authority and with great boldness.[38] _The very nature_ of the request made it obligatory on Philemon. He was sacredly bound, out of regard to the fitness of things, to admit Onesimus to full equality with himself–to treat him as a brother both in the Lord and as having flesh–as a fellow man. Thus were the inalienable rights and birthright privileges of Onesimus, as a member of the human family, defined and protected by apostolic authority.
10. The apostle preferred a request instead of imposing a command, on the ground of CHARITY.[39] He would give Philemon an opportunity of discharging his obligations under the impulse of love. To this impulse, he was confident Philemon would promptly and fully yield. How could he do otherwise? The thing itself was right. The request respecting it came from a benefactor, to whom, under God, he was under the highest obligations.[40] That benefactor, now an old man, and in the hands of persecutors, manifested a deep and tender interest in the matter and had the strongest persuasion that Philemon was more ready to grant than himself to entreat. The result, as he was soon to visit Collosse, and had commissioned Philemon to prepare a lodging for him, must come under the eye of the apostle. The request was so manifestly reasonable and obligatory, that the apostle, after all, described a compliance with it, by the strong word “_obedience_.”[41]
[Footnote 37: Verse 8. To [Greek: anaekon]. See Robinson’s New Testament Lexicon; “_it is fit, proper, becoming, it ought_.” In what sense King James’ translators used the word “convenient” any one may see who will read Rom. i. 28 and Eph. v. 3, 4.]
[Footnote 38: Verse 8.]
[Footnote 39: Verse 9–[Greek: dia taen agapaen]]
[Footnote 40: Verse 19.]
[Footnote 41: Verse 21.]
Now, how must all this have been understood by the church at Colosse? –a church, doubtless, made up of such materials as the church at Corinth, that is, of members chiefly from the humblest walks of life. Many of them had probably felt the degradation and tasted the bitterness of the servile condition. Would they have been likely to interpret the apostle’s letter under the bias of feelings friendly to slavery!–And put the slaveholder’s construction on its contents! Would their past experience or present sufferings–for doubtless some of them were still “under the yoke”–have suggested to their thoughts such glosses as some of our theological professors venture to put upon the words of the apostle! Far otherwise. The Spirit of the Lord was there, and the epistle was read in the light of “_liberty_.” It contained the principles of holy freedom, faithfully and affectionately applied. This must have made it precious in the eyes of such men “of low degree” as were most of the believers, and welcome to a place in the sacred canon. There let it remain as a luminous and powerful defence of the cause of emancipation!
But what saith Professor Stuart? “If any one doubts, let him take the case of Paul’s sending Onesimus back to Philemon, with an apology for his running away, and sending him back to be his servant for life.”[42]
[Footnote 42: See his letter to Dr. Fisk, supra pp. 7, 8]
“Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon.” By what process? Did the apostle, a prisoner at Rome, seize upon the fugitive, and drag him before some heartless and perfidious “Judge,” for authority to send him back to Colosse? Did he hurry his victim away from the presence of the fat and supple magistrate, to be driven under chains and the lash to the field of unrequited toil, whence he had escaped? Had the apostle been like some teachers in the American churches, he might, as a professor of sacred literature in one of our seminaries, or a preacher of the gospel to the rich in some of our cities, have consented thus to subserve the “peculiar” interests of a dear slaveholding brother. But the venerable champion of truth and freedom was himself under bonds in the imperial city, waiting for the crown of martyrdom. He wrote a letter to the church a Colosse, which was accustomed to meet at the house of Philemon, and another letter to that magnanimous disciple, and sent them by the hand of Onesimus. So much for _the way_ in which Onesimus was sent back to his master.
A slave escapes from a patriarch in Georgia, and seeks a refuge in the parish of the Connecticut doctor of Divinity, who once gave public notice that he saw no reason for caring for the servitude of his fellow men.[43] Under his influence, Caesar becomes a Christian convert. Burning with love for the son whom he hath begotten in the gospel, our doctor resolves to send him back to his master. Accordingly, he writes a letter, gives it to Caesar, and bids him return, staff in hand, to the “corner-stone of our republican institutions.” Now, what would my Caesar do, who had ever felt a link of slavery’s chain? As he left his _spiritual father_, should we be surprised to hear him say to himself, What, return of my own accord to the man who, with the hand of a robber, plucked me from my mother’s bosom!–for whom I have been so often drenched in the sweat of unrequited toil!–whose violence so often cut my flesh and scarred my limbs!–who shut out every ray of light from my mind!–who laid claim to those honors to which my Creator and Redeemer only are entitled! And for what am I to return? To be cursed, and smitten, and sold! To be tempted, and torn, and destroyed! I cannot thus throw myself away–thus rush upon my own destruction.
[Footnote 43: “Why should I care?”]
Who ever heard of the voluntary return of a fugitive from American oppression? Do you think that the doctor and his friends could persuade one to carry a letter to the patriarch from whom he had escaped? And must we believe this of Onesimus?
“Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon.” On what occasion?–“If,” writes the apostle, “he hath wronged thee, or oweth the aught, put that on my account.” Alive to the claims of duty, Onesimus would “restore” whatever he “had taken away.” He would honestly pay his debts. This resolution the apostle warmly approved. He was ready, at whatever expense, to help his young disciple in carrying it into full effect. Of this he assured Philemon, in language the most explicit and emphatic. Here we find one reason for the conduct of Paul in sending Onesimus to Philemon.
If a fugitive slave of the Rev. Dr. Smylie, of Mississippi, should return to him with a letter from a doctor of divinity in New York, containing such an assurance, how would the reverend slaveholder dispose of it? What, he exclaims, have we here? “If Cato has not been upright in his pecuniary intercourse with you–if he owes you any thing–put that on my account.” What ignorance of southern institutions! What mockery, to talk of pecuniary intercourse between a slave and his master! _The slave himself, with all he is and has, is an article of merchandise_. What can _he_ owe his master? A rustic may lay a wager with his mule, and give the creature the peck of oats which he has permitted it to win. But who, in sober earnest, would call this a pecuniary transaction?
“TO BE HIS SERVANT FOR LIFE!” From what part of the epistle could the expositor have evolved a thought so soothing to tyrants–so revolting to every man who loves his own nature? From this? “For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldst receive him for ever.” Receive him how? _As a servant_, exclaims our commentator. But what wrote the apostle? “NOT _now as a servant, but above a servant_, a brother beloved, especially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” Who authorized the professor to bereave the word “_not_” of its negative influence? According to Paul, Philemon was to receive Onesimus “_not_ as a servant;”–according to Stuart, he was to receive him “_as a servant_!” If the professor will apply the same rules of exposition to the writings of the abolitionists, all difference between him and them must in his view presently vanish away. The harmonizing process would be equally simple and effectual. He has only to understand them as affirming what they deny, and as denying what they affirm.
