find the
institution marked with such tokens of divine
displeasure, as will throw all other sins into the
shade, as comparatively small, when laid by the side
of this monster. What, then, is true? has God ingrafted
hereditary slavery upon the constitution of
government he condescended to give his chosen
people—that people, among whom I promised to dwell,
and that he required to be holy? I answer, he has. It is
clear and explicit. He enacts, first, that his chosen
people may take their money, go into the slave markets
of the surrounding nations, (the seven devoted
nations excepted,) and purchase men-servants and
women-servants, men-servants, and give them, and
their increase, to their children and their children's
children, forever; and worse still for the refined
humanity of our age—he guarantees to the foreign
slaveholder perfect protection, while he comes in among the
Israelites, for the purpose of dwelling,
<pb id="p28" n="28"/>
and raising and selling slaves, who should be
acclimated and accustomed to the habits and
institutions of the country. And worse still for the
sublimated humanity of the present age, God passes
with the right to buy and possess, the right to govern,
by a severity which knows no bounds but the master's
discretion. And if worse can be, for the morbid
humanity we censure, he enacts that his own people
may sell themselves and their families for limited
periods, with the privilege of extending the time at the
end of the sixth year to the fiftieth year or jubilee, if
they prefer bondage to freedom. Such is the precise
character of two institutions, found in the constitution
of the Jewish commonwealth, emanating directly from
Almighty God. For the fifteen hundred years, during
which these laws were in force, God raised up a
succession of prophets to reprove that people for the
various sins into which they fell; yet there is not a reproof
uttered against the institution of <hi rend="italics">involuntary
slavery</hi>, for any species of abuse that ever grew out of
it. A severe judgment is pronounced by
Jeremiah, (chapter xxxiv: see from the 8th to the 22d verse,) for
an abuse or violation of the law, concerning the
<hi rend="italics">voluntary</hi> servitude of Hebrews; but the prophet
pens it with caution, as if to show that it had no
reference to any abuse that had taken place under the
system of <hi rend="italics">involuntary slavery</hi>, which existed by law
among that people; the sin consisted in making
hereditary bond-men and bond-women of Hebrews,
<pb id="p29" n="29"/>
which was positively forbidden by the law, and not for
buying and holding one of another nation in hereditary
bondage, which was as positively allowed by the law.
And really, in view of what is passing in our country,
and elsewhere, among men who profess to reverence
the Bible, it would seem that those must be dreams of a
distempered brain, and not the solemn truths of that
sacred book.</p>
          <p>Well, I will now proceed to make them good to the
letter, see Lev. xxv: 44, 45, 46; “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. 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. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for
your children after you, to inherit them for a possession,
they shall be your bond-man forever.” I ask any candid
man, if the words of this institution could be more
explicit? It is from God himself; it authorizes that people,
to whom he had become <hi rend="italics">king and law-giver</hi>, to purchase
men and women as property; to hold them and their
posterity in bondage; and to will them to their children
as a possession forever; and more, it allows <hi rend="italics">foreign
slaveholders</hi> to <hi rend="italics">settle</hi> and <hi rend="italics">live among them</hi>; to <hi rend="italics">breed
slaves</hi> and <hi rend="italics">sell them</hi>. Now, it is important to a correct
understanding of this subject, to connect 
<pb id="p30" n="30"/>
with the right to <hi rend="italics">buy</hi> and <hi rend="italics">possess</hi>, as property, the
amount of authority to <hi rend="italics">govern</hi>, which is granted by the
<hi rend="italics">law-giver</hi>; this amount of authority is implied, in the
first place, in the law which prohibits the exercise of
rigid authority upon the Hebrews, who are allowed to
sell themselves for limited times. “If thy brother be
waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not
<hi rend="italics">compel him</hi> to serve as a <hi rend="italics">bond servant</hi>, but as a <hi rend="italics">hired
servant</hi>, and as a <hi rend="italics">sojourner</hi> he shall be with thee, and
shall serve thee until the year of jubilee—<hi rend="italics">they shall not
be sold as bond-men</hi>; thou <hi rend="italics">shalt not rule over them
with rigor</hi>.”—Levit. xxv: 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. It will be
evident to all, that here are <hi rend="italics">two states</hi> of servitude; in
reference to <hi rend="italics">one</hi> of which, <hi rend="italics">rigid</hi> or <hi rend="italics">compulsory</hi> authority,
is <hi rend="italics">prohibited</hi>, and that its <hi rend="italics">exercise is authorized in the
other</hi>.</p>
          <p rend="italics">Second. In the criminal code, that conduct is
punished with death, when done to a <hi rend="italics">freeman</hi>,
which is not punishable at all, when done by a
<hi rend="italics">master to a slave</hi>, for the express reason, that the
slave is the <hi rend="italics">master's money</hi>. “He that smiteth a
man so that he die, shall surely be put to death.”
Exod. xxi: 11, 12. “If a man smite his servant
or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his
hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding,
if he continue a day or two, he shall not be
punished, for he is his money.”—Exod. xxi : 20.
Here is precisely the same crime: smiting a man
so that he die; if it be a freeman, he shall surely
be put to death, whether the man die under his
hand, or live a day or two after; but if it be a
<pb id="p31" n="31"/>
servant, and the master continued the rod until the
servant died under his hand, then it must be evident
that such a chastisement could not be necessary for
any purpose of wholesome or reasonable
authority, and therefore he may be punished, but not
with death. But if the death did not take place for a
day or two, then it is to be <hi rend="italics">presumed</hi>, that the master
only aimed to use the rod, so far as was necessary to
produce subordination, and for this, the law which
allowed him to lay out his money in the slave, would
protect him against all punishment. This is the
common-sense principle which has been
adopted substantially in civilized countries, where
involuntary slavery has been instituted, from that day
until this. Now, here are laws that authorize the
holding of men and women in bondage, and
chastising them with the rod, with a severity that
terminates in death. And he who believes the Bible to
be of divine authority, believes the laws were given
by the Holy Ghost to Moses. I
understand modern abolition sentiments to be
sentiments of marked hatred against such laws; to be
sentiments which would hold God himself in
abhorrence, if he were to give such laws his sanction;
but he has given them his sanction; therefore, they
must be in harmony with his moral character. Again,
the divine Lawgiver, in guarding the property right in
slaves among his chosen people, sanctions principles
which may work the separation of man and wife, father
and children. Surely, my reader will conclude, if I
<pb id="p32" n="32"/>
make this good, I shall force a part of the saints
of the present day to blaspheme the God of Israel.
All I can say is, truth is mighty, and I hope it
will bring us all to say, let God be true, in
settling the true principles of humanity, and
every man a liar who says slavery was inconsistent
with it, in the days of the Mosaic law. Now
for the proof: “If thou buy a Hebrew servant,
six years shall he serve thee, and in the seventh
he shall go out free for nothing; if he came in
by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he
were married, then his wife shall go out with
him; if his master have given him a wife (one of
his bond-maids) and she have borne him sons and
daughters, the wife and her children shall be her
master's and he shall go out by himself.”—Exod.
xxi: 2, 3, 4. Now, the God of Israel gives this
man the option of being separated by the master,
from his wife and children, or becoming himself
a servant forever, with a mark of the fact, like
our cattle, in the ear, that can be seen wherever
he goes; for it is enacted, “If the servant shall
plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my
children, I will not go out free, then his master
shall bring him unto the judges, (in open court,)
he shall also bring him unto the door, or unto the door
post, (so that all in the court-house, and
those in the yard may be witnesses, and his master
shall bore his ear through with an awl and he shall
serve him forever.” It is useless to spend more time in
gathering up what is written
<pb id="p33" n="33"/>
in the Scriptures on this subject, from the giving of
the law until the coming of Christ.</p>
          <p>Here is the authority, from God himself, to hold men
and women, and their increase, in slavery, and to
transmit them as property forever; here is plenary
power to govern them, whatever measure of severity
it may require; provided only, that <hi rend="italics">to govern</hi>, be the
object in exercising it. Here is power given to the
master, to separate man and wife, parent and child, by
denying ingress to his premises, sooner than compel
him to free or sell the mother, that the marriage relation
might be honored. The <hi rend="italics">preference</hi> is given of God to
<hi rend="italics">enslaving the father</hi> rather than <hi rend="italics">freeing the mother
and children</hi>.</p>
          <p>Under every view we are allowed to take of the
subject, the conviction is forced upon the mind, that
from Abraham's day, until the coming of Christ, (a
period of two thousand years,) this institution found
favor with God. No marks of his displeasure are found
resting upon it. It must, therefore, in its moral nature,
be in harmony with those moral principles which
requires to be exercised by the law of Moses, and
which are the principles that secure harmony and
happiness to the universe, viz: supreme love to God,
and the love of our neighbor as ourself.—
Deut. vi: 6.—Levit. xix: 18. To suppose that
God has laid down these fundamental principles
of moral rectitude in his law, as the soul that
must inhabit every preceptive requirement of that
law, and yet to suppose he created relations
<pb id="p34" n="34"/>
among the Israelites, and prescribed relative
duties growing out of these relations, that are
hostile to the spirit of the law, is to suppose what will
never bring great honor or glory to our Maker. But if I
understand that spirit which is now warring against
slavery, this is the position which the spirit of God
forces it to occupy, viz: that God has ordained slavery,
and yet slavery is the greatest of sins. Such was the
state of the case when Jesus Christ made his
appearance. We propose—</p>
          <p>Third. To show that Jesus Christ recognized this
institution as one that was lawful among men, and
regulated its relative duties.</p>
          <p>Having shown from the Scriptures, that slavery
existed with Abraham and the patriarchs, with divine
approbation, and having shown from the same source,
that the Almighty incorporated it in the law, as an
institution among Abraham's seed, until the coming of
Christ, our precise object now is, to ascertain whether
<hi rend="italics">Jesus Christ has abolished it</hi>, or <hi rend="italics">recognized it</hi> as a
<hi rend="italics">lawful relation</hi>, existing among men, and prescribed
duties which belong to it, as he has other relative duties;
such as those between husband and wife, parent and
child, magistrate and subject.</p>
          <p>And first, I may take it for granted, without proof,
that he has not abolished it by commandment, for none
pretend to this. This, by the way, is a singular
circumstance, that Jesus Christ should put a system of
measures into operation,
<pb id="p35" n="35"/>
which have for their object the subjugation of all
men to him as a law-giver—kings, legislators,
and private citizens in all nations; at a time, too, when
hereditary slavery existed in all; and after it had been
incorporated for fifteen hundred years into the Jewish
constitution, immediately given by God himself. I say, it
is passing strange, that under such circumstances,
Jesus should fail to prohibit its further existence, if it
was his intention to abolish it. Such an omission or
oversight cannot be charged upon any other legislator
the world has ever seen. But, says the Abolitionist, he
has introduced new moral principles, which will
extinguish it as an unavoidable consequence, without a
direct prohibitory command. What are they? “Do to
others as you would they should do to you.” Taking
these words of Christ to be a body, inclosing a moral
soul in them, what soul, I ask, is it?</p>
          <p>The same embodied in these words of Moses, Levit.
xix: 18; “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;” or is
it another? It cannot be another, but it must be the
very same, because Jesus says, there are but two
principles in being in God's moral government, one
including all that is <hi rend="italics">due to God</hi>, the <hi rend="italics">other</hi> all that is
<hi rend="italics">due to men</hi>.</p>
          <p>If, therefore, doing to others as we would they
should do to us, means precisely what loving our
neighbor as ourself means, then Jesus has added no
new moral principle above those in the law of Moses,
to prohibit slavery, for in his law is found this principle,
and slavery also.</p>
          <pb id="p36" n="36"/>
          <p>The very God that said to them, they should love him
supremely, and their neighbors as themselves, said to
them also, “of the heathen that are round about you,
thou shalt buy bond-men and bond-women, and they
shall be your possession, and ye shall take them as an
inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them
as a possession; they shall be your bond-men forever.”
Now, to suppose that Jesus Christ left his disciples to
find out, without a revelation, that slavery must be
abolished, as a natural consequence from the fact, that
when God established the relation of master and servant
under the law, he said to the master and servant, each of
you must love the other as yourself, is, to say the least,
making Jesus to presume largely upon the intensity of
their intellect, that they would be able to spy out a
discrepancy in the law of Moses, which God himself
never saw. Again: if “do to others as ye would they
should do to you,” is to abolish slavery, it will for the
same reason, level all inequalities in human condition. It
is not to be admitted, then, that Jesus Christ introduced
any new moral principle that must, of necessity, abolish
slavery. The principle relied on to prove it, stands
boldly out to view in the code of Moses, as the <hi rend="italics">soul</hi>,
that must <hi rend="italics">regulate</hi>, and <hi rend="italics">control</hi>, the <hi rend="italics">relation</hi> of <hi rend="italics">master
and servant</hi>, and therefore cannot abolish it.</p>
          <p>Why a master cannot do to a servant, or a servant to
a master, as he would have them do to him, as soon as
a wife to a husband or a husband
<pb id="p37" n="37"/>
to a wife; I am utterly at a loss to know. The wife is
“subject to her husband in all things” by divine
precept. He is her “head,” and God “suffers her not to
usurp authority over him.” Now, why in such a relation
as this, we can do to others <hi rend="italics">as we</hi> would they should
do to us, any sooner than in a relation, securing to us
what is just and equal as servants, and due respect and
faithful service rendered with good will to us as
masters, I am at a loss to conceive. I affirm then, first,
(and no man denies,) that Jesus Christ has not
abolished slavery by a prohibitory command: and
second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral
principle which can work its destruction, under the
gospel dispensation; and that the principle relied on for
this purpose, is a fundamental principle of the Mosaic
law, under which slavery was instituted by Jehovah
himself: and third, with this absence of positive
prohibition, and this absence of principle, to work its
ruin, I affirm, that in all the Roman provinces, where
churches were planted by the Apostles, hereditary
slavery existed, as it did among the Jews, and as it
does now among us, (which admits of proof from
history that no man will dispute who knows anything of
the matter,) and that in instructing such churches, the
Holy Ghost by the Apostles, has recognized the
institution, as one <hi rend="italics">legally existing</hi> among them, to be
perpetuated in the church, and that its duties are
prescribed.</p>
          <p>Now for the proof: To the church planted at
Ephesus, the capital of the lesser Asia, Paul
<pb id="p38" n="38"/>
ordains by letter, subordination in the fear of God,—
first between wife and husband; second, child and
parent; third, servant and master; <hi rend="italics">all, as states, or
conditions, existing among the members</hi>.</p>
          <p>The relative duties of each state, are pointed out;
those between the servant and master in these words: “Servants
be obedient to them who are your masters,
according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in
singleness of your heart as unto Christ; not with eye
service as men pleasers, but as the servants of Christ,
doing the will of God from the heart, with good will, doing service,
as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that whatsoever
good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of
the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And ye masters
do the same things
to them, forebearing threatening, knowing that your
master is also in heaven, neither is there respect of
persons with him.” Here, by the Roman law, the servant
was property, and the control of the master unlimited,
as we shall presently prove.</p>
          <p>To the church at Colosse, a city of Phrygia, in the
lesser Asia,—Paul in his letter to them, recognizes the
three relations of wives and husbands, parents and
children, servants and masters, as relations existing
among the members; (here the Roman law was the
same;) and to the servants and masters he thus writes:
“Servants obey in all things your masters, according to
the flesh: not with eye service, as men pleasers,
<pb id="p39" n="39"/>
but in singleness of heart, fearing God: and
whatsoever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and
not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive
the reward of the inheritance, for ye serve the Lord
Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the
wrong he has done; and there is no respect of persons
with God. Masters give unto your servants that which
is just and equal, knowing that you also have a master
in heaven.”</p>
          <p>The same Apostle writes a letter to the church at
Corinth;—a very important city, formerly called the eye
of Greece, either from its location, or intelligence, or
both, and consequently, an important point, for
radiating light, in all directions in reference to subjects
connected with the cause of Jesus Christ; and
particularly, in the bearing of its practical precepts on
civil society, and the political structure of nations.
Under the direction of the Holy Ghost, he instructs the
church, that, on this particular subject, <hi rend="italics">one general
principle</hi> was ordained of God, applicable alike in all
countries and at all stages of the church's future
history, and that it was this: “<hi rend="italics">as the Lord has called
every one, so let him walk</hi>.” “Let every man abide in the
same calling wherein he is called.” “Let every man
wherein he is called, therein abide with God.”—1 Cor.
vii: 17, 20, 24. “<hi rend="italics">And so ordain I in all churches</hi>;” vii:
17. The Apostle thus explains his meaning:</p>
          <p>“Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not
become uncircumcised.”</p>
          <pb id="p40" n="40"/>
          <p>“Is any man called in uncircumcision? Let him not be
circumcised.”</p>
          <p>“Art thou called, being a servant? Care not for it, but
if thou mayst be made free, use it rather;” vii: 18, 21.
Here, by the Roman law, slaves were property,—yet
Paul ordains, in this and all other churches, that
Christianity gave them no title to freedom, but on the
contrary, required them not to care for being slaves, or
in other words, to be contented with their <hi rend="italics">state</hi>, or
<hi rend="italics">relation</hi>, unless they could be <hi rend="italics">made free</hi>, in a lawful way.</p>
          <p>Again, we have a letter by Peter, who is the Apostle
of the circumcision—addressed especially to the Jews,
who were scattered through various provinces of the
Roman empire; comprising those provinces especially,
which were the theatre of their dispersion, under the
Assyrians and Babylonians. Here, for the space of
seven hundred and fifty years, they had resided, during
which time those revolutions were in progress which
terminated the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and
Macedonian empires, and transferred imperial power to
Rome. These revolutionary scenes of violence left one
half the human race (within the range of their influence,)
in abject bondage to the other half. This was the state
of things in these provinces addressed by Peter, when
he wrote. The chances of war, we may reasonably
conclude, had assigned a full share of bondage to this
people, who were despised of all nations. In view of
their enslaved condition to the Gentiles;
<pb id="p41" n="41"/>
knowing, as Peter did, their seditious character;
foreseeing, from the prediction of the Saviour, the
destined bondage of those who were
then free in Israel, which was soon to take place, as it
did, in the fall of Jerusalem, when all the males of
seventeen were sent to work in the mines of Egypt, as
slaves to the State, and all
the males under, amounting  to upwards of ninety-seven
thousand, were sold into domestic bondage;—I
say, in view of these things, Peter
was moved by the Holy Ghost to write to them, and his
solicitude for such of them as were in slavery, is very
conspicuous in his letter; (read carefully from 1st Peter,
2d chapter, from the 13th verse to the end;) but it is not
the solicitude of an abolitionist. He thus addresses
them: “Dearly beloved, I beseech you.” He thus
instructs them: “Submit yourselves to every
ordinance of man for the Lord's sake.” “For so is the will
of God.” “Servants, be subject to your masters with all
fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the
froward.”—1st Peter ii: 11, 13, 15, 18. What an important
document is this! enjoining political subjection to
<hi rend="italics">governments of every form</hi>, and Christian subjection on
the part of servants to their masters, whether good or
bad; for the purpose of showing forth to advantage, the
<hi rend="italics">glory of the gospel</hi>, and putting to silence the ignorance
of foolish men, who might think it seditious.</p>
          <p>By “every ordinance of man,” as the context will
show, is meant governmental regulations or
<pb id="p42" n="42"/>
laws, as was that of the Romans for enslaving their
prisoners taken in war, instead of destroying their lives.</p>
          <p>When such enslaved persons came into the church
of Christ let them (says Peter) “be subject to their
masters with all fear,” whether such masters be good or
bad. It is worthy of remark, that he says much to secure
civil subordination to the State, and hearty and cheerful
obedience to the masters, on the part of servants; yet
he says nothing to masters in the whole letter. It would
seem from this, that danger to the cause of Christ was
on the side of <hi rend="italics">insubordination among the servants</hi>,
and a <hi rend="italics">want of humility with inferiors</hi>, rather than
<hi rend="italics">haughtiness among superiors</hi> in the church.</p>
          <p>Gibbon, in his Rome, vol. 1, pages 25, 26, 27, shows,
from standard authorities, that Rome at this time swayed
its sceptre over one hundred and twenty millions of
souls; that in every province, and in every family,
<hi rend="italics">absolute slavery existed</hi>; that it was at least fifty years
later than the date of Peter's letters, before the absolute
power of life and death over the slave was <hi rend="italics">taken from
the master</hi>, and <hi rend="italics">committed to the magistrate</hi>; that about
sixty millions of souls were held as property in this
abject condition; that the price of a slave was four times
that of an ox; that their punishments were very
sanguinary; that in the second century, when their
condition began to improve a little, emancipation was
prohibited, except for great personal merit, or some
public
<pb id="p43" n="43"/>
service rendered to the State; and that it was not until
the third or fourth generation after freedom was
obtained, that the descendants of a slave could share
in the honors of the State. This is the <hi rend="italics">state, condition</hi>,
or <hi rend="italics">relation</hi> among the <hi rend="italics">members of the apostolic
churches</hi>, whether among <hi rend="italics">Gentiles</hi> or <hi rend="italics">Jews</hi>; which the
Holy Ghost, by Paul for the Gentiles, and Peter for the
Jews, recognizes as lawful; the mutual duties of which
he prescribes in the language above. Now, I ask, can
any man in his proper senses, from these premises, bring
himself to conclude that slavery is <hi rend="italics">abolished by Jesus
Christ</hi>, or that obligations are imposed by him upon his
disciples that are subversive of the institution?
Knowing as we do from contemporary historians, that
the institution of slavery existed at the time and to the
extent stated by Gibbon—what sort of a soul a man
must have, who, with these facts before him, will
conceal the truth on this subject, and hold Jesus Christ
responsible for a scheme of treason that would, if
carried out, have brought the life of every human being
on earth at the time, into the most imminent peril, and
that must have worked the destruction of half the
human race?</p>
          <p>At Rome, the authoritative centre of that vast theatre
upon which the glories of the cross were to be won, a
church was planted. Paul wrote a long letter to them.
On this subject it is full of instruction.</p>
          <p>Abolition sentiments had not dared to show
themselves so near the imperial sword. To warn
<pb id="p44" n="44"/>
the church against their treasonable tendency,
was therefore unnecessary. Instead, therefore, of
special precepts upon the subject of relative duties
between master and servant, he lays down a system
of practical morality, in the 12th chapter of his
letter, which must commend itself equally to the
king on his throne, and the slave in his hovel;
for while its practical operation leaves the subject
of earthly government to the discretion of man,
it secures the exercise of sentiments and feelings
that must exterminate everything inconsistent
with doing to others as we would they should do
unto us: a system of principles that will give
moral strength to governments; peace, security,
and good will to individuals; and glory to God
in the highest. And in the 13th chapter, from
the 1st to the end of the 7th verse, he recognizes
human government as an ordinance of God,
which the followers of Christ are to obey, honor,
and support; not only from dread of punishment,
but <hi rend="italics">for conscience sake</hi>; which I believe abolitionism
refuses most positively to do, to such governments
as <hi rend="italics">from the force of circumstances</hi> even
<hi rend="italics">permit</hi> slavery.</p>
          <p>Again. But we are furnished with additional
light, and if we are not greatly mistaken, with
light which arose out of circumstances analogous
to those which are threatening at the present
moment to overthrow the peace of society, and
deluge this nation with blood. To Titus whom
Paul left in Crete, to set in order the things that
were wanting, he writes a letter, in which he
<pb id="p45" n="45"/>
warns him of false teachers, that were to be
dreaded on account of their doctrine. While
they professed “to know God,” that is, to know
his will under the gospel dispensation, “in works
they denied him;” that is, they did, and required
others to do, what was contrary to his will under
the gospel dispensation. “They were abominable,”
that is, to the church and state, “and disobedient,”
that is to the authority of the Apostles,
and the civil authority of the land. Titus, he
then exhorts, “to speak the things that become
sound doctrine;” that is, that the members of
the church observe the law of the land, and obey
the civil magistrate; that “servants be obedient
to their own masters, and please them well in all
things,” not “answering again, not purloining,
but showing all good fidelity that they may
adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all
things,” <hi rend="italics">in that which subjects the ecclesiastical to
the civil authority in particular</hi>. “These things
speak, and exhort and rebuke with all authority;
let no man despise thee. Put them in mind to be
subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates.”
—Titus i: 16, and ii: from 1 to 10, and
iii: 1. The context shows that a doctrine was
taught by these wicked men, which tended in its
influence on servants, to bring the gospel of
Christ into contempt, in church and state,
because of its seditions and insubordinate character.</p>
          <p>But at Ephesus, the capital of the lesser Asia,
where Paul had labored with great success for
<pb id="p46" n="46"/>
three years—a point of great importance to the gospel
cause—the Apostle left Timothy for the purpose of
watching against the false teachers, and particularly
against the abolitionists. In addition to a letter which he
had addressed to this church previously, in which the
mutual duty of master and servant is taught, and which
has already been referred to, he further instructs
Timothy by letter on the same subject: “Let as many
servants as are under the yoke count their masters
worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his
doctrine be not blasphemed.”—1 Tim, vi: 1. These
were unbelieving masters, as the next verse will show.
In this church at Ephesus, the circumstances existed,
which are brought to light by Paul's letter to Timothy, that
must silence every cavil, which men, who do not
know God's will on this subject, may start until
time ends. In an age filled with literary men,
who are employed in transmitting historically to
future generations, the structure of society in the
Roman Empire; that would put it in our power
at this distant day, to know the state or condition
of a slave in the Roman Empire, as well as if we
had lived at the time, and to know beyond question,
that his condition was precisely that one, which is
now denounced as sinful: in such an age, and in such
circumstances, Jesus Christ
causes his will to be published to the world; and
it is this, that if a Christian slave have an unbelieving
master, who acknowledges no allegiance to Christ, this
believing slave must count his
<pb id="p47" n="47"/>
master worthy of all honor, according to what the
Apostle teaches the Romans, “Render, therefore, to all
their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to
whom custom is due, fear to whom fear, honor to whom
honor.”—Rom. xiii: 7. Now, honor is enjoined of God in
the Scriptures, from children to parents—from
husbands to wives—from subjects to magistrates and
rulers, and here by Jesus Christ, from Christian slaves to
unbelieving masters, who held them as property by law,
with power over their very lives. And the command is
remarkable. While we are commanded to honor father
and mother, without adding to the precept “all honor,”
here a Christian servant is bound to render to his
unbelieving master “all honor.” Why is this? Because in
the one case nature moves in the direction of the
command; but in the other, against it. Nature being
subjected to the law of grace, might be disposed to obey
reluctantly; hence the amplitude of the command. But
what purpose was to be answered by this devotion of
the slave? The Apostle answers, “that the name of God and his
doctrine (of subordination to the law-making power) be
not blasphemed,” as they certainly would by a contrary
course on the part of the servant, for the most obvious
reason in the world; while the sword would have been
drawn against the gospel, and a war of extermination
waged against its propagators, in every province of the
Roman Empire, for there was slavery in all; and so it
would be now.</p>
          <pb id="p48" n="48"/>
          <p>But, says the caviler, these directions are given to
Christian slaves whose masters did not acknowledge
the authority of Christ to govern them;
and are therefore defective as proof, that he approves
of one Christian man holding another in bondage. Very
well, we will see. In the next verse, (I Timothy vi: 2,) he
says, “and they that have believing masters, let them
not despise them because they are brethren, but rather do them
service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers
of the benefit.” Here is a great change; instead of a
command to a believing slave to render to a believing
master <hi rend="italics">all honor</hi>, and thereby making that believing
master in <hi rend="italics">honor</hi> equal to an unbelieving master, here is
rather an exhortation to the slave <hi rend="italics">not to despise him,
because he is a believer</hi>. Now, I ask, why the
circumstance of a master becoming a believer in Christ,
should become the cause of his believing slave
despising him while that slave was supposed to
acquiesce in the duty of rendering all honor to that
master before he became a believer? I answer, <hi rend="italics">precisely</hi>,
and <hi rend="italics">only, because</hi> there were <hi rend="italics">abolition teachers</hi> among them, who
<hi rend="italics">taught otherwise</hi>, and consented not to wholesome words, <hi rend="italics">even the
words of our Lord Jesus Christ</hi>.—1 Timothy, vii: 3: and
“to the doctrine which is according to godliness,” taught
in the 8th verse, viz: having food and raiment, servants
should therewith be content; for the pronoun us, in the
8th verse of this connection, means <hi rend="italics">especially</hi> the
<hi rend="italics">servants he was instructing</hi>, as well as Christians in
general.
<pb id="p49" n="49"/>
These men taught, that godliness abolished slavery, that
it gave the title of freedom to the slave, and that so
soon as a man professed to be subject to Christ, and
refused to liberate his slaves, he was a hypocrite, and
deserved not the countenance of any who bore the
Christian name. Such men, the Apostle says, are “proud,
(just as they are now,) knowing nothing,” (that is, on
this subject,) but “doating about questions, and strifes
of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil
surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt
minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is
godliness: from such withdraw thyself ”—1 Tim. vi: 4, 5.</p>
          <p>Such were the bitter fruits which abolition sentiments
produced in the Apostolic day, and such precisely are
the fruits they produce now.</p>
          <p>Now, I say, here is the case made out, which certainly
would call forth the command from Christ, to abolish
slavery, if he ever intended to abolish it. Both the
servant and the master were one in Christ Jesus. Both
were members of the same church, both were under unlimited and
voluntary obedience to the same divine law-giver.</p>
          <p>No political objection existed at the time against their
obedience to him on the subject of slavery; and what is
the will, not of Paul, but of the Lord Jesus Christ,
immediately in <sic corr="person">persom</sic>, upon the case thus made out?
Does he say to the master, having put yourself under
my government, you must no longer hold your brother
in bondage?
<pb id="p50" n="50"/>
Does he say to the slave, if your master
does not release you, you must go and talk to
him privately, about this trespass upon your
rights under the law of my kingdom; and if he
does not hear you, you must take two or three
with you; and if he does not hear them then you
must tell it to the church, and have him expelled
from my flock, as a wolf in sheep's clothing? I
say, what does the Lord Jesus say to this poor
believing slave, concerning a master who held
unlimited power over his person and life, under
the Roman law? He tells him that the very
circumstance of his master's being a brother,
constitutes the reason why he should be more
ready to do him service; for in addition to the
circumstance of his being a brother who would
be benefited by his service, he would as a brother
give him what was just and equal in return, and
“forbear threatening,” much less abusing his
authority over him, for that he (the master) also
had a master in heaven, who was no respecter of
persons. It is taken for granted, on all hands
pretty generally, that Jesus Christ has at least
been silent, or that he has not personally spoke, on the
subject of slavery. Once for all, I deny it. Paul, after
stating that a slave was to honor an unbelieving Master
in the 1st verse of the 6th chapter says, in the 2d verse,
that to a believing master, he is the rather to do service,
because he who partakes of the benefit is his brother. He then says,
if any man teach otherwise, (as all abolitionists then
did, and now do,) and consent
<pb id="p51" n="51"/>
not to wholesome words, “even the words of our Lord Jesus
Christ,” Now, if our Lord Jesus Christ uttered such
words, how dare we say he has been silent? If he has
been silent, how dare the Apostle say these are the
words of our Lord Jesus Christ, if the Lord Jesus Christ
never spoke them? Where, or when, or on what occasion
he spoke them, we are not informed; but certain it is, that
Paul has borne false witness, or that Jesus Christ has
uttered the words that impose an obligation on servants,
who are abject slaves, to render service with good will
from the heart, to believing masters, and to account their
unbelieving masters as worthy of all honor, that the
name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. Jesus
Christ revealed to Paul the doctrine which Paul has
settled throughout the Gentile world, (and by
consequence, the Jewish world also,) on the subject of
slavery, so far as it affects his kingdom. As we have
seen, it is clear and full.</p>
          <p>From the great importance of the subject, involving
the personal liberty of half the human race at that time,
and a large portion of them at all times since, it is not to be
wondered at, that Paul would carry the question to the Saviour, and
plead for a decisive expression of his will, that
would forever do away the necessity of inferring
anything by reasoning from the premises laid
down in the former dispensation; or in the patriarchal
age; and at Ephesus, if not at Crete, the
issue is fairly made, between Paul on the one
<pb id="p52" n="52"/>
side, and certain abolition teachers on the other, when, in
addition to the official intelligence ordinarily given to the
Apostles by the Holy Ghost, to guide them into all truth,
he affirms, that the doctrine of perfect civil subordination,
on the part of hereditary slaves to their masters, whether
believers or unbelievers, was one which he, Paul, taught
in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ himself.</p>
          <p>The Scriptures we have adduced from the New
Testament, to prove the recognition of hereditary slavery
by the Saviour, as a lawful relation in the sight of God,
lose much of their force from the use of a word by the translators,
which by time, has lost much of its original meaning; that
is, the word <hi rend="italics">servant</hi>. Dr. Johnson, in his Dictionary, says: “Servant is
one of the few words, which by time has acquired softer signification
than its original, knave, degenerated into cheat. While <hi rend="italics">servant</hi>,
which signified originally, a person preserved from death by the
conqueror, and reserved for slavery, signifies only an obedient
attendant.” Now, all history will prove that the servants of
the New Testament addressed by the Apostles, in their
letters to the several churches throughout the Roman Empire, were
such as were preserved from death by the conqueror, and taken into
slavery. This was their condition, and it is a fact well
known to all men acquainted with history. Had the word
which designates their condition, in our translation, lost
none of its original meaning, a common man could not
have fallen
<pb id="p53" n="53"/>
into a mistake as to the condition indicated.
But to waive this fact we are furnished with all the
evidence that can be desired. The Saviour
appeared in an age of learning—the enslaved condition
of half the Roman Empire, at the time, is
a fact embodied with all the historical records—
the constitution God gave the Jews, was in
harmony with the Roman regulations on the
subject of slavery. In this state of things, Jesus
ordered his gospel to be preached in all the
world, and to every creature. It was done as he
directed; and masters and servants, and persons
in all conditions, were brought by the gospel to
obey the Saviour. Churches were constituted.
We have examined the letters written to the
churches, composed of these materials.  The result is, that each
member is furnished with, a law to
regulate the duties of his civil station—from the highest
to the lowest.</p>
          <p>We will remark, in closing, under this head,
that we have shown from the text of the sacred
volume, that when God entered into covenant
with Abraham, it was with him as a slaveholder;
that when he took his posterity by the hand in
Egypt, five hundred years afterwards, to confirm
the promise made to Abraham, it was done with
them as slaveholders; that when he gave them a
constitution of government, he gave them the
right to perpetuate hereditary slavery; and that
he did not for the fifteen hundred years of their national
existence, express disapprobation towards
the institution.</p>
          <pb id="p54" n="54"/>
          <p>We have also shown from authentic history
that the institution of slavery existed in every
family, and in every province of the Roman
Empire, at the time the gospel was published to
them.</p>
          <p>We have also shown from the New Testament,
that all the churches are recognized as composed
of masters and servants; and that they are instructed
by Christ how to discharge their relative
duties; and finally that in reference to the question
which was then started, whether Christianity
did not abolish the institution, or the right of one
Christian to hold another Christian in bondage,
we have shown, that “the words of our Lord
Jesus Christ” are, that so far from this being
the case, it adds to the obligation of the servant
to render service with good will to his master, and
that gospel fellowship is not to be entertained
with persons who will not consent to it!</p>
          <p>I propose, in the fourth place, to show that the
institution of slavery is full of mercy. I shall
say but a few words on this subject. Authentic
history warrants this conclusion, that for a long
period of time, it was this institution alone which
furnished a motive for sparing the prisoner's
life. The chances of war, when the earth was
filled with small tribes of men, who had a passion
for it, brought to decision, almost daily,
conflicts, where nothing but this institution interposed
an inducement to save the vanquished.
The same was true in the enlarged schemes of
conquest, which brought the four great universal
<pb id="p55" n="55"/>
empires of the scriptures to the zenith of their
power.</p>
          <p>The same is true in the history of Africa, as far back
as we can trace it. It is only sober truth to say, that the
institution of slavery has saved from the sword more
lives, including their increase, than all the souls who
now inhabit this globe.</p>
          <p>The souls thus conquered and subjected to masters,
who feared not God nor regarded men, in the days of
Abraham, Job, and the Patriarchs, were surely brought
under great obligations to the mercy of God, in allowing
such men as these to purchase them, and keep them in
their families.</p>
          <p>The institution when ingrafted on the Jewish
constitution, was designed principally, not to enlarge
the number, but to ameliorate the condition of the slaves
in the neighboring nations.</p>
          <p>Under the gospel, it has brought within the
range of gospel influence, millions of Ham's
descendants among ourselves, who but for this
institution, would have sunk down to eternal
ruin; knowing not God, and strangers to the
gospel. In their bondage here on earth, they
have been much better provided for, and great
multitudes of them have been made the freemen
of the Lord Jesus Christ, and left this world
rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. The
elements of an empire, which I hope will lead
Ethiopia very soon to stretch out her hands to
God, is the fruit of the institution here. An
officious meddling with the institution, from
<pb id="p56" n="56"/>
feelings and sentiments unknown to the Bible,
may lead to the extermination of the slave race
among us, who, taken as a whole, are utterly
unprepared for a higher civil state; but benefit
them, it cannot. Their condition, as a class, is
now <sic corr="better">bettter</sic> than that of any other equal number
of laborers on earth, and is daily improving.</p>
          <p>If the Bible is allowed to awaken the spirit,
and control the philanthropy which works their
good, the day is not far distant when the highest
wishes of saints will be gratified, in having conferred
on them all that the spirit of good-will can
bestow. This spirit which was kindling into life,
has received a great check among us of late, by
that trait which the Apostle Peter reproves and
shames in his officious countrymen, when he says:
“But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as
a thief, or as an evil doer, or as a busy-body in
other men's matters.” Our citizens have been
murdered—our property has been stolen, (if the
receiver is as bad as the thief,)—our lives have
been put in jeopardy—our characters traduced—
and attempts made to force political slavery upon
us in the place of domestic, by strangers who
have no right to meddle with our matters. Instead
of meditating generous things to our slaves,
as a return for gospel subordination, we have to
put on our armor to suppress a rebellious spirit,
engendered by “false doctrine,” propagated by
men “of corrupt minds, and destitute of the
truth,” who teach them that the gain of freedom
to the slave, is the only proof of godliness in the
<pb id="p57" n="57"/>
master. From such, Paul says we must withdraw
ourselves; and if we fail to do it, and to rebuke
them with all the authority which “the words of
our Lord, Jesus Christ” confer, we shall be wanting
in duty to them, to ourselves, and to the
world.</p>
          <closer>
            <signed>THORNTON STRINGFELLOW.</signed>
          </closer>
        </div2>
        <div2 type="essay">
          <pb id="p58" n="58"/>
          <head>AN EXAMINATION
<lb/>
OF ELDER GALUSHA'S REPLY TO DR. RICHARD FULLER,
<lb/>
OF SOUTH CAROLINA,</head>
          <p>After my essay on slavery was published in the
Herald,<ref id="ref2" n="2" rend="sc" target="note2" targOrder="U">∗</ref>
<note id="note2" n="2" rend="sc" place="foot" anchored="yes" target="ref2"><p>∗These letters were first published in the Religious Herald,
Richmond.</p></note>
I sent a copy of it to a prominent Abolition
gentleman in New York, accompanied by a friendly letter.</p>
          <p>This gentleman I selected as a correspondent,
because of his high standing, intellectual attainments,
and unquestioned piety. I frankly avowed
to him my readiness to abandon slavery, so soon as I
was convinced by the Bible that it was sinful, and
requested him, “if the Bible contained
precepts, and settled principles of conduct, in direct
opposition to those portions of it upon which I relied, as
furnishing the mind of the Almighty upon the subject of
slavery, that he would furnish me with the knowledge of
the fact.” To this letter I received a friendly reply,
accompanied by a printed communication containing the
result of a prayerful effort which he had previously
made, for the purpose of furnishing
<pb id="p59" n="59"/>
the very information to a friend at the South, which I
sought to obtain at his hands.</p>
          <p>It may be owing to my prejudices, or a want of intellect,
that I fail to be convinced, by those portions of the Bible to
which he refers, to prove that slavery is sinful. But as the
support of truth is <hi rend="italics">my object</hi>, and as I wish to have the
answer of a good conscience towards God in this matter, I
herewith publish, for the information of all into whose
hands my first essay may have fallen, every passage in the
Bible to which this distinguished brother refers me for
“precepts and settled principles of conduct, in direct
opposition to those portions of it upon which I relied, as
furnishing the mind of the Almighty upon the subject of
slavery.”</p>
          <p>1st. His reference to the sacred volume is this: “God
hath made of one blood all nations of men.” This is a
Scripture truth which I believe; yet God decreed that
Canaan should be a servant of servants to his brother—that
is, an abject slave in his posterity. This God effected
eight-hundred years afterwards, in the days of Joshua,
when the Gibeonites were subjected to perpetual
bondage, and made hewers of wood and drawers of
water.—Joshua ix: 23.</p>
          <p>Again, God ordained, as law-giver to Israel, that their
captives taken in war should be enslaved.—Deut. xx: 10
to 15.</p>
          <p>Again, God enacted that the Israelites should buy
slaves of the heathen nations around them, and will them
and their increase as property to 
<pb id="p60" n="60"/>
their children forever.—Lev. xxv: 44, 45, 46. All these
nations were <hi rend="italics">made of one blood</hi>. Yet God ordained that
some should be “chattel” slaves to others, and gave his
special aid to effect it. In view of this incontrovertible
fact, how can I believe this passage disproves the
lawfulness of slavery in the sight of God? How can any
sane man believe it, who believes the Bible?</p>
          <p>2d. His second Scripture reference to disprove the
lawfulness of slavery in the sight of God, is this: “God
has said a man is better than a sheep.” This is a
Scripture truth which I fully believe—and I have no doubt,
if we could ascertain what the Israelites had to pay for
those slaves they bought with their money according to
God's law, in Levit. xxv: 44, that we should find they had
to pay more for them than they paid for sheep, for the
reason assigned by the Saviour; that is, that a servant
man is better than a sheep; for when he is done
ploughing, or feeding cattle, and comes in from the field,
he will, at his master's bidding, prepare him his meal, and
wait upon him till he eats it, while the master feels under
no obligation even to thank him for it because he has
done no more than his duty.—Luke xvii: 7, 8, 9. This, and
other important duties, which the people of God bought
their slaves to perform for them, by the permission of
their Maker, were duties which sheep could not perform.