Suppose that Professor Stuart had a son residing, at the South. His slave, having stolen money of his master, effected his escape. He fled to Andover, to find a refuge among the “sons of the prophets.” There he finds his way to Professor Stuart’s house, and offers to render any service which the professor, dangerously ill “of a typhus fever,” might require. He is soon found to be a most active, skilful, faithful nurse. He spares no pains, night and day, to make himself useful to the venerable sufferer. He anticipates every want. In the most delicate and tender manner, he tries to sooth every pain. He fastens himself strongly on the heart of the reverend object of his care. Touched with the heavenly spirit, the meek demeanor, the submissive frame, which the sick bed exhibits, Archy becomes a Christian. A new bond now ties him and his convalescent teacher together. As soon as he is able to write, the professor sends Archy with the following letter to the South, to Isaac Stuart, Esq.:–
“MY DEAR SON,–With a hand enfeebled by a distressing and dangerous illness, from which I am slowly recovering, I address you on a subject which lies very near my heart. I have a request to urge, which our mutual relation to each other, and your strong obligations to me, will, I cannot doubt, make you eager fully to grant. I say a request, though the thing I ask is, in its very nature and on the principles of the gospel, obligatory upon you. I might, therefore, boldly demand, what I earnestly entreat. But I know how generous, magnanimous, and Christ-like you are, and how readily you will ‘do even more than I say’–I, your own father, an old man, almost exhausted with multiplied exertions for the benefit of my family and my country and now just rising, emaciated and broken, from the brink of the grave. I write in behalf of Archy, whom I regard with the affection of a father, and whom, indeed, ‘I have forgotten in my sickness.’ Gladly would I have retained him, to be _an Isaac_ to me; for how often did not his soothing voice, and skilful hand, and unwearied attention to my wants remind me of you! But I chose to give you an opportunity of manifesting, voluntarily, the goodness of your heart; as, if I had retained him with me, you might seem to have been forced to grant what you will gratefully bestow. His temporary absence from you may have opened the way for his permanent continuance with you. Not now as a slave. Heaven forbid! But superior to a slave. Superior, did I say? Take him to your bosom, as a beloved brother; for I own him as a son, and regard him as such, in all the relations of life, both as a man and a Christian. ‘Receive him as myself.’ And that nothing may hinder you from complying with my request at once, I hereby promise, without adverting to your many and great obligations to me, to pay you every cent which he took from your drawer. Any preparation which my comfort with you may require, you will make without much delay, when you learn, that I intend, as soon as I shall be able ‘to perform the journey,’ to make you a visit.”
And what if Dr. Baxter, in giving an account of this letter should publicly declare that Professor Stuart, of Andover regarded slaveholding as lawful; for that “he had sent Archy back to his son Isaac, with an apology for his running away” to be held in perpetual slavery? With what propriety might not the professor exclaim: False, every syllable false. I sent him back, NOT TO BE HELD AS A SLAVE, _but recognized as a dear brother, in all respects, under every relation, civil and ecclesiastical_. I bade my son receive _Archy as myself_. If this was not equivalent to a requisition to set him fully and most honorably free, and that, too, on the ground of natural obligation and Christian principle, then I know not how to frame such a requisition.
I am well aware that my supposition is by no means strong enough fully to illustrate the case to which it is applied. Professor Stuart lacks apostolical authority. Isaac Stuart is not a leading member of a church consisting, as the early churches chiefly consisted, of what the world regard as the dregs of society–“the offscouring of all things.” Nor was slavery at Colosse, it seems, supported by such barbarous usages, such horrid laws as disgrace the South.
But it is time to turn to another passage which, in its bearing on the subject in hand, is, in our view, as well as in the view of Dr. Fisk. and Prof. Stuart, in the highest degree authoritative and instructive. “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrines be not blasphemed. 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.” [44]
[Footnote 44: 1 Tim. vi. 1. 2. The following exposition of this passage is from the pen of ELIZUR WRIGHT, JR.:–
“This word [Greek: antilambanesthai] in our humble opinion, has been so unfairly used by the commentators, that we feel constrained to take its part. Our excellent translators, in rendering the clause ‘partakers of the benefit,’ evidently lost sight of the component preposition, which expresses the _opposition of reciprocity_, rather than the _connection of participation_. They have given it exactly the sense of [Greek: metalambanein], (2 Tim. ii. 6.) Had the apostle intended such a sense, he would have used the latter verb, or one of the more common words, [Greek: metochoi, koinonomtes, &c.] (See Heb. iii. 1, and 1 Tim. v. 22, where the latter word is used in the clause, ‘neither be partaker of other men’s sins.’ Had the verb in our text been used, it might have been rendered, ‘neither be the _part-taker_ of other men’s sins.’) The primary sense of [Greek: antilambans] is _to take in return_–_to take instead of, &c._ Hence, in the middle with the genitive, it signifies _assist_, or _do one’s part towards_ the person or thing expressed by that genitive. In this sense only is the word used in the New Testament,–(See Luke i. 54, and Acts, xx. 35.) If this be true, the word [Greek: emsgesai] cannot signify the benefit conferred by the gospel, as our common version would make it, but the _well doing_ of the servants, who should continue to serve their believing masters, while they were no longer under the _yoke_ of compulsion. This word is used elsewhere in the New Testament but once (Acts. iv. 3.) in relation to the ‘_good deed_’ done to the impotent man. The plain import of the clause, unmystified by the commentators, is, that believing masters would not fail to do their part towards, or encourage by suitable returns, the free service of those who had once been under the yoke.”]
1. The apostle addresses himself here to two classes of servants, with instructions to each respectively appropriate. Both the one class and the other, in Professor Stuart’s eye, were slaves. This he assumes, and thus begs the very question in dispute. The term servant is generic, as used by the sacred writers. It comprehends all the various offices which men discharge for the benefit of each other, however honorable, or however menial; from that of an apostle[45] opening the path to heaven, to that of washing “one another’s feet.”[46] A general term it is, comprehending every office which belongs to human relations and Christian character.[47]
[Footnote 45: Cor. iv. 5.]
[Footnote 46: John, xiii, 14.]
[Footnote 47: Mat, xx, 26-28.]
A leading signification gives us the manual laborer, to whom, in the division of labor, muscular exertion was allotted. As in his exertions the bodily powers are especially employed–such powers as belong to man in common with mere animals–his sphere has generally been considered low and humble. And as intellectual power is superior to bodily, the manual laborer has always been exposed in very numerous ways and in various degrees to oppression. Cunning, intrigue, the oily tongue, have, through extended and powerful conspiracies, brought the resources of society under the control of the few, who stood aloof from his homely toil. Hence his dependence upon them. Hence the multiplied injuries which have fallen so heavily upon him. Hence the reduction of his wages from one degree to another, till at length, in the case of millions, fraud and violence strip him of his all, blot his name from the record of _mankind_, and, putting a yoke upon his neck, drive him away to toil among the cattle. _Here you find the slave_. To reduce the servant to his condition, requires abuses altogether monstrous–injuries reaching the very vitals of man–stabs upon the very heart of humanity. Now, what right has Professor Stuart to make the word “_servants_,” comprehending, even as manual laborers, so many and such various meanings, signify “_slaves_,” especially where different classes are concerned? Such a right he could never have derived from humanity, or philosophy, or hermeneutics. It is his by sympathy with the oppressor?
Yes, different classes. This is implied in the term “as many,”[48] which sets apart the class now to be addressed. From these he proceeds to others, who are introduced by a particle,[49] whose natural meaning indicates the presence of another and a different subject.
[Footnote 48: [Greek: Ochli] See Passow’s Schneider.]
[Footnote 49: [Greek: Dd.] See Passow.]
2. The first class are described as “_under the yoke_”–a yoke from which they were, according to the apostle, to make their escape if possible.[50] If not, they must in every way regard the master with respect–bowing to his authority, working his will, subserving his interests so far as might be consistent with Christian character.[51] And this, to prevent blasphemy–to prevent the pagan master from heaping profane reproaches upon the name of God and the doctrines of the gospel. They should beware of rousing his passions, which, as his helpless victims, they might be unable to allay or withstand.
[Footnote 50: See 1 Cor. vii, 21–[Greek: All’ ei kai dunasai eleuphoros genesthai].]
[Footnote 51: See 1 Cor. vii, 23–[Greek: Mae ginesthe doulos anthroton].]
But all the servants whom the apostle addressed were not “_under the yoke_”[52]–an instrument appropriate to cattle and to slaves. These he distinguishes from another class, who instead of a “yoke”–the badge of a slave–had “_believing masters_.” _To have a “believing master,” then, was equivalent to freedom from “the yoke_.” These servants were exhorted not _to despise_ their masters. What need of such an exhortation, if their masters had been slaveholders, holding them as property, wielding them as mere instruments, disposing of them as “articles of merchandise.” But this was not consistent with believing. Faith, “breaking every yoke,” united master and servants in the bonds of brotherhood. Brethren they were, joined in a relation which, excluding the yoke,[53] placed them side by side on the ground of equality, where, each in his appropriate sphere, they might exert themselves freely and usefully, to the mutual benefit of each other. Here, servants might need to be cautioned against getting above their appropriate business, putting on airs, despising their masters, and thus declining or neglecting their service. [54] Instead of this, they should be, as emancipated slaves often have been, [55] models of enterprise, fidelity, activity, and usefulness–especially as their masters were “worthy of their confidence and love,” their helpers in this well-doing.