But I cannot see what there is in it to blot out from the
Bible a relation which God created, in which he made one
man to be a slave to another.</p>
          <pb id="p61" n="61"/>
          <p>3d. His third Scripture reference to prove the
unlawfulness of slavery in the sight of God, is this:
“God commands children to obey their parents, and
wives to obey their husbands.” This, I believe to be the
will of Christ to Christian children and Christian wives—
whether they are bond or free. But it is equally true that
Christ ordains that Christianity shall not abolish slavery.
—1 Cor. vii: 17, 21, and that he commands servants to
obey their masters and to count them worthy of all
honor.—1 Tim. vi: 1, 2. It is also true, that God allowed
Jewish masters to use the rod to make them do it—and to
use it with the severity requisite to accomplish the
object.—Ex. xxi: 20, 21. It is equally true, that Jesus
Christ ordains that a Christian servant shall receive for
the wrong he hath done.—Col. iii: 25. My correspondent
admits, without qualification, that if they are property, it
is right. But the Bible says, they were property.—Levit.
xxv: 44, 45, 46.</p>
          <p>The above reference, reader <hi rend="italics">enjoins</hi> the <hi rend="italics">duty</hi> of two
<hi rend="italics">relations</hi>, which God ordained, but does not <hi rend="italics">abolish</hi> a
third <hi rend="italics">relation</hi> which <hi rend="italics">God has ordained</hi>; as the Scripture
will prove, to which I have referred you, under the first reference
made by my correspondent.</p>
          <p>4th. His fourth Scripture reference is, to the <hi rend="italics">intention</hi>
of Abraham to give his estate to a servant, in order to
prove that servant was not a slave. “What<sic>’</sic> ” he says,
“property inherit property?” I answer, yes. Two years
ago, in
<pb id="p62" n="62"/>
my county, <sic corr="William[?]">Willian</sic> Hansbrough gave to his slaves his
estate, worth forty or fifty thousand dollars. In the last
five or six years, over two hundred slaves, within a few
miles of me, belonging to various masters, have
inherited portions of their masters' estates.</p>
          <p>To render slaves valuable, the Romans qualified them
for the learned professions, and all the various arts.
They were teachers, doctors, authors, mechanics, &amp;c. So
with us, tradesmen of every kind are to be found among
our slaves. Some of them are undertakers—some farmers—
some overseers, or stewards—some housekeepers—some
merchants—some teamsters, and some
money-lenders, who give their masters a portion of their
income, and keep the balance. Nearly all of them have an
income of their own—and was it not for the seditious
spirit of the North, we would educate our slaves
generally, and so fit them earlier for a more improved
condition, and higher moral elevation.</p>
          <p>But will all this, when duly certified, prove
they are not slaves? No. Neither will Abraham's
<hi rend="italics">intention</hi> to give one of his servants his estate, prove
that he was not a slave. Who had higher claims upon
Abraham, before he had a child, than this faithful slave,
born in his house, reared by his hand, devoted to his interest, and
faithful, in every trust?</p>
          <p>5th. His fifth reference, my correspondent says,
“forever sets the question at rest.” It is this:
“Thou shalt not deliver unto his master, the
<pb id="p63" n="63"/>
servant which is escaped from his master unto thee—he
shall dwell with thee, even in that place which he shall
choose, in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best;
thou shalt not oppress him.”</p>
          <p>This my distinguished correspondent says, “forever
puts the question at rest.” My reader, I hope, will ask
himself what question it puts to rest. He will please to
remember, that it is brought to put this question to rest,
“Is slavery sinful in the sight of God?” the Bible being
judge—or “did God ever allow one man to hold property
in another?”</p>
          <p>My correspondent admits this to be the question at issue.
He asks, “What is slavery?”
And thus answers: “It is the principle involved
in holding man as property.” “This,” he says:
“is the point at issue.” He says, “if it be right
to hold man as property, it is right to treat him
as property,” &amp;c. Now, conceding all in the
argument, that can be demanded for this law
about runaway slaves, yet it does not prove that
slavery or holding property in man is sinful—
because it is a part and parcel of the Mosaic law, given
to Israel in the wilderness, by the same God, who in
the same wilderness enacted “that of the heathen that
were round about them, they should buy bond-men and
bond-women—also of the strangers that dwelt among
them should they buy, and they should pass as an
inheritance to their children after them, to possess them
as bond-men forever.”—Levit. xxv: 44.</p>
          <pb id="p64" n="64"/>
          <p>How can I admit that a prohibition to deliver up a
runaway slave, under the law of Moses, is proof that
there was no slavery allowed under that law? Here is the
law from God himself,—Levit. xxv: 44, authorizing the
Israelites to buy slaves and transmit them and their
increase as a possession to their posterity forever—and
to make slaves of their captives taken in war.—Deut.
xx: 10-15. Suppose, for argument's sake, I admit that God
prohibited the delivery back of one of <hi rend="italics">these slaves</hi>, when
he fled from his master—would that prove that he was
not a slave before he fled? Would that prove that he did
not remain legally a slave in the sight of God, according
to his own law, until he fled? The passage proves the
very reverse of that which it is brought to prove. It
proves that the slave is recognized by God himself as a
slave, until he fled to the Israelites. My correspondent's
exposition of this law seems based upon the idea that
God, who had held fellowship with slavery among his
people for five hundred years, and who had just given
them a formal statute to legalize the purchase of slaves
from the heathen, and to enslave their captives taken in
war, was, nevertheless, desirous to abolish the
institution. But, as if afraid to march directly up to his
object, he was disposed to undermine what he was
unwilling to attempt to overthrow.</p>
          <p>Upon the principle that man is prone to think God is
altogether such an one as himself, we may account for
such an interpretation at the present time, by men north
of Mason &amp; Dixon's line.
<pb id="p65" n="65"/>
Our brethren there have held fellowship with this
institution, by the constitutional oath they have
taken to protect us in this property. Unable,
constitutionally, to overthrow the institution, they
see, or think they see, a sanction in the law of
God to undermine it, by opening their gates and
letting our runaway slaves “dwell among them
where it liketh them best.” If I could be astonished
at anything in this controversy, it would be
to see sensible men engaged in the study of that
part of the Bible which relates to the rights of
property, as established by the Almighty himself,
giving in to the idea that the Judge of the world,
acting in the character of a national law-giver,
would legalize a property right in slaves, <hi rend="italics">as he
did</hi>—give full power to the master to govern—
secure the increase as an inheritance to posterity
for all time to come—and then add a clause to
legalize a fraud upon the unsuspecting purchaser.
For what better is it, under this interpretation?</p>
          <p>With respect to slaves purchased of the heathen, or
enslaved by war, the law passed a clear title to them
and their increase forever. With respect to the hired
servants of the Hebrews, the law secured to the master a
right to their service until the Sabbatic year or Jubilee—
unless they were bought back by a near kinsman at a
stated price in money when owned by a heathen master.
But these legal rights, under these laws of heaven's
King, by this interpretation, are all canceled for the
pecuniary loss, there is no redress—and for the insult
no remedy, whenever a “liketh him
<pb id="p66" n="66"/>
best” man can induce the slave to runaway. And worse
still, the community of masters thus insulted and
swindled, according to this interpretation, are bound to
show respect and afford protection to the <sic corr="villains">villians</sic> who
practise it. Who can believe all this? I judge our northern
brethren will say, the Lord deliver us from such legislation
as this. So say we. What, then, does this runaway law
mean? It means that the God of Israel ordained his
people to be an asylum for the slave who fled from
heathen cruelty to them for protection; it is the law of
nations—but surrendered under the Constitution by these
States, who agreed to deliver them up. See, says God,
ye oppress not the stranger. Thou shalt neither <hi rend="italics">vex</hi> a
stranger, nor <hi rend="italics">oppress</hi> him.—Ex. xxii: 21.</p>
          <p>His 6th reference to the Bible is this: “Do to others as
ye would they should do to you.” I have shown in the
essay, that these words of our Saviour, embody the same
moral principle, which is embodied by Moses in Levit.
xix: 18, in these words, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”
In this we cannot be mistaken, because Jesus says there
are but two such principles in God's moral government—
<hi rend="italics">one</hi> of supreme love to God—<hi rend="italics">another</hi> of love to our neighbor as
ourself. To the everlasting confusion of the
argument from moral precepts, to overthrow the positive
institution of slavery, this moral precept was given to
regulate the mutual duties of this very relation, which
God by law ordained for the Jewish commonwealth.</p>
          <pb id="p67" n="67"/>
          <p>How can that which regulates the <hi rend="italics">duty</hi>, overthrow
the <hi rend="italics">relation</hi> itself?</p>
          <p>His 7th reference is, “They which are accounted to
rule over the Gentiles, exercise lordship over them, but so it
shall not be among you.”</p>
          <p>Turn to the passage, reader, in Mark X: 42;
and try your ingenuity at expounding, and see if
you can destroy one <hi rend="italics">relation</hi> that has been created
among men, because the <hi rend="italics">authority</hi> given in another
relation was <hi rend="italics">abused</hi>. The Saviour refers to
the <hi rend="italics">abuse</hi> of State <hi rend="italics">authority</hi>, as a warning to those
who should be clothed with <hi rend="italics">authority</hi> in his kingdom,
not to <hi rend="italics">abuse</hi> it, but to connect the use of it
with humility. But how official <sic corr="humility">humilty</sic> in the
kingdom of Christ, is to rob States of the right
to make their own, laws, dissolve the relation of
slavery recognized by the Saviour as a lawful
relation, and overthrow the right of property in
slaves as settled by God himself, I know not.
Paul, in drawing the character of those who
oppose slavery, in his letter to Timothy, says,
(vi: 4,) they are “proud, knowing nothing;” he
means, that they were puffed with a conceit of
their superior sanctity, while they were deplorably
ignorant of the will of Christ on this subject.
Is it not great pride that leads a man to think
he is better than the Saviour? Jesus held fellowship with,
and enjoined subjection to governments, which sanctioned slavery
in its worst
form—but abolitionists refuse fellowship for governments
which have mitigated all its rigors.</p>
          <p>God established the relation by law, and bestowed
<pb id="p68" n="68"/>
the highest manifestations of his favor upon
slaveholders; and has caused it to be written as with a
sunbeam in the Scriptures. Yet such saints would be
refused the ordinary tokens of Christian fellowship
among abolitionists. If Abraham were on earth, they could not let
him, consistently, occupy their pulpits, to tell of the things
God has prepared for them that love him. Job himself
would be unfit for their communion. Joseph would be
placed on a level with pirates. Not a single church
planted by the Apostles would make a fit home for our
abolition brethren, (for they all had masters and slaves.)
The Apostles and their ministerial associates could not
occupy their pulpits, for they fraternized with slavery,
and upheld state authority upon the subject. Now, I ask,
with due respect for all parties can sentiments which
lead to such results as these be held by any man, <hi rend="italics">in the
absence of pride</hi> of no ordinary character, whether he
be sensible of it or not?</p>
          <p>Again, whatever of intellect we may have—can that
something which prompts to results like these be <hi rend="italics">Bible
knowledge?</hi></p>
          <p>Reference the 8th is favorable in <hi rend="italics">sound</hi> if not in <hi rend="italics">sense</hi>.
It is in these words, “Neither be ye called <hi rend="italics">masters</hi>, for
one is your <hi rend="italics">master</hi>, even Christ.” I am free to confess, it
is difficult to repress the spirit which the prophet felt
when he witnessed the zeal of his deluded countrymen,
at Mount Carmel. I think a sensible man ought to know
better, than to refer me to such a passage,
<pb id="p69" n="69"/>
to prove slavery unlawful; yet my <sic corr="correspondent">correpondent</sic> is a
sensible man. However, I will balance it by an equal
authority, for dissolving another relation. “Call no man
<hi rend="italics">father</hi> upon earth, for one is your <hi rend="italics">father</hi> in heaven.”</p>
          <p>When the last abolishes the <hi rend="italics">relation</hi> between <hi rend="italics">parent
and child</hi>, the first will abolish the <hi rend="italics">relation</hi> between
<hi rend="italics">master and servant</hi>.</p>
          <p>The 9th reference to prove slavery unlawful in the
sight of God is this: He that stealeth a man, and selleth
him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put
to death.” Wonderful!</p>
          <p>I suppose that no State has ever established
domestic slavery, which did not find such a law
necessary. It is this institution which makes such a law
needful. Unless slavery exists, there would be no
motive to steal a man. And, the danger is greater in a
slave State than a free one. Virginia has such a law, and
so have all the States of North America.</p>
          <p>Will these laws prove four thousand years hence
that slavery did not exist in the United States? No—but
why not! Because the statute will still exist, which
authorizes us to buy bond-men and bond-women with
our money, and give them and their increase as an
inheritance to our children, forever. So the Mosaic
statute still exists, which authorized the Jews to do the
same thing, and God is its author.</p>
          <p>Reference the 10th is: “Rob not the poor because
he is poor. Let the oppressed go free; break every
yoke; deliver him that is spoiled out
<pb id="p70" n="70"/>
of the hand of the oppressor. What doth the Lord require
of thee but to do justly, love mercy, walk humbly with
thy God. He that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his
Maker.” This <hi rend="italics">sounds</hi> very well, reader, yet I propose to
make every man who reads me, <hi rend="italics">confess</hi>, that these
Scriptures will not condemn slavery. Answer me this
question: Are these, and such like passages, in the Old
Testament, from whence they are all taken, intended to
reprove and condemn that people, for doing what God, in
his law gave them a right to do? I know you must answer,
they were not; consequently, you confess they do not
condemn slavery; because God gave them the right, by
law, to purchase slaves of the heathen.—Levit. xxv: 44.
And to make slaves of their captives taken in war.—
Deut. xx: 14. The moral precepts of the Old or New
Testament cannot make that wrong which God ordained
to be his will, as he has slavery.</p>
          <p>The 11th reference of my distinguished correspondent
to the sacred volume, to prove that slavery is contrary to
the will of Jesus Christ and sinful, is in these words:
“Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and
equal.” The argument of my correspondent is this, that
slavery is a relation, in which rights based upon <hi rend="italics">justice</hi>
cannot exist.</p>
          <p>I answer, God ordained, after man sinned, that he,
“should eat bread (that is, <hi rend="italics">have food and raiment</hi>) in
the sweat of his face.”</p>
          <p>He has since ordained, that some should be
<pb id="p71" n="71"/>
slaves to others, (as we have proved under the first
reference.) <hi rend="italics">Therefore</hi>, when food and raiment are
withheld from him in slavery, it is <hi rend="italics">unjust</hi>.</p>
          <p>God has ordained food and raiment, as wages for the
sweat of the face. Christ has ordained that with these,
whether in slavery or freedom, his disciples shall be
content.</p>
          <p>The relation of master and slave, says Gibbon, existed
in every province and in every family of the Roman
Empire. Jesus ordains in the 13th chapter of Romans,
from the 1st to the end of the 7th verse, and in 1 Peter,
2nd chapter, 13th, 14th, and 15th verses, that the
<hi rend="italics">legislative authority</hi>, which created the relation,
should be obeyed and honored by his disciples. But
while he thus <hi rend="italics">legalizes</hi> the <hi rend="italics">relation</hi> of master and
slave as established by the civil law, he proceeds to
prescribe the mutual duties which the parties, when
they come into his kingdom, must perform to each other.</p>
          <p>The reference of my correspondent to disprove
the <hi rend="italics">relation</hi>, is a part of what Jesus has prescribed
on this subject to <hi rend="italics">regulate</hi> the <hi rend="italics">duties</hi> of the relation, and is itself
proof that the relation existed—
that its legality was recognized—and its duties
prescribed by the Son of God through the Holy
Ghost given to the Apostles.</p>
          <p>The 12th reference is, “Let as many servants as are
under the yoke, count their masters worthy of all honor.
And they that have believing masters, let them not
despise them because they are
<pb id="p72" n="72"/>
brethren, but rather do them service, because
they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the
benefit.” If my reader will turn to my remarks,
in my first essay upon this Scripture he will cease
to wonder that it fails to convince me that slavery
is sinful. I should think the wonder would
be, that any man ever quoted it for such a purpose.</p>
          <p>And lastly. My correspondent informs me
that the Greek word “<foreign lang="gre">doulos</foreign>,” translated servant,
means hired servant and not slave.</p>
          <p>I reply, that the primary meaning of this
Greek word, is in a singular state of preservation.
God, as if foreseeing and providing for
this controversy, has caused, in his providence,
that its meaning in Greek dictionaries shall be
thus given, “the <hi rend="italics">opposite</hi> of <hi rend="italics">free</hi>.” Now, readers,
what is the opposite of free? Is it a state
somewhere <hi rend="italics">between</hi> freedom and slavery? If
freedom, as a condition, has an opposite, that
opposite state is indicated by this very word
“<foreign lang="gre">doulos</foreign>.” So says every Greek lexicographer.
I ask, if this is not wonderful, that the Holy
Ghost has used a term, so incapable of deceiving,
and yet that that term should be brought forward
for the purpose of deception. Another remarkable
fact is this: the English word servant, originally
meant precisely the same thing as the
Greek word “<foreign lang="gre">doulos</foreign>;” that is, says Dr. Johnson
in his Dictionary, it meant formerly a captive
taken in war, and reserved for slavery. These
are two remarkable facts in the providence of
<pb id="p73" n="73"/>
God. But, reader, I will give you a Bible key, by which
to decide for yourself, without foreign aid, whether
<hi rend="italics">servant</hi>, when it denotes a relation in society, where the
other side of that relation is <hi rend="italics">master</hi>, means <hi rend="italics">hired
servant</hi>. “Every man's servant that is bought for money
shall eat thereof; but a hired servant shall not eat
thereof.”—Exod. xii: 44, 45. Here are two classes of
servants alluded to—one was allowed to eat the
Passover the night Israel left Egypt; the other not. What
was the difference in these two classes? Were they
both hired servants? If so, it should read, “Every hired
servant that is bought for money shall eat thereof; but a
hired servant that is bought for money, shall not eat
thereof.” My reader, why has the Holy Ghost, in
presiding over the inspired pen, been thus particular? Is
it too much to say, it was to provide against the delusion
of the nineteenth century, which learned men would be
practicing upon unlearned men, as well as themselves,
on the subject of slavery? Who, with the Bible and their
learning, would not be able to discover that a servant
bought with money was a slave; and that a hired
servant was a free man? Again, Levit xxv: 44, 45,
and 46; “Thy bond-servants shall be of the heathen that
are round about you, and of the children of the strangers
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy. And
they shall be your possession, and ye shall take them as
an inheritance, for your children after you, to inherit
them for
<pb id="p74" n="74"/>
a possession, they shall be your bond-men forever.”</p>
          <p>Reader, were these hired servants? If so, they hired
themselves for a long time. And what is very singular,
they hired their posterity, for all time to come. And what
is still more singular, the wages were paid, not to the
servant, but to a former owner or master. And what is
still stranger, they hired themselves and their posterity
to be an inheritance to their master and his posterity
forever! Yet, reader, I am told by my distinguished
correspondent, that servant in the Scriptures, when used
to designate a relation, means only hired servant. Again,
I ask, were the enslaved captives in Deut. xx: 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, hired servants?</p>
          <p>One of the greatest and best of men ever raised at the
North, (I mean Luther Rice,) once told me when I quoted
the law of God for the purchase of slaves from the
heathen, (in order to silence his argument about
“<foreign lang="gre">doulos</foreign>,” and hired servant,) I say he told me positively,
there was no such law. When I opened the Bible and
showed it to him, his shame was very visible. (And I
hope he is not the only great and good man, that God
will put to shame for being ignorant of his Word.) But
he never opened his mouth to me about slavery again
while he lived.</p>
          <p>If my reader does no <hi rend="italics">better</hi> than he did, at least let
him not fight against God for establishing the
institution of “chattel” slavery in his kingdom, nor
against me for believing he did do
<pb id="p75" n="75"/>
it. But, reader, if you have the hardihood to
insist that these were hired servants, and not
slaves after all, then, I answer, that ours are
hired servants, too, and not slaves; and so the
dispute ends favorably to the South, and it is
lawful for us, according to abolition admissions,
to hold them to servitude. For ours, we paid
money to a former owner; so did the Jews for 
theirs. The increase of ours passes as an inheritance to
our children, so did the increase of the
Jewish servants pass as an inheritance to their
children, to be an inheritance forever. And all
this took place by the direction of God to his
chosen people.</p>
          <p>My correspondent thinks with Mr. Jefferson,
that Jehovah has no attributes that will harmonize
with slavery; and that all men are born
free and equal. Now, I say let him throw away
his Bible as Mr. Jefferson did his, and then they
will be fit companions. But never disgrace the
Bible by making Mr. Jefferson its expounder, nor
Mr. Jefferson by deriving his sentiments from it.
Mr. Jefferson did not bow to the authority of the
Bible, and on this subject I do not bow to him.
How can any man, who believes the Bible, admit
for a moment that God intended to teach mankind
by the Bible, that all are born free and equal?</p>
          <p>Men who engage in this controversy ought to look
into the Bible, and see what is in it about slavery. I do
not know how to account for such men saying as my
correspondent does, that the
slave of the Mosaic law, purchased of the heathen,
<pb id="p76" n="76"/>
then, was a hired servant; and that both he and the
Hebrew hired servant of the same law, had a passport
from God to run away from their masters with impunity,
to prove which is the object of one of his quotations.
Again, New Testament servants and masters are not the
<hi rend="italics">servants</hi> and <hi rend="italics">masters</hi> of the Mosaic law, but the
servants and masters of the Roman Empire. To go to the
law of Moses to find out the statutes of the Roman
Empire, is folly. Yet on this subject the difference is not
great, and so far as humanity
(in the abolition sense of it) is concerned, is in favor of
the Roman law.</p>
          <p>The laws of each made slaves to be property, and
allowed them to be bought and sold. See Gibbon's
Rome, vol. i: pp. 25, 26, and Lev. xxv: 44, 45, 46. The laws
of each allowed prisoners taken in war to be enslaved. See Gibbon
as above, and Deut. xx: 10-15. The difference was this: the
Roman law allowed <hi rend="italics">men</hi> taken in battle to be enslaved—
the Jewish law required the men taken in battle to be put
to death, and to enslave their wives and children. In the
case of the Midianites, the mercy of enslaving some of
the women was denied them because they had enticed
the Israelites into sin, and subjected them to a heavy
judgment under Balaam's counsel, and for a reason not
assigned, the mercy of slavery was denied to the male
children in this special case. See Numbers xxxi: 15, 16, 17.</p>
          <p>The first letter to Timothy, while at Ephesus, if
rightly understood, would do much to stay the
<pb id="p77" n="77"/>
hands of men who have more zeal than knowledge
on this subject. See again what I have written in my first
essay on this letter. In addition to what I have there said,
I would state, that the “<hi rend="italics">other doctrine</hi>,” I Tim. i: 2,
which Paul says, must not be taught, I take to be a
principle tantamount to this, that Jesus Christ proposed
to subordinate the civil to ecclesiastical authority.</p>
          <p>The doctrine which was “<hi rend="italics">according to godliness</hi>,” 1
Tim, vi: 3, I take to be a principle which subordinated the
church, or Christ in his members, to civil governments,
or “the powers that be.” One principle was seditious,
and when consummated must end in the man of sin. The
other principle was practically a quiet submission to
government as an ordinance of God in the hands of men.</p>
          <p>The Abolitionists, at Ephesus, in attempting to
interfere with the relations of slavery, and to unsettle
the rights of property, acted upon a
principle, which statesmen must see, would in
the end, subject the whole frame-work of government to
the supervision of the church, and terminate
in the man of sin, or a pretended successor
of Christ, sitting in the temple of God, and
claiming a right to reign over, and control the
civil governments of the world. The Apostle,
therefore, chapter ii: 1, to render the doctrine of
subordination to the State a very prominent
doctrine, and to cause the knowledge of it to
spread among all who attended their worship,
orders that the very first thing done by the
<pb id="p78" n="78"/>
church should be, that of making supplication,
prayers, and intercessions, and giving God thanks
for all men that were placed in authority, by the
State, for the administration of civil government.
He assigns the reason for this injunction, “ that
we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and
honesty.”</p>
          <p>My correspondent complains, that Abolitionists
at the North are not safe when they come among
us. They are much safer than the saints of
Ephesus would have been in the Apostolic day,
if Paul would have allowed the seditious doctrine
to be <sic corr="propagated">propogated</sic> which our Northern brethren
think it such a merit to preach, when it subjects
them to no risk. How can they expect, in the
nature of things, to lead a quiet and peaceable life
when they come among us? They
are <hi rend="italics">organized</hi> to overthrow our sovereignty—to
put our lives in peril, and to trample upon Bible
principles, by which the rights of property are to
be settled.</p>
          <p>Questions and strife's of words characterized the
disputes of the Abolitionists at Ephesus about slavery. It
is amusing and painful to see the questions and strifes of
words in the piece of my correspondent. Many of these
questions are about our property right in slaves. The
<hi rend="italics">substance of them</hi> is this: that the present title is not good,
because the original title grew out of violence and
injustice. But, reader, our original title was obtained in
the same way which God in his law authorized his
people to obtain theirs. They
<pb id="p79" n="79"/>
obtained their slaves by purchase of those who
made them captives in the hazards of war, or by
conquest with their own sword. My correspondent
speaks at one time as if ours were stolen in
the first instance; but, as if forgetting that, in
another place he says, that so great is the hazard
attending the wars of Africa, that one life is lost
for every two that are taken captive and sold into
slavery. If this is stealing, it has at least the
merit of being more manly than some that is
practised among us.</p>
          <p>A case seems to have been preserved by the Holy
Ghost, as if to rebuke this abolition doctrine about property
rights. It is the case of the King
of Ammon, a heathen, on the one side, and Jephtha,
who “obtained a good report by faith,” on the other. It
is consoling to us that we occupy the ground Jephtha
did—and we may well suspect the correctness of the
other side, because it is the ground occupied by
Ammon. The case is this: A heathen is seen menacing Israel.
Jephtha is selected by his countrymen to conduct the
controversy. He sends a message to his menacing
neighbor, to know why he had come out against him.
He returned for answer, that it was because Israel
held property to which they had no right. Jephtha
answered, they had had it in possession for three
hundred years. Ammon replied, they had no right to it,
because it was obtained in the first instance by
violence. Jephtha replied, that it was held by the same
sort of a title as that by which Ammon held his
<pb id="p80" n="80"/>
possessions—that is to say, whatever Ammon's god
Chemosh enabled him to take in war, he considered to
be his of right; and that Israel's God had assisted them
to take this property, and they considered the title to be
such an one as Ammon was bound to acknowledge.</p>
          <p>Ammon stickled for the <hi rend="italics">eternal</hi> principle of
righteousness, and contended that it had been violated
in the first instance. But, reader, in the appeal made to
the sword, God vindicated Israel's title.—Judges xi: 12-32.</p>
          <p>And if at the present time, we take ground with
Ammon about the rights of property, I will not say how
much work we may have to do, nor who will prove the
rightful owner of my correspondent's <hi rend="italics">domicil</hi>; but certain
I am, that by his Ammonitish principle of settling the
rights of property, he will be ousted.</p>
          <p>Reader, in looking over the printed reply of my
correspondent to his Southern friend, which occupies
ten columns of a large newspaper, to see if I had
overlooked any scripture, I find I have omitted to notice
one reference to the sacred volume, which was made by
him, for the general purpose of showing that the
Scriptures abound with moral principles, and call into
exercise moral feelings inconsistent with slavery. It is
this: “Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the
least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me.”
The design of the Saviour, in the parable from which
these words are taken, in Matt. 25th, is, to impress
strongly upon the
<pb id="p81" n="81"/>
human mind, that <hi rend="italics">character</hi>, deficient in <hi rend="italics">correct moral
feeling</hi>, will prove fatal to human hopes in a coming
day.</p>
          <p>But, reader, will you stop and ask yourself, “What is
correct moral feeling?” Is it abhorrence and hatred to the
will and pleasure of God? Certainly not. Then it is not
abhorrence and hatred of slavery, which seems to be a
cardinal virtue at the North. It has been the will and
pleasure of God to institute slavery by a law of his own,
in that kingdom over which he immediately presided;
and to give it his sanction when instituted by the laws
of men. The most elevated morality is enjoined under
both Testaments, upon the parties in this relation. There
is nothing in the relation inconsistent with its exercise.</p>
          <p>My reader will remember that the subject in dispute
is, whether involuntary and hereditary slavery was ever
lawful in the sight of God, the Bible being judge.</p>
          <p>1. I have shown by the Bible, that God decreed this
relation between the posterity of Canaan, and the
posterity of Shem and Japheth.</p>
          <p>2. I have shown that God executed this decree by
aiding the posterity of Shem, (at a time when “they were
holiness to the Lord,”) to enslave the posterity of
Canaan in the days of Joshua.</p>
          <p>3. I have shown that when God ratified the covenant
of promise with Abraham, he recognized Abraham as the
owner of slaves he had bought 
<pb id="p82" n="82"/>
with his money of the stranger, and recorded his
approbation of the relation, by commanding Abraham
to circumcise them.</p>
          <p>4. I have shown that when he took Abraham's
posterity by the hand in Egypt, five hundred years
afterwards, he publicly approbated the same relation, by
permitting every slave they had bought with their
money to eat the passover, while he refused the same
privilege to their <hi rend="italics">hired servants</hi>.</p>
          <p>5. I have shown that God, as their national lawgiver,
ordained by express statute, that they should buy
slaves of the nations around them, (the seven devoted
nations excepted,) and that these slaves and their
increase should be a perpetual inheritance to their
children.</p>
          <p>6. I have shown that God ordained slavery by law for
their captives taken in war, while he guaranteed a
successful issue to their wars, so long as they obeyed
him.</p>
          <p>7. I have shown that when Jesus ordered his gospel
to be published through the world, the relation of
master and slave existed by law in every province and
family of the Roman Empire, as it had done in the Jewish
commonwealth for fifteen hundred years.</p>
          <p>8. I have shown that Jesus ordained, that the
legislative authority, which created this relation in that
empire, should be obeyed and honored as an ordinance
of God, as all government is declared to be.</p>
          <p>9. I have shown that Jesus has prescribed
<pb id="p83" n="83"/>
the mutual duties of this relation in his kingdom.</p>
          <p>10. And lastly, I have shown, that in an attempt
by his professed followers to disturb this relation in the
Apostolic churches, Jesus orders that fellowship shall
be disclaimed with all such disciples, as seditious
persons—whose conduct was not only dangerous to the
State, but destructive to the true character of the
gospel dispensation.</p>
          <p>This being the case, as will appear by the recorded
language of the Bible, to which we have referred you,
reader, of what use is it to argue against it from moral
requirements?</p>
          <p>They regulate the duties of this and all other lawful
relations among men—but they cannot abolish any
relation, ordained or sanctioned of God, as is slavery.</p>
          <p>I would be understood as referring for proof of this
summary, to my first as well as my present essay.</p>
          <p>When I first wrote, I did suppose the Scriptures had
been examined by leading men in the opposition, and
that prejudice had blinded their eyes. I am now of a
different opinion. What will be the effect of this
discussion, I will not venture to predict, knowing
human nature as well as I do. But men who are capable
of exercising candor must see, that it is not against an
institution unknown to the Bible, or declared by its
author to be sinful that the North is waging war.</p>
          <pb id="p84" n="84"/>
          <p>Their hostility must be transferred from us to God,
who established slavery by law in that kingdom over
which he condescended to preside; and to Jesus, who recognized it
as a relation
established in Israel by his father, and in the Roman
government by men, which he bound his followers to
obey and honor.</p>
          <p>In defending the institution as one which has the
sanction of our Maker, I have done what I considered,
under the peculiar circumstances of our common
country, to be a Christian duty. I have set down nought
in malice. I have used no
sophistry. I have brought to the investigation of the
subject, common sense. I have not relied on powers of
argument, learning, or ingenuity. These would neither
put the subject into the Bible nor take it out. It is a Bible
question. I have met it fairly, and fully, according to the
acknowledged principles of the Abolitionists. I have
placed before my reader what is in the Bible, to prove
that slavery has the sanction of God, and is not sinful. I
have placed before him what I suppose to be the
quintessence of all that can be gleaned from the Bible to
disprove it.</p>
          <p>I have made a few plain reflections to aid the
understanding of my reader. What I have written was
designed for those who reverence the Bible as their
counsellor—who take it for rules of conduct, and
devotional sentiments.</p>
          <p>I now commit it to God for his blessing, with a
fervent desire, that if I have mistaken his will in
anything, he will not suffer my error to mislead
another. </p>
          <closer>
            <signed>THORNTON STRINGFELLOW.</signed>
          </closer>
        </div2>
        <div2 type="letter">
          <pb id="p85" n="85"/>
          <opener>[The following letter, in substance, was written to a brother in
Kentucky, who
solicited a copy of my slavery pamphlet, as well as my opinion on
the movement in that
State, on the subject of emancipation.]
<salute>DEAR BROTHER:</salute></opener>
          <p>I received your letter, and the
slavery pamphlet which you requested me to send you,
I herewith enclose.</p>
          <p>When I published the first essay in that pamphlet, I
intended to invite a discussion with Elder Galusha, of
New York; and when I received Mr. Galusha's letter to
Dr. Fuller, I still expected a discussion. But after
manifesting, on his part, great pleasure in the outset, for
the opportunity tendered him by a Southern man, to
discuss this subject, he ultimately declined it. This
being the case, I did not at that time present as full a
view of the subject as the Scriptures furnish. I have
since thought of supplying this deficiency; and the condition
of things in Kentucky
furnishes a fit opportunity for saying to you, what I
said to a brother in Pennsylvania, who, like yourself,
requested me to send him a copy of my pamphlet.</p>
          <p>I do not know that I could add anything, beyond
what I said to him, that would be useful to you. To this
brother I said, among other things, that Dr. Wayland (in
his discussion with Dr. Fuller,) relied principally upon
<hi rend="italics">two arguments</hi>, used by all the intelligent abolitionists,
to overthrow the weight of Scriptural authority in
support of
<pb id="p86" n="86"/>
slavery. The first of these arguments is designed to
neutralize the sanction given to slavery by the law of
Moses; and the second is designed to neutralize the
sanction given to slavery by the New Testament.</p>
          <p>The Dr. frankly admits, that the law of Moses did
establish slavery in the Jewish commonwealth; and he
admits with equal frankness, that it was incorporated as
an element in the gospel church. For the purpose,
however, of destroying the sanction thus given to the
legality of the relation under the <hi rend="italics">law of Moses</hi>, he
assumes two things in relation to it, which are expressly
contradicted by the law. He assumes, in the first
place, that the Almighty, under the law, gave a
<hi rend="italics">special permission</hi> to the Israelites to enslave the
seven devoted nations, as a punishment for their sins.
He then assumes, in the second place, that this <hi rend="italics">special permission</hi>
to enslave the seven nations, prohibited, by
<hi rend="italics">implication</hi>, the enslaving of all other nations. The
conclusion which the Dr. draws from the above
assumptions is this—that a <hi rend="italics">special permission</hi> under the
law, to enslave a particular people, as a punishment for
their sins, is not a <hi rend="italics">general permission</hi> under the gospel,
to enslave all, or any other people. The premises here
assumed, and from which this conclusion is drawn are
precisely the reverse of what is recorded in the Bible.</p>
          <p>The Bible statement is this: that the Israelites under
the law, so far from being permitted or required to
enslave the seven nations, as a punishment
<pb id="p87" n="87"/>
for their sins, were expressly commanded to
<hi rend="italics">destroy them utterly</hi>. Here is the proof—Deut. vii: 1 and
2: “When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land
whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many
nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and
the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and
the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and
mightier than thou; and when the Lord thy God shall
deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them, <hi rend="italics">and
utterly destroy</hi> them, thou shalt make no covenant with
them, nor show mercy unto them.” And again, in Deut.
xx: 16 and 17: “But of the cities of these people, which
the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, <hi rend="italics">thou
shalt save alive nothing that breatheth</hi>. But thou shalt
<hi rend="italics">utterly destroy them</hi>, namely, the Hittites, and the
Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites,
and the Jebusites, <hi rend="italics">as the Lord thy God hath commanded
thee</hi>.” This law was <hi rend="italics">delivered</hi> by Moses, and was
<hi rend="italics">executed </hi>by Joshua some years afterwards, to the letter.</p>
          <p>Here is the proof of it, Josh. xi: 14 to 20 inclusive:
“And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the
children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; <hi rend="italics">but
every man they smote with the edge of the sword until
they had destroyed them, neither left they any to
breathe</hi>.”</p>
          <p>“<hi rend="italics">As the Lord commanded Moses</hi> his servant; so did
Moses command Joshua, and <hi rend="italics">so did Joshua</hi>; he left
nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded
Moses. So Joshua took all that land,
<pb id="p88" n="88"/>
the hills and all the south country, and all the land of Goshen,
and the valley and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and
the valley of the same. Even from the mount Halak that goeth
up to Sier, even unto Baalgad, in the valley of Lebanon, under
mount Hermon, and all their kings he took, and smote them,
and slew them. Joshua made war a long time with all those
kings. There was not a city that made peace with the children
of Israel, <hi rend="italics">save the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon</hi>, all
others they took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden
their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle,
<hi rend="italics">that he might destroy them utterly</hi>, and that they might have
no favor, but that he might destroy them, <hi rend="italics">as the Lord
commanded Moses</hi>.” In this account of their destruction, the
Gibeonites, who
deceived Joshua, are excepted, and the reason given is,
that Joshua in their case, failed to ask counsel at the
mouth of the Lord. Here is the proof: “And the men took
of them victuals, and asked not counsel of the mouth of
the Lord.—”(Josh. ix: 14.) This counsel Joshua was
expressly commanded to ask, when he was ordained
some time before, to be the <hi rend="italics">executor</hi> of God's
<hi rend="italics">legislative will</hi>, by Moses. Here is the proof, (Numb.
xxvii: 18-23:) “And the Lord said unto Moses, Take thee
Joshua, the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and
lay thy hand upon him; and set him before Eleazar the priest, and
before all the congregation; and give him a
charge in their sight. And thou shalt put some of thine
honor
<pb id="p89" n="89"/>
upon him, that all the congregation of the children
of Israel may be obedient. <hi rend="italics">And he shall stand before
Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him, after
the judgment of Urim before the Lord: at his word
shall they go out, and at his word shall they come in,
both he and all the children of Israel with him, even all
the congregation</hi>. And Moses did as the Lord
commanded him; and he took Joshua and set him before
Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation. And
he laid his hands upon him, <hi rend="italics">and gave him a charge, as
the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses</hi>.” These
scriptures furnish a palpable contradiction of the first
assumption, that is—that the Lord gave a <hi rend="italics">special
permission to enslave</hi> the seven nations. The Lord
ordered that they should be destroyed utterly.</p>
          <p>As to the second assumption, so far from the
Israelites being prohibited <hi rend="italics"><sic corr="by">bg</sic> implication</hi>,
from enslaving the subjects of other
nations, they were expressly authorized by the law <hi rend="italics">to
make slaves by war, of any other nation</hi>. Here is the
proof—Deut. xx: 10 to 17 inclusive: “When thou
comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim
peace unto it. And it shall be if it make thee
answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be,
that all the people that is found therein, shall be
tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it
will make no peace with thee, but will make war against
thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy
God hath delivered it into thy hands, then
<pb id="p90" n="90"/>
shalt thou smite every male thereof with the
edge of the sword. <hi rend="italics">But the women and the little
ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city</hi>,
even all the spoils thereof, shalt thou take unto
thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine
enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given
thee. <hi rend="italics">Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which
are very far off from thee which are not of the
cities of these nations. But of the cities of these
people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee
for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing
that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them,
namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites,
and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the
Jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded
thee</hi>.” They were authorized also by the
law, to purchase slaves with money of any
nation except the seven. Here is the proof—
Lev. xxv: 44, 45, and 46: “Both thy bond-men
and thy bond-maids, which thou shalt have, shall
be of the heathen that are round about you
(that is, round about the country given them of God,
which was the country of the seven nations they were
soon to occupy;) of them shall ye buy bond-men and
bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers
that do sojourn among you, (that is, the mixed multitude of
strangers,
which came up with them from Egypt, mentioned
in Exodus xii: 38,) of them shall ye buy, and of
their families that are with you, which they begat
in your land; and they shall be your possession. And
ye shall take them as an inheritance for
<pb id="p91" n="91"/>
your children after you, to inherit them for a possession,
they shall be your bond-men forever.”</p>
          <p>Now, let it be noted that this first law of Deut. xx:
above referred to, which authorized them to make slaves
by war of any other nation, was executed <hi rend="italics">for the first
time</hi>, under the direction of Moses himself, when thirty-two
thousand of the Midianites were enslaved. These
slaves were not of the seven nations.</p>
          <p>And it is worthy of further remark, that of each half,
into which the Lord had these slaves divided, he claimed
for his portion, one slave of every five hundred for the
priests, and one slave of every fifty for the Levites.