[Footnote 52: See Lev. xxvi. 13; Isa lviii. 6, 9.]
[Footnote 53: Supra p. 44.]
[Footnote 54: See Mat. vi. 24.]
[Footnote 55: Those, for instance, set free by that “believing master” James G. Birney.]
Such, then, is the relation between those who, in the view of Professor Stuart, were Christian masters and Christian slaves [56]–the relation of “brethren,” which, excluding “the yoke,” and of course conferring freedom, placed them side by side on the common ground of mutual service, both retaining, for convenience sake, the one while giving and the other while receiving employment, the correlative name, _as is usual in such cases_, under which they had been known. Such was the instruction which Timothy was required, as a Christian minister, to give. Was it friendly to slaveholding?
[Footnote 56: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra, p. 7.]
And on what ground, according to the Princeton professor, did these masters and these servants stand in their relation to each other? On that _of a “perfect religious equality.”_[57] In all the relations, duties, and privileges–in all the objects, interests, and prospects, which belong to the province of Christianity, servants were as free as their master. The powers of the one, were allowed as wide a range and as free an exercise, with as warm encouragements, as active aids, and as high results, as the other. Here, the relation of a servant to his master imposed no restrictions, involved no embarrassments, occasioned no injury. All this, clearly and certainly, is implied in “_perfect religious equality_,” which the Princeton professor accords to servants in relation to their master. Might the _master_, then, in order more fully to attain the great ends for which he was created and redeemed, freely exert himself to increase his acquaintance with his own powers, and relations, and resources–with his prospects, opportunities, and advantages? So might his _servants_. Was _he_ at liberty to “study to approve himself to God,” to submit to his will and bow to his authority, as the sole standard of affection and exertion? So were _they_. Was _he_ at liberty to sanctify the Sabbath, and frequent the “solemn assembly?” So were _they_. Was _he_ at liberty so to honor the filial, conjugal, and paternal relations, as to find in them that spring of activity and that source of enjoyment, which they are capable of yielding? So were _they_. In every department of interest and exertion, they might use their capacities, and wield their powers, and improve their opportunities, and employ their resources, as freely as he, in glorifying God, in blessing mankind, and in laying up imperishable treasures for themselves! Give perfect religious equality to the American slave, and the most eager abolitionist must be satisfied. Such equality would, like the breath of the Almighty, dissolve the last link of the chain of servitude. Dare those who, for the benefit of slavery, have given so wide and active a circulation to the Pittsburg pamphlet, make the experiment?
[Footnote 57: Pittsburg Pamphlet, p. 9.]
In the epistle to the Colossians, the following passage deserves earnest attention:–“Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: and whatsoever ye 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 which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.–Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye have a Master in heaven.”[58]
[Footnote 58: Col. iii. 22 to iv. 1.]
Here it is natural to remark–
1. That in maintaining the relation, which mutually united them, both masters and servants were to act in conformity with the principles of the divine government. Whatever _they_ did, servants were to do in hearty obedience to the Lord, by whose authority they were to be controlled and by whose hand they were to be rewarded. To the same Lord, and according to the same law, was the _master_ to hold himself responsible. _Both the one and the other were of course equally at liberty and alike required to study and apply the standard, by which they were to be governed and judged_.
2. The basis of the government under which they thus were placed, was _righteousness_–strict, stern, impartial. Nothing here of bias or antipathy. Birth, wealth, station,–the dust of the balance not so light! Both master and servants were hastening to a tribunal, where nothing of “respect of persons” could be feared or hoped for. There the wrong-doer, whoever he might be, and whether from the top or bottom of society, must be dealt with according to his deservings.
3. Under this government, servants were to be universally and heartily obedient; and both in the presence and absence of the master, faithfully to discharge their obligations. The master on his part, in his relations to the servants, was to make JUSTICE AND EQUALITY the _standard of his conduct_. Under the authority of such instructions, slavery falls discountenanced, condemned, abhorred. It is flagrantly at war with the government of God, consists in “respect of persons” the most shameless and outrageous, treads justice and equality under foot, and in its natural tendency and practical effects is nothing else than a system of wrong-doing. What have _they_ to do with the just and the equal who in their “respect of persons” proceed to such a pitch as to treat one brother as a thing because he is a servant, and place him, without the least regard to his welfare here, or his prospects hereafter, absolutely at the disposal of another brother, under the name of master, in the relation of owner to property? Justice and equality on the one hand, and the chattel principle on the other, are naturally subversive of each other–proof clear and decisive that the correlates, masters and servants, cannot here be rendered slaves and owners, without the grossest absurdity and the greatest violence.
“Servants, be obedient to them that are _your_ masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; 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 unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.”[59]
[Footnote 59: Ephesians, vi. 5-9.]
Without repeating here what has already been offered in exposition of kindred passages, it may be sufficient to say:–
1. That the relation of the servants here addressed, to their master, was adapted to make him the object of their heart-felt attachment. Otherwise they could not have been required to render him an affectionate service.
2. This relation demanded a perfect reciprocity of benefits. It had its soul in _good-will_, mutually cherished and properly expressed. Hence “THE SAME THINGS,” the same in principle, the same in substance, the same in their mutual bearing upon the welfare of the master and the servants, was to be rendered back and forth by the one and the other. It was clearly the relation of mutual service. Do we here find the chattel principle?
3. Of course, the servants might not be slack, time-serving, unfaithful. Of course, the master must “FORBEAR THREATENING.” Slavery without threatening! Impossible. Wherever maintained, it is of necessity a _system of threatening_, injecting into the bosom of the slave such terrors, as never cease for a moment to haunt and torment him. Take from the chattel principle the support, which it derives from “threatening,” and you annihilate it at once and forever.
4. This relation was to be maintained in accordance with the principles of the divine government, where “RESPECT OF PERSONS” could not be admitted. It was, therefore, totally inconsistent with, and submissive of, the chattel principle, which in American slavery is developed in a system of “respect of persons,” equally gross and hurtful. No Abolitionist, however eager and determined in his opposition to slavery, could ask for more than these precepts, once obeyed, would be sure to confer.
“The relation of slavery,” according to Professor Stuart, is recognized in “the precepts of the New Testament,” as one which “may still exist without violating the Christian faith or the church.”[60] Slavery and the chattel principle! So our professor thinks; otherwise his reference has nothing to do with the subject–with the slavery which the abolitionist, whom he derides, stands opposed to. How gross and hurtful is the mistake into which he allows himself to fall. The relation recognized in the precepts of the New Testament had its basis and support in “justice and equality;” the very opposite of the chattel principle; a relation which may exist as long as justice and equality remain, and thus escape the destruction to which, in the view of Professor Stuart, slavery is doomed. The description of Paul obliterates every feature of American slavery, raising the servant to equality with his master, and placing his rights under the protection of justice; yet the eye of Professor Stuart can see nothing in his master and servant but a slave and his owner. With this relation he is so thoroughly possessed, that, like an evil angel, it haunts him even when he enters the temple of justice!
[Footnote 60: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra p. 7.]
“It is remarkable,” saith the Princeton professor, “that there is not even an exhortation” in the writings of the apostles “to masters to liberate their slaves, much less is it urged as an imperative and immediate duty.”[61] It would be remarkable, indeed, if they were chargeable with a defect so great and glaring. And so they have nothing to say upon the subject? _That_ not even the Princeton professor has the assurance to affirm. He admits that KINDNESS, MERCY, AND JUSTICE, were enjoined with a _distinct reference to the government of God_.[62] “Without respect of persons,” they were to be God-like in doing justice. They were to act the part of kind and merciful “brethren.” And whither would this lead them? Could they stop short of restoring to every man his natural, inalienable rights?–of doing what they could to redress the wrongs, sooth the sorrows, improve the character, and raise the condition of the degraded and oppressed? Especially, if oppressed and degraded by any agency of theirs. Could it be kind, merciful, or just to keep the chains of slavery on their helpless, unoffending brother? Would this be to honor the Golden Rule, or obey the second great command of “their Master in Heaven?” Could the apostles have subserved the cause of freedom more directly, intelligibly, and effectually, than _to enjoin the principles, and sentiments, and habits, in which freedom consists–constituting its living root and fruitful germ_!