These slaves he gave to the priests and Levites, who
were his representatives, to be their property forever.—
Numb. xxxi. These scriptures palpably contradict the Dr.'s
second assumption—that is, that
they were <hi rend="italics">prohibited by implication</hi> from enslaving the
subjects of any other nation. The Dr.'s assumptions
being the antipodes of truth, they cannot furnish a
conclusion that is warranted by the truth.</p>
          <p>The conclusion authorized by the truth, is
this: that the making of slaves by war, and the
purchase of slaves with money, was legalized by
the Almighty in the Jewish commonwealth,
as regards the subjects of <hi rend="italics">all nations except the
seven</hi>.</p>
          <p>The second argument of the Dr.'s, as I remarked, is
designed to neutralize the sanction given to slavery in
the New Testament.</p>
          <pb id="p92" n="92"/>
          <p>The Dr. frankly admits that slavery was sanctioned by
the Apostles in the Apostolic churches. But to
neutralize this sanction, he resorts to two more
assumptions, not only without proof, but palpably
contradicted by the Old and New Testament text. The
first assumption is this—<hi rend="italics">that polygamy and divorce
were both sins under the law of Moses, although
sanctioned by the law</hi>. And the second assumption is,
that polygamy and divorce <hi rend="italics">are known to be sins under
the gospel</hi>, not by any gospel teaching or prohibition,
but by the general principles of morality. From these
premises the conclusion is drawn, that although slavery
was sanctioned in the Apostolic church, yet it was a sin,
because, like polygamy and divorce, it was contrary to
the principles of the moral law. The premises from which
this conclusion is drawn, are at issue with the word of
God, and therefore the conclusion must be false. The
first thing here assumed is, that polygamy and divorce,
although sanctioned by the law of Moses, were both
sins under that law. Now, so far from this being true, as
to <hi rend="italics">polygamy</hi>, it is a fact that polygamy was not only
sanctioned, when men chose to practice it, but it was
expressly enjoined by the law in certain cases, and a
most humiliating penalty annexed to the breech of the
command.—Deut. xxv: 5-9. As sin is defined by the
Holy Ghost to be a transgression of the law, it is
impossible that <hi rend="italics">polygamy</hi> could have been a sin under
the law, unless it was a sin to obey the law, and an act of
righteousness to
<pb id="p93" n="93"/>
transgress it. That <hi rend="italics">polygamy</hi> was a sin under the law,
therefore, is <sic corr="palpably">palably</sic> false.</p>
          <p>As to <hi rend="italics">divorce</hi>, the Almighty gave it the full
and explicit sanction of his authority, in the law
of Moses, for various causes.—(Deut. xxiv: 1.)
For those causes, therefore, divorce could not
have been a sin under the law, unless human
conduct, in exact accordance with the law of God,
was sinful. The first thing assumed by the Dr.,
therefore, that polygamy and divorce were both sins,
under the law, is proved to be false. They were lawful,
and therefore, could not be sinful.</p>
          <p>The Dr.'s second assumption (with respect to
polygamy and divorce,) is this, that they are <hi rend="italics">known</hi>
under the gospel to be sins, not by the prohibitory
<hi rend="italics">precepts</hi> of the gospel, but by the general <hi rend="italics">principles</hi> of
morality. This assumption is certainly a very
astonishing one—for Jesus Christ in one breath has
uttered language as perfectly subversive of all
authority for polygamy and divorce in his kingdom as
light is subversive of darkness. The Pharisees, ever desirous of
exposing him to the prejudices and passions of the
people, “asked him, in the presence of great
multitudes, who came with him from Galilee into
the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan,” whether he
admitted, with Moses, the legality of divorce for
every cause. Their object was to provoke him to
the exercise of legislative authority; to whom he
promptly replied, that God made man at the
beginning, male and female, and ordained that
the male and female by marriage, should be one
<pb id="p94" n="94"/>
flesh. And for satisfactory reasons, had sanctioned
divorce among Abraham's seed; and then adds,
as a law-giver, “But I say unto you, that whosoever shall
put away his wife, (except for fornication,) and shall
marry another, committeth adultery; and if a woman put
away her husband, and marry again, she committeth
adultery. Here polygamy and divorce die together. The
law of Christ is, that <hi rend="italics">neither</hi> party shall put the other
away—that <hi rend="italics">either</hi> party, taking another companion,
while the first companion lives, is guilty of adultery—
consequently, polygamy and divorce are prohibited
forever, unless this law is violated—and that violation
is declared to be adultery, which excludes from his
kingdom.—1 Cor. vi: 9. After the church was organized,
the Holy Ghost, by Paul, <hi rend="italics">commands</hi>, let not the wife
depart from her husband, but, and if she depart let her
remain unmarried—and let not the husband put away
his wife, 1 Cor. vii: 10. Here <hi rend="italics">divorce</hi> is prohibited to <hi rend="italics">both
parties</hi>; a second marriage according to Christ, would be
adultery, while the first companion lives; consequently
<hi rend="italics">polygamy</hi> is prohibited also.</p>
          <p>This second assumption, therefore, that polygamy and
divorce are known to be sins by <hi rend="italics">moral principles</hi> and
<hi rend="italics">not by prohibitory precepts</hi>, is swept away by the words
of Christ, and the teaching of the Holy Ghost. These
unauthorized and dangerous assumptions are the
foundation, upon which the Abolition structure is made to
rest by the distinguished Dr. Wayland.</p>
          <pb id="p95" n="95"/>
          <p>The facts with respect to polygamy and divorce,
warrant precisely the opposite conclusion; that is, that
if slavery under the gospel is sinful, then its sinfulness
would have been made known by the gospel, as has
been done with respect to polygamy and divorce. All
three, polygamy, divorce and slavery, were <hi rend="italics">sanctioned</hi>
by the law of Moses. But under the gospel, slavery has
been <hi rend="italics">sanctioned</hi> in the church, while polygamy and
divorce have been <hi rend="italics">excluded</hi> from the church. It is
manifest, therefore, that under the gospel, polygamy
and divorce have been made sins, <hi rend="italics">by prohibition</hi>, while
slavery remains lawful because <hi rend="italics">sanctioned</hi> and
<hi rend="italics">continued</hi>. The <hi rend="italics">lawfulness</hi> of slavery under the gospel,
rests upon the sovereign
pleasure of Christ, in <hi rend="italics">permitting it</hi>; and the sinfulness of
<hi rend="italics">polygamy</hi> and divorce, upon his sovereign pleasure in
<hi rend="italics">prohibiting</hi> their continuance. The law of Christ gives to
the relation of slavery its full sanction. <hi rend="italics">That law</hi> is to be
found, first, in the <hi rend="italics">admission, by the Apostles</hi>, of
slaveholders and their slaves into the gospel church;
second, in the <hi rend="italics">positive injunction</hi> by the Holy Ghost, of
obedience on the part of Christian slaves in this relation,
to their believing masters; third, in the <hi rend="italics">absence</hi> of any
injunction upon the believing master, under any
circumstances, to dissolve this relation; fourth, in the
<hi rend="italics">absence</hi> of any instruction from Christ or the Apostles,
that the relation is sinful; and lastly, in the <hi rend="italics">injunction</hi> of
the Holy Ghost, delivered by Paul, <hi rend="italics">to withdraw</hi> from all
such as teach that this relation is sinful. Human
<pb id="p96" n="96"/>
conduct in exact accordance with the law of
Christ thus proclaimed, and thus expounded by
the Holy Ghost, in the conduct and teaching of the Apostles, cannot
be sinful.</p>
          <p>There are other portions of God's Word, in the light of which we
may add to our stock of
knowledge on this subject. For instance, the Almighty by Moses
legalized marriage between
female slaves and Abraham's male descendants. But under this law
the wife remained a slave
still. If she belonged to the husband, then this law gave freedom to
her children; but if she
belonged to another man, then her children, though born in lawful
wedlock, were hereditary
slaves.—Exod. xxi: 4. Again, if a man marries
his own slave, then he lost the right to sell her—
if he divorced her, then she gained her freedom. Deut. xxii: 10 to 14,
inclusive. Again, there was
a law from God which granted rights to Abraham's sons under a
matrimonial contract; for a
violation of the rights conferred by this law, a <hi rend="italics">free woman, and her
seducer</hi>, forfeited their lives,
Deut. xxi: 23 and 24; also 13 to 21, inclusive. But for the same
offence, <hi rend="italics">a slave</hi> only exposed
herself to stripes, and her <hi rend="italics">seducer</hi> to the penalty of a sheep.—Levit.
xix: 20 to 22, inclusive.
Again there was a law which guarded his people, whether free or
bond, from personal violence. If
in vindictiveness, a man with an unlawful weapon, maimed his own
slave by knocking out
his eye, or his tooth, the slave was to be free for this wanton act of
personal violence, as a
penalty
<pb id="p97" n="97"/>
upon the master.—Exod. xxi: 26 to 27, inclusive. But for the same
offence, committed against a
free person, the offender had to pay an eye for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth, as the penalty,
Levit. xxiv: 19, 20, and Exod. xxi: 24 and 25, inclusive. Again, there
was a law to guard the
personal safety of the community against dangerous stock. If an ox,
known to be dangerous, was
suffered to run at large and kill a person, if the
person so killed <hi rend="italics">was free</hi>, then the owner forfeited
his <hi rend="italics">life</hi> for his neglect,—Exod. xxi: 29. But if
the person so killed <hi rend="italics">was a slave</hi>, then the offender
was fined thirty shekels of silver.—Exod. xxi:
33. In some things, slaves among the Israelites,
as among us, were invested with privileges above
hired servants—they were privileged to eat the
Passover, but hired servants were not, Exod. xii:
44, 45; and such as were owned by the priests
and Levites were privileged to eat of the holy
things of their masters, but hired servants dare
not taste them.—Levit xxii: 10, 11. These are
statutes from the Creator of man. They are certainly predicated upon
a view of things, in the
Divine mind, that is <hi rend="italics">somewhat different</hi> from that
which makes an Abolitionist and, to say the
least, they deserve consideration with all men
who worship the God of the Bible, and not the
God of their own imagination. They show very
clearly, that our Creator is the <hi rend="italics">author</hi> of social,
moral, and political inequality among men.
That so far from the Scriptures teaching, as Abolitionists do, that all
men have ever had a divine
<pb id="p98" n="98"/>
right to freedom and equality, they show, <hi rend="italics">in so
many words</hi>, that marriages were sanctioned of
God as lawful, in which <hi rend="italics">he enacted</hi>, that the children
of free men should be born hereditary slaves.
They show also, that he guarded the chastity of
the free by the price of life, and the chastity of
the slave by the rod. They show, that in the
judgment of God, the life of a free man in the
days of Moses, was too sacred for commutation,
while a fine of thirty shekels of silver was sufficient to expiate for
the death of a slave. As I
said in my first essay, so I say now, this is a controversy between
Abolitionists and their Maker.
I see not how, with their present views and  in
their present temper, they can stop short of
blasphemy against that Being who enacted these
laws.</p>
          <p>Of late years, some obscure passages (which have no allusion
whatever to the subject) have been
brought forward to show, that God <hi rend="italics">hated slavery</hi>, although the work
of his own hands. Once for
all, I challenge proof, that in the Old Testament or the New, <hi rend="italics">any
reproof was ever uttered against
involuntary slavery, or against any abuse of its authority</hi>. Upon
Abolition principles, this is
perfectly unaccountable, and of itself, is an unanswerable argument
that the <hi rend="italics">relation</hi> is not sinful.</p>
          <p>The opinion has been announced also of late, that slavery among the
Jews was felt to be an evil,
and, by degrees, that they abolished it. To ascertain the correctness
of this opinion, let the
<pb id="p99" n="99"/>
following consideration be weighed: After centuries of cruel
<hi rend="italics">national bondage</hi> practised upon
Abraham's seed in Egypt, they were brought in godly contrition to
pour out “the effectual fervent
prayer” of a righteous people, to the Almighty for mercy, and were
answered by a covenant God,
who sent Moses to deliver them from their bondage— but let it be
remembered, that when this
deliverance from bondage to the nation of Egypt was vouchsafed to
them, they were
extensive domestic slave owners. God had not by his providential
dealings, nor in any other way,
shown them the sin of domestic slavery—for they held on to their
slaves, and brought them out as
their property into the wilderness. And it is worthy of further remark
that the Lord, <hi rend="italics">before they
left Egypt</hi>, recognized these slaves <hi rend="italics">as property</hi>, which they had
bought with their money, and that
he secured to these slaves privileges above hired servants, <hi rend="italics">simply
because they were slaves</hi>.—
Exod. xii: 44, 45. And let it be noticed further, that the first law
passed by the Almighty after
proclaiming the ten commandments or moral constitution of the
nation, was a law to regulate property rights in hereditary slaves, and
to regulate property rights in Jewish hired servants for a term of
years.—Exod. xxii: 1 to 6,
inclusive. And let it be considered further, that when the Israelites
were subjected to a cruel
captivity in Babylon, more than eight hundred years after this, they
were still extensive slave-owners; that when humbled and brought to
repentance for
<pb id="p100" n="100"/>
their sins, and the Lord restored them to their own land again, that
he brought them back to their
old homes as slave-owners. Although greatly impoverished by a
seventy years' captivity in a
foreign land, yet the slaves which they brought up from Babylon
bore a proportion of nearly one
slave for every five free persons that returned, or about one slave for
every family.—Ezra ii 64, 65. Now, can we, in the face of these
facts, believe they were tired of slavery when they came up out
of Egypt? It had then existed five hundred years. Or can we believe
they were tired of it when
they came up from Babylon? It had then existed among them
fourteen hundred years. Or can we
believe that God put them into these schools of affliction in Egypt
and Babylon to teach them,
(and all others through them,) the sinfulness of slavery and yet, that
he brought them out without
giving them the first hint that involuntary slavery was a sin? And let
it be further considered, that
it was the business of the prophets which the Lord raised up, <hi rend="italics">to
make known to them the sins for
which his judgments were sent upon them</hi>. The sins which he
charged upon them in all his
visitation are upon record. Let any man find involuntary slavery in
any of God's indictments
against them, and I will retract all I have ever written.</p>
          <p>In my original essay, I said nothing of Paul's letter to Philemon,
concerning Onesimus, a runaway
slave, converted under Paul's preaching at Rome; and who was
returned by the Apostle,
<pb id="p101" n="101"/>
with a most affectionate letter to his master, entreating the master to
receive him again, and to forgive him. O, how immeasurably
different Paul's conduct to this slave and his master, from
the conduct of our Abolition brethren! Which
are we to think is guided by the Spirit of God?
It is <hi rend="italics">impossible</hi> that both can be guided by that
Spirit, unless sweet water and bitter can come
from the same fountain. This letter, of itself, is
sufficient to teach any man, capable of being
taught in the ordinary way, that slavery is not,
<hi rend="italics">in the sight of God, what it is in the sight of the
Abolitionists</hi>.</p>
          <p>I had prepared the argument furnished by this
letter for my original essay; I afterwards struck it out, because at that
time, so little had the Bible
been examined at the North in reference to slavery, that the
Abolitionists very generally thought
this was the only scripture which Southern slaveholders could find,
giving any countenance to
their views of slavery. To test the correctness of this opinion,
therefore, I determined to make no
allusion to it at that time.</p>
          <p>Now, my dear sir, if, from the evidence contained in the Bible to
prove slavery a lawful relation among God's people under every
dispensation, the assertion is still made, in the very
face of this evidence, that slavery has <hi rend="italics">ever been</hi>
the greatest sin—<hi rend="italics">everywhere, and under all
circumstances</hi>—can you, or can any sane man bring
himself to believe, that the mind capable of such
<pb id="p102" n="102"/>
a decision, is not capable of trampling the Word of God under foot
upon any subject?</p>
          <p>If it were not known to be the fact, we could not admit that a
Bible-reading man could bring
himself to believe, with Dr. Wayland, that a thing made lawful by
the God of heaven, was,
notwithstanding, the greatest sin—and that Moses under the law,
and Jesus Christ under the
gospel, had sanctioned and regulated in practice, the greatest sin
known on earth—and that Jesus
had left his church to find out as best they might that the law of God
which established slavery
under the Old Testament, and the precepts of the Holy Ghost which
regulate the mutual duty of
master and slave under the New Testament, were laws and precepts,
to sanction and regulate among
the people of God the greatest sin which was ever perpetrated.</p>
          <p>It is by no means strange that it should have taken seventeen
centuries to make such
discoveries as the above, and it is worthy of note, that these
discoveries were made at last by men
who did not appear to know, at the time they made them, what was
in the Bible on the subject of
slavery, and who now appear unwilling that the teachings of the
Bible should be spread before
the people—this last I take to be the case, because I have been
unable to get the Northern press to give it publicity.</p>
          <p>Many anti-slavery men into whose hands my essays chanced to fall,
have frankly confessed to
<pb id="p103" n="103"/>
me, that in their Bible reading, they had <sic corr="overlooked">overloooked</sic> the plain
teaching of the Holy Ghost, by
taking what they read in the Bible about masters and servants, to
have reference to hired servants and their employers.</p>
          <p>You ask me for my opinion about the emancipation movement in the
State <sic corr="of">af</sic> Kentucky. I hold that the emancipation of hereditary slaves
by a State is not commanded, or in any way required by the Bible.
The Old Testament and the New, sanction slavery, but under no
circumstances enjoin its abolition, even among saints. Now, if
religion, or the duty we owe our Creator, was inconsistent with
slavery, then this could not be so. If pure religion, therefore, did not
require its abolition under the law of Moses, nor in the church
of Christ—we may safely infer, that our political, moral, and social
relations do not require it in a
State; unless a State requires higher moral, social, and religious
qualities in its subjects, than a
gospel church.</p>
          <p>Masters have been left by the Almighty, both under the patriarchal,
legal, and gospel dispensations, to their individual discretion on the
subject of emancipation.</p>
          <p>The principle of justice inculcated by the Bible, refuses to sanction,
it seems to me, such an outrage upon the rights of men, as would be
perpetrated by any sovereign State, which, to-day, makes a
thing to be property, and tomorrow, takes it from the lawful owners,
<hi rend="italics">without political necessity or pecuniary compensation</hi>. Now, if it be
morally
<pb id="p104" n="104"/>
right for a majority of the people (and that majority possibly a
meagre one, who may not own a
slave) to take, without necessity or compensation, the property in
slaves held by a minority, (and that minority a large one,) then it
would be morally right for a majority, without
property, to take anything else that may be lawfully owned by the
prudent and care-taking portion of the citizens.</p>
          <p>As for intelligent philanthropy, it shudders at the infliction of certain
ruin upon a whole
race of helpless beings. If emancipation by law is philanthropic in
Kentucky, it is, for the same
reasons, philanthropic in every State in the Union. But nothing in the
future is more certain, than
that such emancipation would begin to work the degradation and
final ruin of the slave race, from
the day of its consummation.</p>
          <p>Break the master's sympathy, which is inseparably connected with
his property right in
his slave, and that moment the slave race is placed upon a common
level with all other
competitors for the rewards of merit; but as the slaves are inferior in
the qualities which give
success among competitors in our country, extreme poverty would
be their lot; and for the want
of means to rear families, they would multiply slowly, and die out
by inches, degraded by vice
and crime, unpitied by honest and virtuous men, and heart-broken
by sufferings without a
parallel.</p>
          <p>So long as States let masters alone on this subject, good men among
them both in the church
<pb id="p105" n="105"/>
and out of it, will struggle on, as experience may dictate and justify,
for the benefit of the slave
race. And should the time ever come, when emancipation in its
consequences, will comport with
the moral, social, and political obligations of Christianity, then
Christian masters will invest their
slaves with freedom, and then will the good-will of those follow the
descendants of Ham, who,
without any agency of their own, have been made in this land of
liberty, their providential guardians.</p>
          <closer><salute>Yours, with affection,</salute>
<signed>THORNTON STRINGFELLOW.</signed></closer>
          <closer>[It is or ought to be known to all men, that African slavery in the
United States originated in, and is perpetuated by a social and
political necessity, and that its continuance is demanded
equally by the highest interests of both races. All writers on public
law, from Drs. Channing and Wayland, among the Abolitionists, up
to the highest authorities on national law, admit the
necessity and propriety of slavery in a social body, whenever men
wilt not provide for their own
wants, and yield obedience to the law which guards the rights of
others. The guardianship and control of the black race, by the white,
in this Union, is an indispensable Christian duty, to which
we must as yet look, if we would secure the well-being of both
races.]</closer>
        </div2>
      </div1>
      <div1 type="chapter">
        <pb id="p107" n="107"/>
        <head>STATISTICAL VIEW.</head>
        <pb id="p109" n="109"/>
        <head>STATISTICAL VIEW
<lb/>
OF
<lb/>
SLAVERY</head>
        <p>To satisfy the conscientiousness of Christians,
I published in the Herald, some years past, Bible
evidence, to prove slavery a lawful relation among
men. In a late communication you<ref id="ref3" n="3" rend="sc" target="note3" targOrder="U">∗</ref>
<note id="note3" n="3" rend="sc" place="foot" anchored="yes" target="ref3"><p>∗This letter was addressed to ELDER JAMES FIFE.</p></note>
refer to <hi rend="italics">this essay</hi>, and express a wish that it should be republished. Many have expressed a similar wish.</p>
        <p>Some who admit the <hi rend="italics">legality</hi> of slavery in the sight of God,
question the <hi rend="italics">expediency of its expansion</hi>. It is believed by them to be an element that is
hostile to the best
interests of society, and therefore, great efforts have been, and are
now being made, to exclude it
from all the new States and Territories which may hereafter be
organized upon our soil.</p>
        <p>While the <hi rend="italics">expediency</hi> of its <hi rend="italics">expansion</hi>, or <hi rend="italics">continuance</hi>, are
questions with which I have
not heretofore meddled, yet I hold their <hi rend="italics">investigation</hi> to be within
the legitimate range of
Christian duty.</p>
        <pb id="p110" n="110"/>
        <p>If unquestionable <hi rend="italics">facts</hi> and <hi rend="italics">experience</hi> warrant the <hi rend="italics">conclusion</hi>,
that while slavery is
lawful, yet its <hi rend="italics">continuance</hi> or <hi rend="italics">expansion</hi> among us is <hi rend="italics">inexpedient</hi>, then let
us act accordingly.</p>
        <p>Being <hi rend="italics">prompted</hi> by your request, I propose to examine <hi rend="italics">facts</hi>,
which are admitted the
world over, as evidence of prosperity and happiness in a
community, and to compare the
evidence thus furnished in different sections of our country,
where the experiment of freedom,
and the experiment of slavery have been fully and fairly upon trial
since the commencement of
our colonial existence, that we may see, if possible, what is true on
this subject. This seems to be
the <hi rend="italics">unerring</hi> method of coming at the truth. And if it shall appear,
by such a comparison—fairly
made—between States of equal age, where slavery and freedom
have had a fair opportunity to
produce their legitimate results, that in all the elements of prosperity,
slaveholding States suffer
nothing in the comparison—but that, in almost every particular, are
decidedly in advance of the
non-slaveholding States, why then we are bound to let the testimony
of these facts control our
judgment.</p>
        <p>Every man and woman in the United States should not only be
willing, but desirous to
know, what is the matter-of-fact evidence on this all-absorbing
question. It is but lately that any
method existed, of coming at <hi rend="italics">undisputed</hi> facts, which would throw
light upon this subject. The
Congress of the United States seeing this, thought
<pb id="p111" n="111"/>
proper to order that such facts as tend to demonstrate the relative
prosperity of the different States
of the Union, in religion—in morals—in the acquisition of wealth—in
the increase of native
population—in the prolongation of life—in the diminution of crime,
&amp;c., &amp;c., should be ascertained, under oath, by competent and responsible agents, and that
these facts should be published
at the national expense for the benefit of the people, so that the people could, understandingly, apply the corrective
for evils that might be found
to exist in one locality, and profit by a knowledge of the greater
prosperity that might be found
to exist in another locality.</p>
        <p>Up to that time, the non-slaveholding States affirmed, and the
slaveholding States tacitly
admitted, that by this test, the slaveholding States must suffer in the
comparison, in some important
items. The facts which belong to the subject, are now before the
world, in the census of 1850.</p>
        <p>It is my purpose to compare some of the most important of these
facts, which have a
bearing on this subject. I shall take for the most part, the six New
England States, on one side,
and the five old slave States, (extending from, and including Maryland and
Georgia,) on the other side, for
the comparison.</p>
        <p>I select <hi rend="italics">these States</hi>, not because they are the richest, (for they are
not,) but because they
all lie on the Atlantic side of the Union—because they were all settled
at or near the same
time—because they have (within a fraction) an equal
<pb id="p112" n="112"/>
free population—and because it has been constantly affirmed, and
almost universally admitted,
that the advantages of freedom, and the disadvantages of slavery,
have been more perfectly
developed in these two sections, than they have been anywhere else
in the United States. There
have been no controlling circumstances at any time, since their first
settlement, to neutralize the
advantages of freedom on the one side, or to modify the evils of
slavery on the other. Their
mutual tendencies, without let or hindrance, have been in full and
free operation for more than
two centuries. This is surely a length of time quite sufficient to test
the question now in
controversy between the North and the South, as to the evils of
slavery.</p>
        <p>The first facts I shall examine are those which throw light on the
progress made in each of
these two localities in religion. Of all the evils ascribed to slavery by
the free men of the North,
none equals, in their estimation, its deleterious tendency upon
<hi rend="italics">religion</hi> and <hi rend="italics">morals</hi>. Indeed, such
is the <hi rend="italics">moral character</hi>, ascribed by many at the North, who call
themselves Christians, to a
Southern slaveholder, that no degree of personal piety, of which he
can be the subject, will bring
them to admit that he is anything but a God-abhorred miscreant,
utterly unfit for the association of
honorable men, much less Christian
men.</p>
        <p>In the outset of this examination, let me remark, that it is just and
proper, in a comparative
<pb id="p113" n="113"/>
estimate of the tendency of freedom and slavery upon religion and
morals in, these two sections
of our country, that due allowance be made for the moral and
religious character of the materials
by which these two sections were originally settled. New England
was settled by Puritans who
were
remarkable for orthodox sentiments in religion—for high-toned
religious conscientiousness, and
a rigid personal piety; while these five slave States were either
settled, or received character from
Cavaliers, who rather scoffed at pure religion, and were highly
tinged with infidelity.</p>
        <p>The stream does not, in its flow onward, carry with more
certainty the characteristics of
the
fountain, than does progressive society, <hi rend="italics">generally</hi>, the moral, social,
and religious characteristics
of
its origin. The five slave States, in this comparison, originated in a
people of loose
morals—strongly-tinged with infidelity—and subjected, also, in their onward progress, to all the evil tendencies (if any
there be) that are ascribed to
slavery.</p>
        <p>At the end of more than two centuries, we are comparing the progress which these five slave States have made in religion, with the progress made by six non-slaveholding States, whose subjects, when originally organized into communities,
were in advance, in personal piety and religious
conscientiousness, of any communities that had
then been founded since the days of the apostles—and that have been, in their onward progress, from that time until this, free from all the
<pb id="p114" n="114"/>
supposed evils of slavery. If infidelity and slavery be antagonistic
elements, almost, if not altogether,
too strong for moral control in a community, it certainly ought not to
seem strange, that with
this original odds against them, these five old slave States should be found very far behind their more highly favored Northern
neighbors in religious attainments.</p>
        <p>Religion being, at present, the subject of comparison, it may be appropriate to remark further, that the <hi rend="italics">Christian religion</hi> is propagated by God's blessing upon the observance of his laws.</p>
        <p>The fundamental law of God, <hi rend="italics">for its propagation</hi> requires the gospel to be preached to every creature; because, in the
divine plan, faith in the
gospel was to make men Christians. The gospel was to be made
the <hi rend="italics">power of God</hi> unto
salvation, to every one that <hi rend="italics">believeth</hi>. <hi rend="italics">This faith</hi> was to be originated
by hearing the gospel, for
“faith comes by hearing.” All those efforts, therefore, in a
community, which manifest the
greatest solicitude on the part of the people, that the gospel should
be <hi rend="italics">heard</hi>, is credible evidence
that the people who make these efforts, are the friends of Christ, and
well-wishers to his cause.
Now, all those <hi rend="italics">means</hi> which are most likely to secure the ear of
the people, are left by Christ
to the <hi rend="italics">discretion</hi> of his friends. They may use the market-places—the
highways—the forests—or <hi rend="italics">any
other place</hi>, which in their judgment is most likely to get the ear of
the people when the gospel
is proclaimed. By
<pb id="p115" n="115"/>
common consent, however, within the limits of
Christian civilization, they have agreed that
suitable houses, in which the people can meet to
hear the gospel, are the most suitable and proper
means for securing the audience of the people,
and as a consequence, the transforming power of
the gospel upon the hearts and lives of those who
hear.</p>
        <p>With these views to guide us in estimating the value of the facts
to be examined, we
proceed to
disclosures made by the census of 1850. We
there learn that the free population of New England is two million seven hundred and twenty-eight thousand and sixteen; and that the free population of these
five old slave States is two
million seven hundred and thirty thousand two hundred and fourteen; an excess of only two
thousand one hundred and ninety-eight. This fraction we will drop
out, and speak of them as
equals. New England, then, with an equal population, has erected
four thousand six hundred and
seven churches; these five slave States have erected eight thousand
and eighty-one churches.
These New England churches will accommodate one million eight
hundred and ninety-three
thousand four hundred and fifty hearers; the churches of the five
slave States will
accommodate two million eight hundred and ninety-six thousand
four hundred and seventy-two
hearers. Thus we see that these slave States, with an equal free
population, have erected nearly
double the number of churches, and furnished accommodation for
<pb id="p116" n="116"/>
upwards of a million more persons, to hear the gospel, than can be
accommodated in New
England. In New England, nine hundred and thirty-four thousand,
five hundred and sixty-six of
its population (which is nearly one-third) are excluded from a
seat in houses built for the
purpose of enabling people to hear the gospel; while in these five
Southern States, there is
room enough for every hearer that could be crowded into the
churches of New England and
then enough left to accommodate more than a million of slaves.</p>
        <p>Including slaves, these five Southern States have a population of
seven hundred and
twenty thousand four hundred and ten more than New England;
yet while there are seven
hundred and twenty thousand four hundred and ten persons less in
New England to provide for,
there are two hundred thousand more persons in New England who
can't find a seat in the
house of God to hear the gospel, than there are in these five slave
States.</p>
        <p>The next fact set forth in the census, which I will examine, is equally <hi rend="italics">suggestive</hi>. These four
thousand six hundred and seven churches in New England are valued at nineteen million three
hundred and sixty-two thousand six hundred and
thirty-four dollars. These eight thousand and eighty-one churches in the five slave States are
valued at eleven million one hundred and forty-nine thousand one hundred and eighteen dollars.
Here is an immense expenditure in New England
<pb id="p117" n="117"/>
to erect churches; yet we see that those New England churches, when
erected, will seat one
million three thousand and twenty-two persons less than those
erected by the slave States, at a
cost of eight million one hundred and thirteen thousand five hundred
and sixteen dollars less
money. What prompted to such an expenditure as this? Was it
worldly pride? or was it godly
humility? Does it exhibit the evidence of humility, and a desire to
glorify God, by a provision
that shall
enable <hi rend="italics">all the people</hi> to hear the gospel? or does it exhibit the
evidence of pride, that seeks to
glorify the wealthy contributors, who occupy these costly temples
to the exclusion of the
humble poor? We must all draw our own conclusions. A mite, given
to God from a right spirit,
was declared by the Saviour to be more than all the costly gifts of wealthy pride, which were cast into
the offerings of God. The Saviour informed the
messenger of John the Baptist, that <hi rend="italics">one of the
signs</hi> by which to decide the <hi rend="italics">presence</hi> of the
Messiah, was to be found in the fact that the poor had the gospel
preached to them. When we
exclude the poor, we may safely conclude we exclude Christ.</p>
        <p>It is legitimate to conclude, therefore, that all the arrangements
found among a people, which
palpably defeat the preaching of the gospel to the poor, are
arrangements which throw a shade of
deep suspicion upon the character of those who make them. <hi rend="italics">Costly
palaces</hi> were never built for
the poor; they are neither suitable nor
<pb id="p118" n="118"/>
proper to secure the preaching of the gospel to every creature.</p>
        <p>There is still another fact revealed in the census, that furnishes material for reflection when the effects of slavery upon religion are being tried. The six New England States were originally settled by <hi rend="italics">orthodox</hi> Christians—by men who
manifested a very high regard for the interests of
pure religion; the five slave States, by men who
scoffed at religion, and who were subjected, also,
to the so-called curse of slavery; yet, at the end of over two hundred years, we have to deduct 
from the four thousand six hundred and seven churches built up by New England orthodoxy
and freedom, the <hi rend="italics">astonishing number</hi> of two hundred and two Unitarian, and two hundred and
eighty-five Universalist churches—while from the
five slave States, we have to deduct from the
eight thousand and eighty-one churches which
they have built, only one Unitarian, and seven
Universalist churches. New England regards
these four hundred and eighty-seven churches, which she has built,
to be the product of <hi rend="italics">blind
guides</hi>, that are <hi rend="italics">leaders of the blind</hi>. Is it not strange (she herself
being judge) that New England
orthodoxy and personal freedom should beget this vast amount of
infidelity; while
slaveholders and slavery have begotten so little of it in the same
length of time? Is there nothing
in all this to render the correctness of Northern views questionable,
as to the deleterious
tendency of slavery? The facts, however, are given to the
<pb id="p119" n="119"/>
world in the census of 1850. All are left to draw
from these facts their own conclusions. One of
these conclusions must be, that there is something
else in the world to corrupt religion and morals,
besides slaveholders and slavery.</p>
        <p>It is not improper to refer to some historical
facts in this connection, which are not in the
census, but which, nevertheless, we all know to
exist. There are <hi rend="italics">isms</hi> at the North whose name
is Legion. According to the universal standard
of <hi rend="italics">orthodoxy</hi>, we are compelled to exclude the
<hi rend="italics">subjects</hi> of these isms from the pale of Christianity.
What the relative proportion is, North and South,
of such of these isms as have been nurtured into
<hi rend="italics">organized</hi> existence, we have no certain means of
knowing—and I do not wish to do injustice, or to
be offensive, in statements which are not susceptible
of proof by facts and figures—yet, I suppose
that in the five slave States, a man might wear
himself out in travel, and never find one of these
isms with an <hi rend="italics">organized</hi> existence. To find a
single individual, would be doing more than
most men have done, with whom I am acquainted.
But how is it in New England? The soil
seems to suit them—they grow up like Jonah's
gourd. Some are warring with great zeal against
the social, and some against the religious institutions
of society. Why is this? The institution
of slavery has not produced, at the North, the
moral obliquity, out of which they grow—a
reverence for the Bible has not produced it. How
is their existence, then, to be accounted for at the
<pb id="p120" n="120"/>
North, under institutions, whose tendency is supposed
to be so favorable to moral and religious
prosperity? And how is their utter absence to
be accounted for at the South, where the institution
of slavery is supposed to be so fatal to
morality, religion and virtue? I will leave it for
others to explain this fact. It is a mysterious
fact, according to the modes of reasoning at the
North. It is assumed by the North, that slavery
tends to produce social, moral and religious evils.
This assumption is flatly contradicted by the facts
of the census. These facts never can be explained
by the <hi rend="italics">New England theory</hi>. There was an <hi rend="italics">ancient
theory</hi>, held by men who were righteous in their
own eyes, that no good thing could come out of
Nazareth. By that theory Christ himself was
condemned. It is not wonderful, therefore, that
his friends should share the same fate.</p>
        <p>The next disclosure of the census, which we
will compare, are those which relate to the social
prosperity of a people. Are they wealthy? are
they healthy? are they in conditions to raise
families, &amp;c.?</p>
        <p>These questions indicate the <hi rend="italics">elements</hi> which
belong to the item now to be examined. States
are made up of families. Wealth is a blessing in
those States which have it so distributed, as to
give the greatest number of homes to the families
which compose them. Wealth, so distributed in
States, as to diminish the number of homes, is a
curse to the families which compose them. Home
is the nursery and shield of virtue. No right-minded
<pb id="p121" n="121"/>
man or woman, who had the means,
could ever consent to have a family without a
home; and no State should make wealth her
boast, whose families are extensively without
homes.</p>
        <p>New England has five hundred and eighteen
thousand five hundred and thirty-two families,
and four hundred and forty-seven thousand seven
hundred and eighty-nine dwellings. The five
slave States have five hundred and six thousand
nine hundred and sixty-eight families, and four
hundred and ninety-six thousand three hundred and
sixty-nine dwellings. Here we see the astonishing
fact, that with an equal population,
New England has eleven thousand five hundred
and sixty-four more families than these five slave
States, and that these five slave States have
forty-eight thousand five hundred and eighty
more dwellings than New England—so that New
England actually has seventy thousand <hi rend="italics">seven</hi>
hundred and forty-three families without a home.
In New England one family in every seven is
without a home, while in these five old slave
States only one family in every <hi rend="italics">fifty-two</hi> is without
a home.</p>
        <p>According to the average number of persons
composing a family, New England has three
hundred and seventy-three thousand seven hundred
of her people thrown upon the world without
a place to call home.</p>
        <p>It is truly painful to think of the effects upon
morals and virtue, which must flow from this
<pb id="p122" n="122"/>
state of things; and it is a pleasure to a philanthropic
heart to think of the superior condition
of the slave-holding people, who so generally
have homes, where parents can throw the shield
of protection around their offspring, and guard
them against the dangers and demoralizing tendencies
of an unprotected condition.</p>
        <p>There is another class of facts, equally astonishing,
disclosed by the census, and which
belong to the comparison we are now making,
between States which were organized originally
by Puritan orthodoxy and New England freedom
on one side, and by infidel slaveholders and
slavery on the other. They are facts which relate
to natural increase in a State. One of the
boasts of Northern freemen is the <hi rend="italics">increase</hi> of
their population. With such a climate as New
England, it was to be expected that the people
would increase faster, and live longer, than in
the climate of these five slave States. It is well
known that a large portion of the population of
these five Southern States have a fatal climate to
contend with, and that everywhere else on the
globe, under similar circumstances, a diminished
increase of births, and an increased amount of
deaths has been the result. But the census, as if
disregarding climate, and slavery, and the universal
experience of all ages, testifies that there
is twenty-seven per cent. more of births, and
thirty-three per cent. less of deaths in the five
old slave States, than there is in the six New
England States.</p>
        <pb id="p123" n="123"/>
        <p>New England, with an equal population, and
eleven thousand five hundred and sixty-four more
families, has sixteen thousand five hundred and
thirty-four less annual births, and ten thousand
one hundred and fifty-two more annual deaths,
than these five sickly old Southern slave States.