[Footnote 61: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.]
[Footnote 62: The same, p. 10.]
The Princeton professor himself, in the very paper which the South has so warmly welcomed and so loudly applauded as a scriptural defence of “the peculiar institution,” maintains, that the “GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE GOSPEL _have_ DESTROYED SLAVERY _throughout the greater part of Christendom_”[63]–“THAT CHRISTIANITY HAS ABOLISHED BOTH POLITICAL AND DOMESTIC BONDAGE WHEREVER IT HAS HAD FREE SCOPE–_that it_ ENJOINS _a fair compensation for labor; insists on the mental and intellectual improvement of_ ALL _classes of men; condemns_ ALL _infractions of marital or parental rights; requires, in short, not only that_ FREE SCOPE _should be allowed to human improvement, but that_ ALL SUITABLE MEANS _should be employed for the attainment of that end_.”[64] It is indeed “remarkable,” that while neither Christ nor his apostles ever gave “an exhortation to masters to liberate their slaves,” they enjoined such “general principles as have destroyed domestic slavery throughout the greater part of Christendom;” that while Christianity forbears “to urge” emancipation “as an imperative and immediate duty,” it throws a barrier, heaven high, around every domestic circle; protects all the rights of the husband and the father; gives every laborer a fair compensation; and makes the moral and intellectual improvement of all classes, with free scope and all suitable means, the object of its tender solicitude and high authority. This is not only “remarkable,” but inexplicable. Yes and no–hot and cold, in one and the same breath! And yet these things stand prominent in what is reckoned an acute, ingenious, effective defence of slavery!
[Footnote 63: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 18, 19.]
[Footnote 64: The same, p. 31.]
In his letter to the Corinthian church, the apostle Paul furnishes another lesson of instruction, expressive of his views and feelings on the subject of slavery. “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.” [65]
[Footnote 65: 1 Cor. vii. 20-23.]
In explaining and applying this passage, it is proper to suggest:
1. That it _could_ not have been the object of the apostle to bind the Corinthian converts to the stations and employments in which the gospel found them. For he exhorts some of them to escape, if possible, from their present condition. In the servile state, “under the yoke,” they ought not to remain unless impelled by stern necessity. “If thou canst be free, use it rather.” If they ought to prefer freedom to bondage and to exert themselves to escape from the latter for the sake of the former, could their master consistently with the claims and spirit of the gospel have hindered or discouraged them in so doing? Their “brother” could _he_ be, who kept “the yoke” upon their neck, which the apostle would have them shake off if possible? And had such masters been members of the Corinthian church, what inferences must they have drawn from this exhortation to their servants? That the apostle regarded slavery as a Christian institution?–or could look complacently on any efforts to introduce or maintain it in the church? Could they have expected less from him than a stern rebuke, if they refused to exert themselves in the cause of freedom?
2. But while they were to use their freedom, if they could obtain it, they should not, even on such a subject, give themselves up to ceaseless anxiety. “The Lord was no respecter of persons.” They need not fear, that the “low estate,” to which they had been wickedly reduced, would prevent them from enjoying the gifts of his hand or the light of his countenance. _He_ would respect their rights, sooth their sorrows, and pour upon their hearts, and cherish there, the spirit of liberty. “For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman.” In _him_, therefore, should they cheerfully confide.
3. The apostle, however, forbids them so to acquiesce in the servile relation, as to act inconsistently with their Christian obligations. To their Savior they belonged. By his blood they had been purchased. It should be their great object, therefore, to render _Him_ a hearty and effective service. They should permit no man, whoever he might be, to thrust in himself between them and their Redeemer. “_Ye are bought with a price_; BE NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN.”
With his eye upon the passage just quoted and explained, the Princeton professor asserts that “Paul represents this relation”–the relation of slavery–“as of comparatively little account.”[66] And this he applies–otherwise it is nothing to his purpose–to _American_ slavery. Does he then regard it as a small matter, a mere trifle, to be thrown under the slave-laws of this republic, grimly and fiercely excluding their victim from almost every means of improvement, and field of usefulness, and source of comfort; and making him, body and substance, with his wife and babes, “the servant of men?” Could such a relation be acquiesced in consistently with the instructions of the apostle?
[Footnote 66: Pittsburg pamphlet, p.10.]
To the Princeton professor we commend a practical trial of the bearing of the passage in hand upon American slavery. His regard for the unity and prosperity of the ecclesiastical organizations, which in various forms and under different names, unite the southern with the northern churches, will make the experiment grateful to his feelings. Let him, then, as soon as his convenience will permit, proceed to Georgia. No religious teacher [67] from any free State, can be likely to receive so general and so warm a welcome there. To allay the heat, which the doctrines and movements of the abolitionists have occasioned in the southern mind, let him with as much despatch as possible, collect, as he goes from place to place, masters and their slaves. Now let all men, whom it may concern, see and own that slavery is a Christian institution! With his Bible in his hand and his eye upon the passage in question, he addresses himself to the task of instructing the slaves around him. Let not your hearts, my brethren, be overcharged with sorrow, or eaten up with anxiety. Your servile condition cannot deprive you of the fatherly regards of Him “who is no respecter of persons.” Freedom you ought, indeed, to prefer. If you can escape from “the yoke,” throw it off. In the mean time rejoice that “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;” that the gospel places slaves “on a perfect religious equality” with their master; so that every Christian is “the Lord’s freeman.” And, for your encouragement, remember that “Christianity has abolished both political and domestic servitude wherever it has had free scope. It enjoins a fair compensation for labor; it insists on the moral and intellectual improvement of all classes of men; it condemns all infractions of marital or parental rights; in short it requires not only that free scope be allowed to human improvement, but that all suitable means should be employed for the attainment of that end.” [68] Let your lives, then, be honorable to your relations to your Savior. He bought you with his own blood; and is entitled to your warmest love and most effective service. “Be not ye the servants of men.” Let no human arrangements prevent you, as citizens of the kingdom of heaven, from making the most of your powers and opportunities. Would such an effort, generally and heartily made, allay excitement at the South, and quench the flames of discord, every day rising higher and waxing hotter, in almost every part of the republic, and cement “the Union?”
[Footnote 67: Rev. Mr. Savage, of Utica, New York, had, not very long ago, a free conversation with a gentleman of high standing in the literary and religious world from a slaveholding State, where the “peculiar institution” is cherished with great warmth and maintained with iron rigor. By him, Mr. Savage was assured, that the Princeton professor had, through the Pittsburg pamphlet, contributed most powerfully and effectually to bring the “whole South” under the persuasion, _that slaveholding is in itself right_–a system _to which the Bible gives countenance and support_.
In an extract from an article in the Southern Christian Sentinel, a new Presbyterian paper established in Charleston, South Carolina, and inserted in the Christian Journal for March 21, 1839, we find the following paragraphs from the pen of Rev. C.W. Howard, and, according to Mr. Chester, ably and freely endorsed by the editor. “There is scarcely any diversity of sentiment at the North upon this subject. The great mass of the people, believing slavery to be sinful, are clearly of the opinion that, as a system, it should be abolished throughout this land and throughout the world. They differ as to the time and mode of abolition. The abolitionists consistently argue, that whatever is sinful should be instantly abandoned. The others, _by a strange sort of reasoning for Christian men_, contend that though slavery is sinful, _yet it may be allowed to exist until it shall he expedient to abolish it_; or, if, in many cases, this reasoning might be translated into plain English, the sense would be, both in Church and State, _slavery, though sinful, may be allowed to exist until our interest will suffer us to say that it must be abolished_. This is not slander; it is simply a plain way of stating a plain truth. It does seem the evident duty of every man to become an abolitionist, who believes slavery to be sinful, for the Bible allows no tampering with sin.