The annual births in New England are sixty-one
thousand one hundred and forty-eight; and in
the five slave States seventy-seven thousand six
hundred and eighty-three. In New England the
annual deaths are forty-two thousand three hundred
and sixty-eight; in the five slave States
thirty-two thousand two hundred and sixteen.</p>
        <p>In New England the ratio of births is one to
forty-four; in the five slave States one to thirty-five.
In New England the ratio of deaths is one
to sixty-four; in the five slave States it is one to
eighty-five.</p>
        <p>The slaves are not in this estimate of births
and deaths; they are in the census, however, and
that shows that they multiply considerably faster,
and are less liable to die than the freemen of
New England.</p>
        <p>Here are facts which contradict all history and
all experience. In a sickly Southern climate,
among slaveholders, people actually multiply
faster, and die slower, than they do among freemen
without slavery, in one of the purest and
healthiest Northern climates in the world. How
is this to be accounted for? Why do people
multiply rapidly? Is it because they live in a
healthy climate? Why do they die rapidly? Is
<pb id="p124" n="124"/>
it because they live in a sickly climate? Our
census contradicts both suppositions. Where,
then, does the cause lie? Will excluding slavery
from a community cause them to multiply more
rapidly and die slower? The census says, No!</p>
        <p>The census testifies that the proportion of
births is twenty-seven per cent. greater, and the
proportion of deaths thirty-three per cent. less,
among slaveholders, in a community where slavery
has existed for more than two hundred years,
under all the disadvantages of a sickly climate,
than among free men in the pure climate of New
England. A man, in his right mind, will demand
an explanation of these astonishing facts.
They are easily explained. The census discloses
a degree of <hi rend="italics">poverty</hi> in New England, which scatters
seventy thousand families to the four winds
of heaven, and <hi rend="italics">feeds</hi> (as we shall presently see)
the <hi rend="italics">poor-house</hi>, with one hundred and thirty-five
per cent. more of paupers than is found in these
slave States. This is no condition of things to
increase births, or diminish deaths, unless brothels
give <hi rend="italics">increase</hi>, and squalid poverty the requisite
sympathy and aid, to recover the sick and dying,
from the period of infancy to that of old age.</p>
        <p>We proceed to compare other facts, which have
a bearing upon the relative merits of different institutions
in securing social prosperity.</p>
        <p>In every country there is a class to be found in
such utter destitution, that they must either be
supported by charity, or perish of want. This
destitution arises, generally, from oppressive exactions
<pb id="p125" n="125"/>
or excessive vice, and is evidence of the
tendency of social institutions, and the superiority
of one over another, in securing the greatest
amount of individual prosperity and comfort.</p>
        <p>With these views to aid us, we will compare
some facts belonging to New England and these
five old slave States. With an equal population,
New England has thirty-three thousand four
hundred and thirty-one paupers; these five slave
States have fourteen thousand two hundred and
twenty-one. Here is an excess of paupers in New
England, notwithstanding her boasted prosperity,
of one hundred and thirty-five per cent. over these
five slave States. And if to these <hi rend="italics">continual
paupers</hi> we were to add the number (as given in State
returns) that are partially aided in New England,
the addition would be awful. But I suppose New
England will strive to wipe off this stain of regular
pauperism, by throwing the blame of it upon
the <hi rend="italics">foreigners</hi> among them. It should be remembered,
however, as an offset to this, that these foreigners
are all from non-slaveholding countries.
From their infancy they have shared the blessings
of freedom and free institutions; therefore
they ought to be admitted, as homogeneous materials,
in the social organizations of New England,
which we are now comparing with Southern
slaveholding communities.</p>
        <p>But as foreign paupers are distinguished in the
census from native-born citizens, we will now (in
the comparison) exclude them in both sections.
The number of paupers will then be, for New
<pb id="p126" n="126"/>
England, eighteen thousand nine hundred and
sixty-six; for the five slave States, eleven thousand
seven hundred and twenty-eight—leaving
to New England, which is considered the model
section of the world in all that is lovely in religious
and social prosperity, seven thousand two
hundred and thirty-eight more of her native sons
in the poor-house, (or nearly seventy per cent.,)
than are to be found in this condition in an equal
population in these five Southern States.</p>
        <p>The ratio of New England's <hi rend="italics">native sons</hi> in the
poor-house is one to one hundred and forty-three;
of these five slave States one to two hundred and
thirty-four. The ratio of New England's <hi rend="italics">entire
population</hi> in the poor-house is one to eighty-one;
the ratio of the entire population of these five
slave States is one to one hundred and seventy-one.</p>
        <p>The Saviour asks if a good tree can bring forth
evil fruit, or an evil tree good fruit. Here is an
exhibition of the <hi rend="italics">fruit</hi> borne by <hi rend="italics">New England
freedom</hi> and <hi rend="italics">Southern slavery</hi>. The Saviour gives
every man a right to judge the tree by the fruit,
and declares such to be righteous judgment.</p>
        <p>There is another item in the census which
throws much light on the comparative comfort
and happiness of the people in these two localities.
It is neither physical destitution, criminal
degradation, nor mental suffering; but it is an
effect which is known to flow from one, or the
other, or all three of these <hi rend="italics">conditions</hi> as causes;
therefore it is an important item in determining
<pb id="p127" n="127"/>
the amount of destitution, degradation and suffering,
which exist in a community.</p>
        <p>When we see effects which are known to flow
from certain causes—the causes may be concealed
—yet we know that they exist by the effects we
see. With these remarks I proceed to state a
fact disclosed in the census, as it exists in New
England, and as it exists in these five old slave
States.</p>
        <p>In New England, with an equal population,
we find that three thousand eight hundred and
twenty-nine of her white children have been
crushed by sufferings <hi rend="italics">of some sort</hi>, to the condition
of insanity, while in these five old slave
States there are only two thousand three hundred
and twenty-six of her white children who have
been called to suffer, in their earthly pilgrimage,
a degree of anguish beyond mental endurance.
Here is a difference of more than sixty per cent.
in favor of these five States, as to conditions of
suffering that are beyond endurance among men.
Very poor evidence this, of the superior happiness
and comfort of New England.</p>
        <p>But while her white children are called to suffer
over sixty per cent. more of these crushing
sorrows than those of these five States, how is it
with her black children in freedom, compared
with the family here in slavery, from which the
most of them have fled, that they might enjoy the
blessings of liberty? It is exceedingly interesting
to see the benefits and blessings which New England
<pb id="p128" n="128"/>
freedom and Puritan sympathy have conferred
upon them.</p>
        <p>Here are the facts of the census upon this
subject:</p>
        <p>Among the free negroes of New England, one
is deaf or dumb for every three thousand and
five; while among the slaves of these States
there is only one for every six thousand five hundred
and fifty-two. In New England one free
negro is blind for every eight hundred and seventy;
while in these States there is only one
blind slave for every two thousand six hundred
and forty-five. In New England there is one
free negro insane or an idiot for every nine hundred
and eighty; while in these States there is
but one slave for every three thousand and
eighty.</p>
        <p>Can any man bring himself to believe, with
these facts before him, that freedom in New England
has proved a blessing to this race of people,
or that slavery is to them a curse in the Southern
States? In non-slaveholding States, <hi rend="italics">money</hi> will
be the <hi rend="italics">master of poverty</hi>. The facts enumerated
show the fruits of such a relation the world over.
The slave of money, while nominally free, has
none to care for him at those periods, and in
those conditions of his life, when he is not able
to render service or labor. Childhood, old age,
and sickness, are conditions which make sympathy
indispensable. Nominal freedom, combined
with poverty, cannot secure it in those conditions,
<pb id="p129" n="129"/>
because it cannot render service or labor. The
slave of the South enjoys this sympathy in all
conditions from birth till death. There is a
spontaneous heart-felt flow of it, to sooth his
sorrows, to supply his wants, and to smooth his
passage to the grave. Interest, honor, humanity,
public opinion, and the law, all <hi rend="italics">combine</hi> to
awaken it, and to promote its activity.</p>
        <p>Many facts of the character here examined
have been disclosed in State statistics, and others
in the Federal census; some of which I shall
hereafter notice, that show with the most unquestionable
certainty, that freedom to this race, in
our country, is a curse.</p>
        <p>The facts which we have now examined, if
they prove anything, prove that religion has prospered
more among slaveholders at the South,
than it has among free men in New England.
Slaveholders have made a much more extensive
and suitable provision for the people of all classes
to hear the gospel, than has been made by the
freemen of New England. Slaveholders have
almost entirely frowned down the attempts of
blind-guides to corrupt the gospel, or mislead the
people. Among them organized bodies to overthrow
the moral, social, and religious institutions
of society, are unknown.</p>
        <p>If the facts already examined prove anything,
they prove that wealth, among slaveholders, is
much more equally distributed—so that very few,
compared with New England, are without homes.</p>
        <p>The facts examined prove also, beyond question,
<pb id="p130" n="130"/>
that the unbearable miseries which have
their source in the heartless exactions of excessive
wealth, or extreme poverty, are more than
sixty per cent. greater in New England than in
these States, and that one hundred and thirty-five
per cent. more of New England's toiling millions
have to bear the degradation of the poor-house,
or die of want, than are to be found in this condition
in these five slave States.</p>
        <p>The facts we have examined, prove also, that
under all the disadvantages of climate, the natural
increase of the slave States is sixty per cent.
greater than it is in New England—twenty-seven
per cent. of it by increased annual births, and
thirty-three per cent. of it by diminished annual
deaths. These are the most astonishing facts
ever presented to the world. They speak a language
that ought to be read and studied by all
men. In the present state of our country they
ought to be prayerfully pondered and not disregarded.</p>
        <p>But notwithstanding all this, the aggregate
wealth of New England is a source of exultation
and pride among her sons. They believe, with a
blind and stubborn tenacity, that slavery tends to
poverty, and freedom to wealth.</p>
        <p>It cannot be denied that the aggregate earnings
of the toiling millions—when <hi rend="italics">hoarded</hi> by a <hi rend="italics">few</hi>—may grow faster than it will when these millions are allowed to take from it a daily supply, equal
to their reasonable wants. And it cannot be
<pb id="p131" n="131"/>
denied that New England has great aggregate
wealth.</p>
        <p>The facts of the census show, however, that it
is very unequally divided among her people.
The question now to be tried is, whether the <hi rend="italics">few</hi>
in New England have <hi rend="italics">hoarded</hi> this wealth, and
can now <hi rend="italics">show it</hi>, or whether they have squandered
it upon their lusts, and are unable to
<hi rend="italics">show it</hi>.</p>
        <p>This last and prominent boast of increased
aggregate wealth in New England, over that
accumulated by slaveholders, we will now test
by the census of 1850. This is the standard
adopted by our National Legislature for its decision.</p>
        <p>Before we examine the facts, however, let a
few reflections which belong to the subject be
weighed.</p>
        <p>The people of these five slave States are now,
and ever have been, an agricultural people. The
people of the New England States are a commercial
and manufacturing people. New England
has, in proportion to numbers, the richest and
most extensive commerce in the world. In manufacturing
skill and enterprise they have no
superiors on the globe. They have ever reproached
the South for investing their income in slave-labor,
in preference to commerce and manufactures.
It has been the settled conviction among
nations, that investments in commerce and manufactures
give the greatest, and those in agriculture
<pb id="p132" n="132"/>
the smallest profits. It is the settled conviction
of the non-slaveholding States that investments
in slave-labor, for agricultural purposes, is
the worst of all investments, and tends greatly
to lessen its profits. This has been proclaimed
to the South so long by our Northern neighbors,
that many here have been brought to believe it,
and to regret the existence of slavery among us
on that account, if on no other. With these
observations we turn to the census.</p>
        <p>The census of 1850 tells us that New England,
with a population now numbering two million
seven hundred and twenty-eight thousand and
sixteen, with all the advantages of a commercial
and manufacturing investment, and with the
most energetic and enterprising free men on
earth, to give that investment its greatest productiveness,
has accumulated wealth, in something
over two hundred years, to the amount of
one billion three million four hundred and sixty-six
thousand one hundred and eighty-one dollars;
while these five slave States, with an equal population, have, in the same time, accumulated
wealth to the amount of one billion four hundred
and twenty million nine hundred and eighty-nine
thousand five hundred and seventy-three dollars.</p>
        <p>Here we see the indisputable fact that these
five agricultural States, with slavery, have accumulated
an excess of aggregate wealth over the
amount accumulated in New England in the same
time, of four hundred and seventeen million five
hundred and twenty-three thousand three hundred
<pb id="p133" n="133"/>
and two dollars—so that the property belonging
to New England, if equally divided,
would give to each citizen but three hundred and
sixty-seven dollars, while that belonging to the
five slave States, if equally divided, would give
to each citizen the sum of five hundred and
twenty dollars—a difference in favor of each citizen
in these five slave States of one hundred and
fifty-three dollars.</p>
        <p>I am aware, however, of an opinion that some
other non-slaveholding States, have been much
more successful in the accumulation of wealth,
than the six New England States, and that New
York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, are of this favored
number. Lest a design to deceive, by concealing
this supposed fact, should be attributed to the
writer, we will see what the census says as to
these three more favored States. By the census
of 1850 we learn that New York, instead of being
able to divide three hundred and sixty-seven dollars
with her citizens, as New England could
with hers, is only able to divide two hundred and
thirty-one dollars; Pennsylvania two hundred
and fourteen, and Ohio two hundred and nineteen.
These several averages among freemen at
the North, and in New England, stand against
the average of five hundred and twenty dollars,
which these five old impoverished Southern slave
States could divide with their citizens.</p>
        <p>These facts must astonish our Northern neighbors,
so long accustomed to believe that slavery
was the fruitful source of poverty, with all its
<pb id="p134" n="134"/>
imagined evils; and these facts will astonish
many at the South, so long accustomed to hear it
affirmed that slavery had produced these evils,
and while they were without the means of knowing,
of course they feared that it was so.</p>
        <p>That everything may appear, however, which
will throw additional light on the subject, I will
state that Massachusetts, which is the <hi rend="italics">richest</hi> non-slaveholding
State, could divide with each of her
citizens five hundred and forty-eight dollars.
But on the other hand, South Carolina could
divide one thousand and one dollars, Louisiana
eight hundred and six dollars, Mississippi seven
hundred and two dollars, and Georgia six hundred
and thirty-eight dollars, with their citizens.</p>
        <p>Rhode Island, which is the next <hi rend="italics">richest</hi> non-slaveholding
State to that of Massachusetts, could
divide with her citizens five hundred and twenty-six
dollars; one other non-slaveholding State
(Connecticut) could divide with her citizens three
hundred and twenty-one dollars. After this, the
next <hi rend="italics">highest</hi> non-slaveholding State could divide
two hundred and eighty; the next highest two
hundred and thirty-one; the next highest two
hundred and twenty-eight; the next highest two
hundred and nineteen; the next highest two hundred
and fourteen dollars. After this, the division
ranges, among the non-slaveholding States,
from one hundred and sixty-six down to one hundred
and thirty-four dollars—which last sum is
the amount that the so-called rich and prosperous
<pb id="p135" n="135"/>
Illinois could divide with her population.</p>
        <p>In the slaveholding States that are <hi rend="italics">less wealthy</hi>
than South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Georgia, already noticed; Alabama could divide
with her citizens five hundred and eleven dollars;
Maryland four hundred and twenty-three; Virginia
four hundred and three; Kentucky three
hundred and seventy-seven; and North Carolina
three hundred and sixty-seven. All these States
are much <hi rend="italics">richer</hi> than the <hi rend="italics">third richest</hi> non-slaveholding
State of the Union, viz: Connecticut.
After this, Tennessee could divide two hundred
and forty-eight dollars, and Missouri, which is
the poorest of all the slave States, one hundred
and sixty-six dollars.</p>
        <p>We will now give the <hi rend="italics">general average</hi> of
the <hi rend="italics">non-slaveholding States</hi>, (California excepted,
which in 1850 had not had time to exhibit any
fixed character,) and then the <hi rend="italics">general average</hi> of
the <hi rend="italics">slave-holding States</hi> of the <hi rend="italics">whole Union</hi>.</p>
        <p>The population of all the free States is thirteen
million two hundred and fourteen thousand three
hundred and eighty; the free population of all
the slave States is six million three hundred and
twelve thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine.
These thirteen million two hundred and fourteen
thousand three hundred and eighty of freemen
have accumulated an aggregate of property estimated
at three billion one hundred and eighty-six
million six hundred and eighty-three thousand
<pb id="p136" n="136"/>
eight hundred and twenty-four dollars; while
these six million three hundred and twelve thousand
eight hundred and ninety-nine of slaveholders
have accumulated an aggregate of two
billion seven hundred and seventy-five million
one hundred and twenty-one thousand, six hundred
and forty-four dollars' worth of property.</p>
        <p>Here we see that a population of Northern freemen,
one hundred and nine <hi rend="italics">per cent</hi>. greater than
the number of Southern freemen in the slave
States, have accumulated but sixteen <hi rend="italics">per cent.
more</hi> of property.</p>
        <p>In a division of the property accumulated by
all the non-slaveholding States, it will give to
each citizen two hundred and thirty-three dollars;
while all accumulated by the various slave States,
will give to each citizen four hundred and thirty-nine
dollars—nearly double. Were we to give
the slaves an equal share with the whites, in an
average division of aggregate wealth, the slave-holding
States, with their slaves included, would
then be able to give each person two hundred and
ninety-one dollars instead of two hundred and
thirty-three dollars, which is all the free States
have to divide with their people.</p>
        <p>Is it possible, with these facts before us, to
believe that slavery tends to poverty. Such is
the testimony of the census on the relative wealth
of these two sections of our country. It proves
that slavery, as an agricultural investment, is
more profitable than an investment in commerce
and manufactures. The facts which have been
<pb id="p137" n="137"/>
reviewed prove with equal clearness, that where
slavery exists, the white race, and the black, have
prospered more in their religious, social and
moral condition, than either race has prospered,
where slavery has been excluded. We see that
an increased amount of poverty and wretchedness
has to be borne in New England by both
races. Ecclesiastical statistics will show an increased
amount of prosperity in religion that is
overwhelming.</p>
        <p>Such is the prostration of moral restraint at
the North, that, in their cities, standing armies
are necessary to guard the persons and property
of unoffending citizens, and to execute the laws
upon reckless offenders. This state of things is
unknown in the slave States.</p>
        <p>The census shows that slavery has been a blessing
to the white race in these slave States. They
have prospered more in religion, they have more
homes, are wealthier, multiply faster, and live
longer than in New England, and they are exempt
from the curse of organized infidelity and
lawless violence.</p>
        <p>A comparison of the slave's condition at the
South, with that of his own race in freedom at
the South, shows with equal clearness, that slavery,
in these States, has been, and now is, a blessing
to this race of people in all the essentials of
human happiness and comfort. Our slaves all
have homes, are bountifully provided for in health,
cared for and kindly nursed in childhood,
sickness and old age; multiply faster, live longer,
<pb id="p138" n="138"/>
are free from all the corroding ills of poverty and
anxious care, labor moderately, enjoy the blessings
of the gospel, and let alone by wicked men,
are contented and happy.</p>
        <p>Ex-Governor Smith, a few years past, in his message
to the Legislatures of this State, showed,
if I remember correctly, that seven-tenths more
of crime was chargeable to free negroes than to
the whites and slaves. By the census of 1850,
the ratio of whites in the Penitentiary of Virginia,
for ten years, was one to twenty-three
thousand and three, while the ratio for the free
negroes was one to three thousand and one. For
the same length of time, in the Penitentiary of
Massachusetts, the average of whites was one to
seven thousand five hundred and eighty-seven,
instead of one to twenty-three thousand and
three, as in Virginia; and in Massachusetts the
average of free negroes in the Penitentiary, for
this length of time, was one to two hundred and
fifty, instead of one to three thousand and one,
as in Virginia. Here we see that for an average
of ten years, two hundred and fifty free negroes
at the North, commit annually as much crime as
twenty-three thousand and three white persons at
the South; and that two-hundred and fifty free
negroes, in a non-slaveholding State, commit
annually as much crime as three thousand and
one free negroes in a slaveholding State. We
see, also, that seven thousand five hundred and
eighty-seven white persons at the North, commit
annually as much crime as twenty-three thousand
<pb id="p139" n="139"/>
and three white persons commit at the South. In
the cities, criminal degradation at the North is
from three to five times greater with the whites
than at the South, and from ten to ninety-three
times greater with the free negroes at the North,
than with the whites at the South, and about
twelve times greater than with the free negroes
at the South.</p>
        <p>The Federal census, and the State records,
show not very far from this proportion of criminal
degradation, chargeable to this race of people
when invested with <hi rend="italics">the freedom of New England</hi>.