“To these remarks, there are some noble exceptions, to be found in both parties in the church. _The South owes a debt of gratitude to the Biblical Repertory, for the fearless argument in behalf of the position, that slavery is not forbidden by the Bible_. The writer of that article is said, without contradiction, to be _Professor Hodge, of Princeton_–HIS NAME OUGHT TO BE KNOWN AND REVERED AMONG YOU, _my brethren, for in a land of anti-slavery men, he is the_ ONLY ONE _who has dared to vindicate your character from the serious charge of living in the habitual transgression of God’s holy law_.”]
[Footnote 68: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 31.]
“It is,” affirms the Princeton professor, “on all hands acknowledged, that, at the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, slavery in its worst forms prevailed over the whole world. _The Savior found it around him_ IN JUDEA.”[69] To say that he found it _in Judea_, is to speak ambiguously. Many things were to be found “_in_ Judea,” which neither belonged to, nor were characteristic of _the Jews_. It is not denied that _the Gentiles_, who resided among them, might have had slaves; _but of the Jews this is denied_. How could the professor take that as granted, the proof of which entered vitally into the argument and was essential to the soundness of the conclusions to which he would conduct us? How could he take advantage of an ambiguous expression to conduct his confiding readers on to a position which, if his own eyes were open, he must have known they could not hold in the light of open day!
[Footnote 69: The same, p. 9]
We do not charge the Savior with any want of wisdom, goodness, or courage,[70] for refusing to “break down the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles” “before the time appointed.” While this barrier stood, he could not, consistently with the plan of redemption, impart instruction freely to the Gentiles. To some extent, and on extraordinary occasions, he might have done so. But his business then was with “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” [71] The propriety of this arrangement is not the matter of dispute between the Princeton professor and ourselves.
[Footnote 70: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 10.]
[Footnote 71: Matt. xv. 24.]
In disposing of the question whether the Jews held slaves during our Savior’s incarnation among them, the following points deserve earnest attention:–
1. Slaveholding is inconsistent with the Mosaic economy. For the proof of this, we would refer our readers, among other arguments more or less appropriate and powerful, to the tract already alluded to.[72] In all the external relations and visible arrangements of life, the Jews, during our Savior’s ministry among them, seem to have been scrupulously observant of the institutions and usages of the “Old Dispensation.” They stood far aloof from whatever was characteristic of Samaritans and Gentiles. From idolatry and slaveholding–those twin-vices which had always so greatly prevailed among the heathen–they seem at length, as the result of a most painful discipline, to have been effectually divorced.
[Footnote 72: “The Bible against Slavery.”]
2. While, therefore, John the Baptist; with marked fidelity and great power, acted among the Jews the part of a _reprover_, he found no occasion to repeat and apply the language of his predecessors,[73] in exposing and rebuking idolatry and slaveholding. Could he, the greatest of the prophets, have been less effectually aroused by the presence of “the yoke,” than was Isaiah?–or less intrepid and decisive in exposing and denouncing the sin of oppression under its most hateful and injurious forms?
[Footnote 73: Psalm lxxxii; Isa. lviii. 1-12 Jer. xxii. 13-16.]
3. The Savior was not backward in applying his own principles plainly and pointedly to such forms of oppression as appeared among the Jews. These principles, whenever they have been freely acted on, the Princeton professor admits, have abolished domestic bondage. Had this prevailed within the sphere of our Savior’s ministry, he could not, consistently with his general character, have failed to expose and condemn it. The oppression of the people by lordly ecclesiastics, of parents by their selfish children, of widows by their ghostly counsellors, drew from his lips scorching rebukes and terrible denunciations.[74] How, then, must he have felt and spoke in the presence of such tyranny, if _such tyranny had been within his official sphere_, as should _have made widows_, by driving their husbands to some flesh-market, and their children not orphans, _but cattle_?
[Footnote 74: Matt. xxiii; Mark, vii. 1-13.]
4. Domestic slavery was manifestly inconsistent with the _industry_, which, _in the form of manual labor_, so generally prevailed among the Jews. In one connection, in the Acts of the Apostles, we are informed, that, coming from Athens to Corinth, Paul “found a certain Jew, named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome;) and came unto them. And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them and wrought: (for by their occupation they were tent-makers.”)[75] This passage has opened the way for different commentators to refer us to the public sentiment and general practice of the Jews respecting useful industry and manual labor. According to _Lightfoot_, “it was their custom to bring up their children to some trade, yea, though they gave them learning or estates.” According to Rabbi Judah, “He that teaches not his son a trade, is as if he taught him to be a thief.”[76] It was, _Kuinoel_ affirms, customary even for Jewish teachers to unite labor (opificium) with the study of the law. This he confirms by the highest Rabbinical authority.[77] _Heinrichs_ quotes a Rabbi as teaching, that no man should by any means neglect to train his son to honest industry.[78] Accordingly, the apostle Paul, though brought up at the “feet of Gamaliel,” the distinguished disciple of a most illustrious teacher, practised the art of tent-making. His own hands ministered to his necessities; and his example is so doing, he commends to his Gentile brethren for their imitation.[79] That Zebedee, the father of John the Evangelist, had wealth, various hints in the New Testament render probable.[80] Yet how do we find him and his sons, while prosecuting their appropriate business? In the midst of the hired servants, “in the ship mending their nets.”[81]
[Footnote 75: Acts, xviii. 1-3.]
[Footnote 76: Henry on Acts, xviii. 1-3.]
[Footnote 77: Kuinoel on Acts.]
[Footnote 78: Heinrichs on Acts.]
[Footnote 79: Acts, xx. 34, 35; 1 Thess. iv. 11.]
[Footnote 80: See Kuinoel’s Prolegom. to the Gospel of John.]
[Footnote 81: Mark, i. 19, 20.]
Slavery among a people who, from the highest to the lowest, were used to manual labor! What occasion for slavery there? And how could it be maintained? No place can be found for slavery among a people generally inured to useful industry. With such, especially if men of learning, wealth, and station, “labor, working with their hands,” such labor must be honorable. On this subject, let Jewish maxims and Jewish habits be adopted at the South, and the “peculiar institution” would vanish like a ghost at daybreak.
5. Another hint, here deserving particular attention, is furnished in the allusions of the New Testament to the lowest casts and most servile employments among the Jews. With profligates, _publicans_ were joined as depraved and contemptible. The outcasts of society were described, not as fit to herd with slaves, but as deserving a place among Samaritans and publicans. They were “_hired servants_,” whom Zebedee employed. In the parable of the prodigal son we have a wealthy Jewish family. Here servants seem to have abounded. The prodigal, bitterly bewailing his wretchedness and folly, described their condition as greatly superior to his own. How happy the change which should place him by their side? His remorse, and shame, and penitence made him willing to embrace the lot of the lowest of them all. But these–what was their condition? They were HIRED SERVANTS. “Make me as one of thy hired servants.” Such he refers to as the lowest menials known in Jewish life.
Lay such hints as have now been suggested together; let it be remembered, that slavery was inconsistent with the Mosaic economy; that John the Baptist in preparing the way for the Messiah makes no reference “to the yoke” which, had it been before him, he would, like Isaiah, have condemned; that the Savior, while he took the part of the poor and sympathized with the oppressed, was evidently spared the pain of witnessing within the sphere of his ministry, the presence, of the chattel principle, that it was the habit of the Jews, whoever they might be, high or low, rich or poor, learned or rude, “to labor, working with their hands;” and that where reference was had to the most menial employments, in families, they were described as carried on by hired servants; and the question of slavery “in Judea,” so far as the seed of Abraham were concerned, is very easily disposed of. With every phase and form of society among them slavery was inconsistent.
The position which, in the article so often referred to in this paper, the Princeton professor takes, is sufficiently remarkable. Northern abolitionists he saw in an earnest struggle with southern slaveholders. The present welfare and future happiness of myriads of the human family were at stake in this contest. In the heat of the battle, he throws himself between the belligerent powers. He gives the abolitionists to understand, that they are quite mistaken in the character of the objections they have set themselves so openly and sternly against. Slaveholding is not, as they suppose, contrary to the law of God. It was witnessed by the Savior “in its worst forms”[82] without extorting from his laps a syllable of rebuke. “The sacred writers did not condemn it.” [83] And why should they? By a definition[84] sufficiently ambiguous and slippery, he undertakes to set forth a form of slavery which he looks upon as consistent with the law of Righteousness. From this definition he infers that the abolitionists are greatly to blame for maintaining that American slavery is inherently and essentially sinful, and for insisting that it ought at once to be abolished. For this labor of love the slaveholding South is warmly grateful and applauds its reverend ally, as if a very Daniel had come as their advocate to judgment.[85]
[Footnote 82: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.]
[Footnote 83: The same, p. 13.]
[Footnote 84: The same, p. 12.]
[Footnote 85: Supra, p. 58.]
A few questions, briefly put, may not here be inappropriate.
1. Was the form of slavery which our professor pronounces innocent _the form_ witnessed by our Savior “in Judea?” That, _he_ will by no means admit. The slavery there was, he affirms, of the “worst” kind. _How then does he account for the alleged silence of the Savior?–a silence covering the essence and the form–the institution and its “worst” abuses_?
2. Is the slaveholding, which, according to the Princeton professor, Christianity justifies, the same as that which the abolitionists so earnestly wish to see abolished? Let us see.
_Christianity in supporting Slavery, _The American system for according to Professor Hodge_, supporting Slavery_,
“Enjoins a fair compensation for Makes compensation labor” impossible by reducing the laborer to a chattel.
“It insists on the moral and It sternly forbids its intellectual improvement of all victim to learn to read classes of men” even the name of his Creator and Redeemer.
“It condemns all infractions of It outlaws the conjugal marital or parental rights.” and parental relations.
“It requires that free scope It forbids any effort, on should be allowed to human the part of myriads of the improvement.” human family, to improve their character,
condition, and prospects.
“It requires that all suitable It inflicts heavy means should be employed to improve penalties for teaching mankind” letters to the poorest of the poor.
“Wherever it has had free scope, Wherever it has free it has abolished domestic bondage.” scope, it perpetuates domestic bondage.
_Now it is slavery according to the American system_ that the abolitionists are set against. _Of the existence of any_ such form of slavery as is consistent with Professor Hodge’s account of the requisitions of Christianity, they know nothing. It has never met their notice, and of course, has never roused their feelings or called forth their exertions. What, then, have _they_ to do with the censures and reproaches which the Princeton professor deals around? Let those who have leisure and good nature protect the man of _straw_ he is so hot against. The abolitionists have other business. It is not the figment of some sickly brain; but that system of oppression which in theory is corrupting, and in practice destroying both Church and State;–it is this that they feel pledged to do battle upon, till by the just judgment of Almighty God it is thrown, dead and damned, into the bottomless abyss.
3. _How can the South feel itself protected by any shield which may be thrown over_ SUCH SLAVERY, _as may be consistent with what the Princeton professor describes as the requisitions of Christianity_? Is _this_ THE _slavery_ which their laws describe, and their hands maintain? “Fair compensation for labor”–“marital and parental rights”–“free scope” and “all suitable means” for the “improvement, moral and intellectual, of all classes of men;”–are these, according to the statutes of the South, among the objects of slaveholding legislation? Every body knows that any such requisitions and American slavery are flatly opposed to and directly subversive of each other. What service, then, has the Princeton professor, with all his ingenuity and all his zeal, rendered the “peculiar institution?” Their gratitude must be of a stamp and complexion quite peculiar, if they can thank him for throwing their “domestic system” under the weight of such Christian requisitions as must at once crush its snaky head “and grind it to powder.”
And what, moreover, is the bearing of the Christian requisitions, which Professor Hodge quotes, upon the definition of slavery which he has elaborated? “All the ideas which necessarily enter into the definition of slavery are, deprivation of personal liberty, obligation of service at the discretion of another, and the transferable character of the authority and claim of service of the master.”[86]
[Footnote 86: Pittsburg pamphlet p. 12.]
_According to Professor Hodge’s _According to Professor Hodge’s account of the definition of Slavery_, requisitions of Christianity_,
The spring of effort in the The laborer must serve at the laborer is a fair compensation. discretion of another.
Free scope must be given for He is deprived of personal his moral and intellectual liberty–the necessary condition, improvement. and living soul of improvement, without which he has no control of either intellect or morals.
His rights as a husband and The authority and claims of the a father are to be protected. master may throw an ocean between him and his family, and separate them from each other’s presence at any moment and forever.
Christianity, then, requires such slavery as Professor Hodge so cunningly defines, to be abolished. It was well provided for the peace of the respective parties, that he placed _his definition_ so far from _the requisitions of Christianity_. Had he brought them into each other’s presence, their natural and invincible antipathy to each other would have broken out into open and exterminating warfare. But why should we delay longer upon an argument which is based on gross and monstrous sophistry? It can mislead only such as _wish_ to be misled. The lovers of sunlight are in little danger of rushing into the professor’s dungeon. Those who, having something to conceal, covet darkness, can find it there, to their heart’s content. The hour cannot be far away, when upright and reflective minds at the South will be astonished at the blindness which could welcome such protection as the Princeton argument offers to the slaveholder.
But _Professor Stuart_ must not be forgotten. In his celebrated letter to Dr. Fisk, he affirms that “_Paul did not expect slavery to be ousted in a day_.”[87] _Did not_ EXPECT! What then! Are the _requisitions_ of Christianity adapted to any EXPECTATIONS which in any quarter and on any ground might have risen to human consciousness? And are we to interpret the _precepts_ of the gospel by the expectations of Paul? The Savior commanded all men every where to repent, and this, though “Paul did not expect” that human wickedness, in its ten thousand forms would in any community “be ousted in a day.” Expectations are one thing; requisitions quite another.
[Footnote 87: Supra, p. 7.]
In the mean time, while expectation waited, Paul, the professor adds, “gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor.” _That_ he did. Of what character were these precepts? Must they not have been in harmony with the Golden Rule? But this, according to Professor Stuart, “decides against the righteousness of slavery” even as a “theory.” Accordingly, Christians were required, _without respect of persons_, to do each other justice–to maintain equality as common ground for all to stand upon–to cherish and express in all their intercourse that tender love and disinterested charity which one _brother_ naturally feels for another. These were the “ad interim precepts.”[88] which cannot fail, if obeyed, to cut up slavery, “root and branch,” at once and forever.
[Footnote 88: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7.]
Professor Stuart comforts us with the assurance that “_Christianity will ultimately certainly destroy slavery_.” Of this _we_ have not the feeblest doubt. But how could _he_ admit a persuasion and utter a prediction so much at war with the doctrine he maintains, that “_slavery may exist without_ VIOLATING THE CHRISTIAN FAITH OR THE CHURCH?”[89] What, Christianity bent on the destruction of an ancient and cherished institution which hurts neither her character nor condition?[90] Why not correct its abuses and purify its spirit; and shedding upon it her own beauty, preserve it, as a living trophy of her reformatory power? Whence the discovery that, in her onward progress, she would trample down and destroy what was no way hurtful to her? This is to be _aggressive_ with a witness. Far be it from the Judge of all the earth to whelm the innocent and guilty in the same destruction! In aid of Professor Stuart, in the rude and scarcely covert attack which he makes upon himself, we maintain that Christianity will certainly destroy slavery on account of its inherent wickedness–its malignant temper–its deadly effects–its constitutional, insolent, and unmitigable opposition to the authority of God and the welfare of man.
[Footnote 89: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7.]
[Footnote 90: Professor Stuart applies here the words, _salva fide et salva ecclesia_.]