Can we, with these facts before us, think that
freedom to this race, in our country, is a blessing to
them?</p>
        <p>In Africa, the condition of the aborigines in
freedom is now, and ever has been, as much below
that of their enslaved sons in these States, as
the condition of a brute, is beneath that of a
man. Slavery is becoming, to this people, so
manifestly a blessing in our country, that fugitives
from labor are constantly returning to their
masters again, after tasting the blessings, or
rather the awful curse to them, of freedom in
non-slaveholding States; and while I write, those
who are lawfully free in this State, are praying
our Legislature for a law that will allow them to
become slaves.</p>
        <p>But before I dismiss the subject of wealth entirely,
let me remark, that while the census
testifies that an agricultural people, with African
slave-labor, increases wealth faster than free-labor,
<pb id="p140" n="140"/>
employed in agriculture, manufactures and
commerce, yet reason demands that it should be
satisfactorily accounted for. It is well known
that laboring freemen at the North are more
skillful, work longer in a day, labor harder while
at it, live on cheaper food, and less of it, than
laborers at the South.</p>
        <p>How, then, is it to be accounted for that the
aggregate increase of wealth is less with them
than it is with Southern slaveholders? Among
many reasons that might be assigned, I will mention
three. The first is, that half the people
at the North (this is ascertained to be about the
amount) live in villages, towns and cities. The
second reason is, that the cost of living in cities
(as has been ascertained) is about double what it
is in the country—to this <hi rend="italics">cost</hi> we must <hi rend="italics">add</hi>, for
the <hi rend="italics">imprudent</hi> indulgences of <hi rend="italics">pride</hi> and <hi rend="italics">fashion</hi>;
and to <hi rend="italics">this</hi> we must <hi rend="italics">add</hi>, for a thousand <hi rend="italics">indulgencies</hi>,
in violation of <hi rend="italics">moral propriety</hi>, all of
which are almost unknown in country life. The
third reason is to be found in the great amount of
pauperism and crime produced by city life. In
the city of New York, for instance, according to
the American Almanac, there were received in
1847, at the principal alms-houses of <sic corr="the">he</sic> city,
twenty-eight thousand six hundred and ninety-two
persons, and <hi rend="italics">out-door relief</hi> was given <hi rend="italics">from
the public funds</hi> to thirty-four thousand five
hundred and seventy-two more—making in all
seventy-three thousand two hundred and sixty-four
persons, or one out of every five, in the city
<pb id="p141" n="141"/>
of New York, dependent, more or less, on <hi rend="italics">public
charity</hi>. The total cost of this, to the city, was
three hundred and nineteen thousand two hundred
and ninety-three dollars and eighty-eight
cents. In 1849, in the Mayor's message, the
estimate for the same thing is four hundred
thousand dollars. In Massachusetts, according
to the report of the Secretary of State in 1848,
the number of constant and occasional paupers,
in the <hi rend="italics">whole State</hi>, was one to every twenty of
the whole population. The proportion in the
cities, I suppose, would equal New York, which,
as we have seen, is one to five. To this <hi rend="italics">public
burden</hi> in cities we must add an immense <hi rend="italics">unknown
amount</hi> of <hi rend="italics">private charity</hi>, which is not needed in
country life.</p>
        <p><hi rend="italics">Crime</hi> in Northern cities keeps pace with
<hi rend="italics">pauperism</hi>. In <hi rend="italics">Boston</hi>, according to official State
reports a few years past, one person out of every
fourteen males, and one out of every twenty-eight
females, was arraigned for criminal offences.
According to the census of 1850, there were in
the <hi rend="italics">State</hi> of Massachusetts, in a population of
nine hundred and ninety-four thousand five hundred
and fourteen, the number of seven thousand
two hundred and fifty convictions for crime. In
Virginia, the same year, in a population of one
million four hundred and twenty-one thousand
six hundred and sixty-one, there were one hundred
and seven convictions for crime.</p>
        <p>In the <hi rend="italics">State</hi> of New York the proportion of
crime is about the same as in Massachusetts. In
<pb id="p142" n="142"/>
the <hi rend="italics">city</hi> of New York, in 1848 or 1849, there
were sentenced to the <hi rend="italics">State Prison</hi> one hundred
and nineteen men and seventeen women; to the
<hi rend="italics">Penitentiary</hi> seven hundred men and one hundred
and seventy women; to the <hi rend="italics">City Prison</hi> one hundred
and sixty-two men and sixty-seven women—
making a total of one thousand two hundred and
thirty-five criminals. Here is an amount of crime
in a single city, that equals all in the fifteen slave
States together. In the State of New York, according
to the census of 1850, there was, in a
population of three million and ninety-seven thousand
three hundred and four, the number of
ten thousand two hundred and seventy-nine convictions
for crime; while in South Carolina, in
a population of six hundred and sixty-eight
thousand five hundred and seven, (which is considerably
over one-fifth) there were only forty-six
convictions for crime.</p>
        <p>To live in cities filled with such an amount of
poverty and criminal degradation, as the census
discloses, at the North, standing armies of policemen,
firemen, &amp;c., are absolutely necessary to
secure the people against lawless violence. Now
<sic corr="subtract">substract</sic> from the products of labor the <hi rend="italics">cost</hi> of
city life—the cost of vain and criminal indulgencies,
the <hi rend="italics">support of paupers</hi>, and the <hi rend="italics">machinery</hi> to
guard innocence and punish crime—and the
wonder ceases that wealth accumulates slowly—
the wonder is that it accumulates at all. What is
accumulated, must be principally from commerce
and manufactures. The system of abandoning
<pb id="p143" n="143"/>
the country and congregating in cities, tends
directly to concentrate wealth into the hands of a
few, and to diffuse poverty and crime among the
masses of the people.</p>
        <p>The facts of poverty and crime at the North,
which are exhibited by the census, will help to
explain the seeming mystery that the South multiplies
by natural increase faster than the North.
In 1845, according to her statistical report,
Massachusetts had seven-eighths of her marriageable
young women working in factories under male
overseers. The census of 1840 shows that,
with fewer adults, Virginia had one hundred
thousand more children than Massachusetts. In
the census of 1850 the proportion in favor of
Virginia is still greater.</p>
        <p>Pauperism, in Massachusetts and New York,
according to the State census, increased between
1836 and 1848 ten times faster than wealth or
population.</p>
        <p>In the slaveholding States there is less than a
tenth of the people in cities—pauperism is almost
unknown—the people are on farms—the style of
living is less costly by half, but greatly superior
in quality and comfort—according to the census,
there is but little crime—almost all have homes—the amount of agricultural labor does not fluctuate—the farms are not cultivated by the spade
and hoe, but are large enough to justify a system
of enlarged agricultural operations by the aid of
horse power. The result is that more is saved,
and the proceeds more equally distributed, between
<pb id="p144" n="144"/>
capital and labor, or the rich and the
poor.</p>
        <p>The South did not seek or desire the responsibility,
and the onerous burden, of civilizing and
christianizing these degraded savages; but God,
in his mysterious providence, brought it about.
He allowed England, and her Puritan sons at the
North, from the love of gain, to become the
willing instruments, to force African slaves upon
the Cavaliers of the South. These Cavaliers
were a noble race of men. They remonstrated
against this outrage to the last. They preferred
indented labor from the mother country, which
they were securing as they needed it. A descendant
of theirs, in drafting the Declaration of
Independence, made this outrage one of the
prominent causes for dissolving all political connection
with the mother country. But God intended
(as we now see) to bless these savages, by
forcing us against our wills, to become their
masters and guardians; and he has abundantly
blessed us, also, (as we now see) for allowing his
word to be our counsellor in this relation. We
were forced by his word to admit the relation to
be lawful, and he enabled us to admit and feel
the great responsibility devolved upon us as their
divinely appointed protectors.</p>
        <p>The North, after pocketing the price of these
savages, refused to bear any part of the burden of
training and elevating them; and finally, with
France and England, turned them loose by emancipation,
and ignored the Word of God in justification
<pb id="p145" n="145"/>
of the deed, by declaring that to hold
them in slavery was sinful. The result is, that
the portion they held of this degraded race, is
immersed in poverty, wretchedness and crime,
without a parallel in civilized communities, and
are less in number now, than the original importations
from Africa, (so says the Superintendent
of the census;) while the portion held by us is in
high comfort, regularly improving in morals and
intellect, and multiplying more rapidly than the
white race at the North. It does seem, from the
facts of the census, that this (so-called) philanthropy
has been a curse to <hi rend="italics">both races, at the
North, and in the West Indies</hi>, and that it is displeasing
in the sight of God. The census exhibits
unmistakable evidence that, without a
change, the emancipated portion of the race, <hi rend="italics">in
these localities</hi>, will ultimately perish, and that
this catastrophe is to be hastened by poverty and
criminal degradation.  The census shows that
those who are <hi rend="italics">responsible</hi> for this deed are subjected
<hi rend="italics">in our country</hi>, by annual <hi rend="italics">births</hi> and <hi rend="italics">deaths</hi>,
to a <hi rend="italics">decrease</hi> of sixty per cent., and to a much
<hi rend="italics">heavier per cent</hi>. than this, <hi rend="italics">of poverty and crime</hi>.</p>
        <p>But while these are the results to both races at
the North, prosperity, unequaled in the annals
of the world, has attended us (as the census
shows) in almost everything we have put our
hands to, both for this life and that which is to
come. The <hi rend="italics">satisfaction</hi> is ours, also, of <hi rend="italics">knowing</hi>
that these degraded outcasts, which were thrown
upon our hands, have not only been <hi rend="italics">cared for</hi>,
<pb id="p146" n="146"/>
but <hi rend="italics">elevated in the scale of being</hi>, and brought to
share largely in the blessings of intellectual,
social and religious culture.</p>
        <p>But for their <hi rend="italics">enslaved condition</hi> here,
they would have remained until this hour in their
<hi rend="italics">original degradation</hi>.</p>
        <p><hi rend="italics">In view of all the facts compared</hi>, I would ask
all who feel interested in the great question now
agitating our country, to let these facts be their
guide and counsellor in deciding the issue. Are
the people of the North warranted from these
facts, in believing they would honor God and
benefit men by overthrowing the institution of
slavery, if they could.</p>
        <p>These facts testify plainly, that where African
slavery has existed in our country for more than
two hundred years, the social and religious condition
of men has improved more rapidly than it
has under the best arrangements of exclusive
freedom.</p>
        <p>These facts show that, with the advantages of
the best location and climate upon the globe,
and a high degree of moral, religious and social
intelligence to commence with, those communities
at the North who excluded this element from their
organizations, are actually behind slaveholding
communities, in religion, in wealth, in the increase
of their race, and in the comforts of their
condition. If this be so, (and the census testifies
that it is,) what will justify the North in efforts to
involve both sections of our country in civil
war and disunion, because slavery exists in one
<pb id="p147" n="147"/>
section of it? And if the institution of African
slavery has certainly improved the condition of
both races in our country, (and the census testifies
that it has,) why should they hazard all the
blessings vouchsafed to the North and the South
sooner than suffer its expansion over new
territory?</p>
        <p>The expansion of African slavery (according to
the test by which we are now trying it) has
never yet done injury in this Union. In Texas
slaveholders were called to organize a State, (not
in this Union at the time,) which in 1850 had a
population of two hundred and twelve thousand
five hundred and ninety-two. The individuals
composing it originally, were the most lawless set
of adventurers that ever lived. Did slavery disqualify
slaveholders from organizing a social
body, even out of these <sic corr="materials">materiels</sic>, that could
secure the highest results in human progress?
What is now the social, moral and religious complexion
of Texas? In the essentials of prosperity
it is ahead, under equal circumstances, of any
portion of the Union. Slaveholders, in the providence
of God, had to organize States on the
Gulf of Mexico, and on the banks of the Mississippi,
after the acquisition of Louisiana from
France, and Florida from Spain. The original
materials (numbering upwards of seventy thousand)
of which these States were composed, had
been trained under the most pernicious system of
morals that ever existed among a civilized people.
The result in this case, also, will testify that
<pb id="p148" n="148"/>
slavery does not paralyze communities in the
accumulation of wealth, or in the correction of
moral, social and religious evils. The census
shows that in all these items these new slave
States which have been added to our Union, have
greatly outstripped their non-slaveholding equals
in age. The temples of the Lord are now seen
studding these slaveholding localities over, and
are vocal with his praise—the moral majesty of
the law is a paramount power.  The amount of
paupers and criminals, in some of them, is less
than one-seventieth part that is chargeable to
some of their twin sisters of equal age, (who are free<ref id="ref4" n="4" rend="sc" target="note4" targOrder="U">∗</ref>)
<note id="note4" n="4" rend="sc" place="foot" anchored="yes" target="ref4"><p>∗ Texas and Michigan; see also, Arkansas and Indiana, Florida and Wisconsin.</p></note>
nurseries of literature and science are
multiplying rapidly, and promising the highest
results—prosperity, in these slaveholding communities,
is crowning the efforts of good men to
arrest vice, to promote virtue, to diminish want,
to create plenty, and to arrange the elements of
progress for the highest social, moral and religious
results.</p>
        <p>There is another historical fact which deserves
to be weighed, in making up a judgment on the
expansion of slavery. Within the present century,
the colonies of Mexico and South America,
in imitation of our example, threw off the
colonial yoke, and established independent governments.
All of these States, except one, preferred
the non-slave-holding model, and <hi rend="italics">excluded</hi>
the element of <hi rend="italics">slavery:</hi> that one, which is Brazil,
<pb id="p149" n="149"/>
preferred the model adopted by the Southern
States of this Union, and <hi rend="italics">retained</hi> African <hi rend="italics">slavery</hi>.</p>
        <p>All of those States, which <hi rend="italics">excluded slavery</hi>,
have been visited, in rapid succession, with <hi rend="italics">insurrection,
revolution, and fearful anarchy</hi>, while
Brazil has enjoyed tranquility, from the commencement
of her independent political existence
until the present hour. This remarkable fact
has occurred, too, in a State where the slaves are
two to one of the other race. The slaves in the
United States are one to two of the other race.
Is not this fact, like all those examined, <hi rend="italics">God's
providential voice?</hi> and does he not, in these facts,
speak a language that we can <hi rend="italics">read and understand?</hi></p>
        <p>Now, shall we, in view of these facts, rebel
against the teachings of His providence, as it is
now made known to us in the census, and claim
for ourselves more wisdom than he has displayed
in <hi rend="italics">allowing such results</hi> to be the product of <hi rend="italics">slaveholding
communities?</hi></p>
        <p>We cannot put an end to African slavery, if we
would—and we ought not, if we could—until God
opens a door to <hi rend="italics">make its termination a blessing
and not a curse</hi>. When He does that, slavery in
this Union will end.</p>
        <closer><salute>With Christian affection, yours,</salute>
<signed>THORNTON STRINGFELLOW.</signed></closer>
      </div1>
    </body>
    <back>
      <div1 type="advertisements">
        <pb id="p150" n="150"/>
        <list type="simple">
          <head>BOOKS<lb/>
PUBLISHED BY<lb/>
J. W. RANDOLPH,<lb/>
RICHMOND, VA.</head>
          <item>QUARTERLY LAW JOURNAL,<lb/>
Edited by A. B. Guigon, 8vo paper, per year, . . . . . $5 00</item>
          <item>
WYTHE'S VIRGINIA REPORTS,<lb/>
New and only complete edition, edited by Minor and Green, 8vo sheep, . . . . . 4 00</item>
          <item>
JEFFERSON'S VIRGINIA REPORTS,<lb/>
8vo 1/2 calf, . . . . . 2 00</item>
          <item>
HENING &amp; MUNFORD'S VIRGINIA REPORTS,<lb/>
New edition, with notes and biography of the Judges, edited by Minor,
4 volumes, 8vo sheep, . . . . . 20 00</item>
          <item>
MUNFORD'S VIRGINIA REPORTS,<lb/>
6 volumes, 8vo sheep, . . . . . 30 00</item>
          <item>
RANDOLPH'S VIRGINIA REPORTS,<lb/>
6 volumes, 8vo sheep, . . . . . 24 00</item>
          <item>
VIRGINIA LAWS ON CORPORATIONS,<lb/>
8vo paper, . . . . . 50</item>
          <item>
HALL'S DIGESTED INDEX TO THE VIRGINIA REPORTS,<lb/>
2 volumes, 8vo sheep, . . . . . 3 00</item>
          <item>
VIRGINIA CASES, CRIMINAL, &amp;c.,<lb/>
By Brokenbrough &amp; Holmes, new edition, with notes, 2 volumes in 1, 8vo sheep, . . . . . 6 00</item>
          <item>
MATHEW'S DIGEST OF THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA,<lb/>
volume 1 (volume 2 now printing) 8vo sheep, . . . . . 6 00</item>
          <item>
MATHEW'S GUIDE TO COMMISSIONERS IN CHANCERY,
with practical forms, 8vo Sheep, . . . . . 2 50</item>
          <item>
MAYO'S GUIDE TO MAGISTRATES, CONSTABLES, &amp;c.,
with practical forms, 8vo sheep, . . . . . 3 00</item>
        </list>
      </div1>
      <div1 type="advertisements">
        <pb id="p151" n="151"/>
        <list type="simple">
          <head>BOOKS<lb/>
PUBLISHED BY<lb/>
J. W. RANDOLPH,<lb/>
RICHMOND, VA.</head>
          <item>DOVE'S MASONIC TEXT BOOK,<lb/>
New edition, plates, 12mo muslin, . . . . . $1 25</item>
          <item>
DOVE'S VIRGINIA TEXT BOOK OF ROYAL ARCH MASONRY,<lb/>
plates, 12mo muslin, . . . . . 1 25</item>
          <item>
DOVE'S MASONIC CONSTITUTIONS,<lb/>
12mo, muslin, . . . . . 75</item>
          <item>
VIRGINIA STATE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY TRANSACTIONS,<lb/>
to 1853, 8vo paper, . . . . . 50</item>
          <item>
PAJOT'S OBSTETRIC TABLES,<lb/>
Translated and arranged by Crenshaw &amp; McCaw, 4to boards, . . . . . 1 25</item>
          <item>
PHYSICIANS' POCKET TABULATED DIARY,<lb/>
By a physician of Virginia, muslin, . . . . . 50</item>
          <item>
HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA—<lb/>
Jefferson and Cabell Correspondence, 8vo muslin, . . . . . 2 50</item>
          <item>
VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS AND DEBATES, OF 1798—'9,<lb/>
new edition, 8vo 1/2 calf, . . . . . 1 50</item>
          <item>
STATISTICS OF VIRGINIA TO 1850,<lb/>
From official documents, 8vo calf, . . . . . 2 50</item>
          <item>
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION,<lb/>
of 1829—'30, 8vo calf, . . . . . 2 50</item>
          <item>
TUCKER'S LECTURES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,<lb/>
12mo muslin, . . . . . 75</item>
          <item>
TUCKER'S LECTURES ON NATURAL LAW AND GOVERNMENT,<lb/>
12mo muslin, . . . . . 75</item>
          <item>
TRIAL OF T. RITCHIE, JR. FOR KILLING J. H. PLEASANTS,<lb/>
8vo paper, . . . . . 25</item>
        </list>
      </div1>
      <div1 type="advertisement image">
        <p>
          <figure id="ill3" entity="strin150">
            <p>[Advertisement Image]</p>
          </figure>
        </p>
      </div1>
      <div1 type="advertisement image">
        <p>
          <figure id="ill4" entity="strin151">
            <p>[Advertisement Image]</p>
          </figure>
        </p>
      </div1>
    </back>
  </text>
</TEI.2>