“Christianity will _ultimately_ destroy slavery.” “ULTIMATELY!” What meaneth that portentous word? To what limit of remotest time, concealed in the darkness of futurity, may it look? Tell us, O watchman, on the hill of Andover. Almost nineteen centuries have rolled over this world of wrong and outrage–and yet we tremble in the presence of a form of slavery whose breath is poison, whose fang is death! If any one of the incidents of slavery should fall, but for a single day, upon the head of the prophet, who dipped his pen in such cold blood, to write that word “ultimately,” how, under the sufferings of the first tedious hour, would he break out in the lamentable cry, “How _long_, O Lord, HOW LONG!” In the agony of beholding a wife or daughter upon the table of the auctioneer, while every bid fell upon his heart like the groan of despair, small comfort would he find in the dull assurance of some heartless prophet, quite at “ease in Zion,” that “ULTIMATELY _Christianity would destroy slavery_.” As the hammer falls, and the beloved of his soul, all helpless and most wretched, is borne away to the haunts of _legalized_ debauchery, his hearts turns to stone, while the cry dies upon his lips, “_How_ LONG, _O Lord_, HOW LONG!”
“_Ultimately_!” In _what circumstances_ does Professor Stuart assure himself that Christianity will destroy slavery? Are we, as American citizens, under the sceptre of a Nero? When, as integral parts of this republic–as living members of this community, did we forfeit the prerogatives of _freemen_? Have we not the right to speak and act as wielding the powers which the privileges of self-government has put in our possession? And without asking leave of priest or statesman of the North or the South, may we not make the most of the freedom which we enjoy under the guaranty of the ordinances of Heaven and the Constitution of our country! Can we expect to see Christianity on higher vantage-ground than in this country she stands upon? In the midst of a republic based on the principle of the equality of mankind, where every Christian, as vitally connected with the state, freely wields the highest political rights and enjoys the richest political privileges; where the unanimous demand of one-half of the members of the churches would be promptly met in the abolition of slavery, what “_ultimately_” must Christianity here wait for before she crushes the chattel principle beneath her heel? Her triumph over slavery is retarded by nothing but the corruption and defection so widely spread through the “sacramental host” beneath her banners! Let her voice be heard and her energies exerted, and the _ultimately_ of the “dark spirit of slavery” would at once give place to the _immediately_ of the Avenger of the Poor.
No. 12.
THE
ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.
* * * * *
DISUNION.
ADDRESS OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY
AND
F. JACKSON’S LETTER ON THE PRO-SLAVERY CHARACTER OF THE CONSTITUTION
NEW YORK:
AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.
142 NASSAU STREET.
1845.
BOSTON:
PRINTED BY DAVID H. ELA,
NO. 37, CORNHILL.
ADDRESS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY TO Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the U. States.
At the Tenth Anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, held in the city of New-York, May 7th, 1844,–after grave deliberation, and a long and earnest discussion,–it was decided, by a vote of nearly three to one of the members present, that fidelity to the cause of human freedom, hatred of oppression, sympathy for those who are held in chains and slavery in this republic, and allegiance to God, require that the existing national compact should be instantly dissolved; that secession from the government is a religious and political duty; that the motto inscribed on the banner of Freedom should be, NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS; that it is impracticable for tyrants and the enemies of tyranny to coalesce and legislate together for the preservation of human rights, or the promotion of the interests of Liberty; and that revolutionary ground should be occupied by all those who abhor the thought of doing evil that good may come, and who do not mean to compromise the principles of Justice and Humanity.
A decision involving such momentous consequences, so well calculated to startle the public mind, so hostile to the established order of things, demands of us, as the official representatives of the American Society, a statement of the reasons which led to it. This is due not only to the Society, but also to the country and the world.
It is declared by the American people to be a self-evident truth, “that all men are created equal; that they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness.” It is further maintained by them, that “all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed;” that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of human rights, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” These doctrines the patriots of 1776 sealed with their blood. They would not brook even the menace of oppression. They held that there should be no delay in resisting, at whatever cost or peril, the first encroachments of power on their liberties. Appealing to the great Ruler of the universe for the rectitude of their course, they pledged to each other “their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor,” to conquer or perish in their struggle to be free.
For the example which they set to all people subjected to a despotic sway, and the sacrifices which they made, their descendants cherish their memories with gratitude, reverence their virtues, honor their deeds, and glory in their triumphs.
It is not necessary, therefore, for us to prove that a state of slavery is incompatible with the dictates of reason and humanity; or that it is lawful to throw off a government which is at war with the sacred rights of mankind.
We regard this as indeed a solemn crisis, which requires of every man sobriety of thought, prophetic forecast, independent judgment, invincible determination, and a sound heart. A revolutionary step is one that should not be taken hastily, nor followed under the influence of impulsive imitation. To know what spirit they are of–whether they have counted the cost of the warfare–what are the principles they advocate–and how they are to achieve their object–is the first duty of revolutionists.
But, while circumspection and prudence are excellent qualities in every great emergency, they become the allies of tyranny whenever they restrain prompt, bold and decisive action against it.
We charge upon the present national compact, that it was formed at the expense of human liberty, by a profligate surrender of principle, and to this hour is cemented with human blood.
We charge upon the American Constitution, that it contains provisions, and enjoins duties, which make it unlawful for freemen to take the oath of allegiance to it, because they are expressly designed to favor a slaveholding oligarchy, and, consequently, to make one portion of the people a prey to another.
We charge upon the existing national government, that it is an insupportable despotism, wielded by a power which is superior to all legal and constitutional restraints–equally indisposed and unable to protect the lives or liberties of the people–the prop and safeguard of American slavery.
These charges we proceed briefly to establish:
I. It is admitted by all men of intelligence,–or if it be denied in any quarter, the records of our national history settle the question beyond doubt,–that the American Union was effected by a guilty compromise between the free and slaveholding States; in other words, by immolating the colored population on the altar of slavery, by depriving the North of equal rights and privileges, and by incorporating the slave system into the government. In the expressive and pertinent language of scripture, it was “a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell”–null and void before God, from the first hour of its inception–the framers of which were recreant to duty, and the supporters of which are equally guilty.
It was pleaded at the time of the adoption, it is pleaded now, that, without such a compromise there could have been no union; that, without union, the colonies would have become an easy prey to the mother country; and, hence, that it was an act of necessity, deplorable indeed when viewed alone, but absolutely indispensable to the safety of the republic.
To this we reply: The plea is as profligate as the act was tyrannical. It is the jesuitical doctrine, that the end sanctifies the means. It is a confession of sin, but the denial of any guilt in its perpetration. It is at war with the government of God, and subversive of the foundations of morality. It is to make lies our refuge, and under falsehood to hide ourselves, so that we may escape the overflowing scourge. “Therefore, thus saith the Lord God, Judgment will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet; and the bail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.” Moreover, “because ye trust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon; therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant. And he shall break it as the breaking of the potter’s vessel that is broken in pieces; he shall not spare.”
This plea is sufficiently broad to cover all the oppression and villany that the sun has witnessed in his circuit, since God said, “Let there by light.” It assumes that to be practicable, which is impossible, namely, that there can be freedom with slavery, union with injustice, and safety with blood guiltiness. A union of virtue with pollution is the triumph of licentiousness. A partnership between right and wrong, is wholly wrong. A compromise of the principles of Justice, is the deification of crime.
Better that the American Union had never been formed, than that it should have been obtained at such a frightful cost! If they were guilty who fashioned it, but who could not foresee all its frightful consequences, how much more guilty are they, who, in full view of all that has resulted from it, clamor for its perpetuity! If it was sinful at the commencement, to adopt it on the ground of escaping a greater evil, is it not equally sinful to swear to support it for the same reason, or until, in process of time, it be purged from its corruption?
The fact is, the compromise alluded to, instead of effecting a union, rendered it impracticable; unless by the term union we are to understand the absolute reign of the slaveholding power over the whole country, to the prostration of Northern rights. In the just use of words, the American Union is and always has been a sham–an imposture. It is an instrument of oppression unsurpassed in the criminal history of the world. How then can it be innocently sustained? It is not certain, it is not even probable, that if it had not been adopted, the mother country would have reconquered the colonies. The spirit that would have chosen danger in preference to crime,–to perish with justice rather than live with dishonor,–to dare and suffer whatever might betide, rather than sacrifice the rights of one human being,–could never have been subjugated by any mortal power. Surely it is paying a poor tribute to the valor and devotion of our revolutionary fathers in the cause of liberty, to say that, if they had sternly refused to sacrifice their principles, they would have fallen an easy prey to the despotic power of England.
II. The American Constitution is the exponent of the national compact. We affirm that it is an instrument which no man can innocently bind himself to support, because its anti-republican and anti-Christian requirements are explicit and peremptory; at least, so explicit that, in regard to all the clauses pertaining to slavery, they have been uniformly understood and enforced in the same way, by all the courts and by all the people; and so peremptory, that no individual interpretation or authority can set them aside with impunity. It is not a ball of clay, to be moulded into any shape that party contrivance or caprice may choose it to assume. It is not a form of words, to be interpreted in any manner, or to any extent, or for the accomplishment of any purpose, that individuals in office under it may determine. _It means precisely what those who framed and adopted it meant_–NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS, _as a matter of bargain and compromise_. Even if it can be construed to mean something else, without violence to its language, such construction is not to be tolerated _against the wishes of either party_. No just or honest use of it can be made, in opposition to the plain intention of its framers, _except to declare the contract at an end, and to refuse to serve under it_.
To the argument, that the words “slaves” and “slavery” are not to be found in the Constitution, and therefore that it was never intended to give any protection or countenance to the slave system, it is sufficient to reply, that though no such words are contained in that instrument, other words were used, intelligently and specifically, TO MEET THE NECESSITIES OF SLAVERY; and that these were adopted _in good faith, to be observed until a constitutional change could be effected_. On this point, as to the design of certain provisions, no intelligent man can honestly entertain a doubt. If it be objected, that though these provisions were meant to cover slavery, yet, as they can fairly be interpreted to mean something exactly the reverse, it is allowable to give to them such an interpretation, _especially as the cause of freedom will thereby be promoted_–we reply, that this is to advocate fraud and violence toward one of the contracting parties, _whose co-operation was secured only by an express agreement and understanding between them both, in regard to the clauses alluded to_; and that such a construction, if enforced by pains and penalties, would unquestionably lead to a civil war, in which the aggrieved party would justly claim to have been betrayed, and robbed of their constitutional rights.
Again, if it be said, that those clauses, being immoral, are null and void–we reply, it is true they are not to be observed; but it is also true that they are portions of an instrument, the support of which, AS A WHOLE, is required by oath or affirmation; and, therefore, _because they are immoral_, and BECAUSE OF THIS OBLIGATION TO ENFORCE IMMORALITY, no one can innocently swear to support the Constitution.
Again, if it be objected, that the Constitution was formed by the people of the United States, in order to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity: and therefore, it is to be so construed as to harmonize with these objects; we reply, again, that its language is _not to be interpreted in a sense which neither of the contracting parties understood_, and which would frustrate every design of their alliance–to wit, _union at the expense of the colored population of the country_. Moreover, nothing is more certain than that the preamble alluded to never included, in the minds of those who framed it, _those who were then pining in bondage_–for, in that case, a general emancipation of the slaves would have instantly been proclaimed throughout the United States. The words, “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” assuredly meant only the white population. “To promote the general welfare,” referred to their own welfare exclusively. “To establish justice,” was understood to be for their sole benefit as slaveholders, and the guilty abettors of slavery. This is demonstrated by other parts of the same instrument, and by their own practice under it.
We would not detract aught from what is justly their due; but it is as reprehensible to give them credit for _what they did not possess_, as it is to rob them of what is theirs. It is absurd, it is false, it is an insult to the common sense of mankind, to pretend that the Constitution was intended to embrace the entire population of the country under its sheltering wings; or that the parties to it were actuated by a sense of justice and the spirit of impartial liberty; or that it needs no alteration, but only a new interpretation, to make it harmonize with the object aimed at by its adoption. As truly might it be argued, that because it is asserted in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal, and endowed with an inalienable right to liberty, therefore none of its signers were slaveholders, and since its adoption, slavery has been banished from the American soil! The truth is, our fathers were intent on securing liberty _to themselves_, without being very scrupulous as to the means they used to accomplish their purpose. They were not actuated by the spirit of universal philanthropy; and though _in words_ they recognized occasionally the brotherhood of the human race, _in practice_ they continually denied it. They did not blush to enslave a portion of their fellow-men, and to buy and sell them as cattle in the market, while they were fighting against the oppression of the mother country, and boasting of their regard for the rights of man. Why, then, concede to them virtues which they did not posses. _Why cling to the falsehood, that they were not respecters of persons in the formation of the government_?
Alas! that they had no more fear of God, no more regard for man, in their hearts! “The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah [the North and South] is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness; for they say, the Lord hath forsaken the earth, and the Lord seeth not.”
We proceed to a critical examination of the American Constitution, in its relations to slavery.
In ARTICLE 1, Section 9, it is declared–“the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress, prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.”
In this Section, it will be perceived, the phraseology is so guarded as not to imply, _ex necessitate_, any criminal intent or inhuman arrangement; and yet no one has ever had the hardihood or folly to deny, that it was clearly understood by the contracting parties, to mean that there should be no interference with the African slave trade, on the part of the general government, until the year 1808. For twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution, the citizens of the United States were to be encouraged and protected in the prosecution of that infernal traffic–in sacking and burning the hamlets of Africa–in slaughtering multitudes of the inoffensive natives on the soil, kidnapping and enslaving a still greater proportion, crowding them to suffocation in the holds of the slave ships, populating the Atlantic with their dead bodies, and subjecting the wretched survivors to all the horrors of unmitigated bondage! This awful covenant was strictly fulfilled; and though, since its termination, Congress has declared the foreign slave traffic to be piracy, yet all Christendom knows that the American flag, instead of being the terror of the African slavers, has given them the most ample protection.
The manner in which the 9th Section was agreed to, by the national convention that formed the constitution, is thus frankly avowed by the Hon. Luther Martin,[91] who was a prominent member of that body:
“The Eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion of slavery, (!) _were very willing to indulge the Southern States_ at least with a temporary liberty to prosecute the slave trade, provided the Southern States would, in the return, _gratify_ them by laying no restriction on navigation acts; and, after a very little time, the committee, by a great majority, agreed on a report, _by which the general government was to be prohibited from preventing the importation of slaves_ for a limited time; and the restrictive clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted.”
Behold the iniquity of this agreement! How sordid were the motives which led to it! what a profligate disregard of justice and humanity, on the part of those who had solemnly declared the inalienable right of all men to be free and equal, to be a self-evident truth!
It is due to the national convention to say, that this section was not adopted “without considerable opposition.” Alluding to it, Mr. Martin observes–
[Footnote 91: Speech before the Legislature of Maryland in 1787.]
“It was said we had just assumed a place among the independent nations in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great Britain to _enslave us_; that this opposition was grounded upon the preservation of those rights to which God and nature has entitled us, not in _particular_, but in _common with all the rest of mankind_; that we had appealed to the Supreme Being for his assistance, as the God of freedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve the rights which he had thus imparted to his creatures; that now, when we had scarcely risen from our knees, from supplicating his mercy and protection in forming our government over a free people, a government formed pretendedly on the principles of liberty, and for its preservation,–in that government to have a provision, not only of putting out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade, even encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States the power and influence in the Union in proportion as they cruelly and wantonly sported with the rights of their fellow-creatures, ought to be considered as a solemn mockery of, and insult to, that God whose protection we had thus implored, and could not fail to hold us up in detestation, and render us contemptible to every true friend of liberty in the world. It was said that national crimes can only be, and frequently are, punished in this world by _national punishments_, and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national character, sanction, and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of him who is equally the Lord of all, and who views with equal eye the poor _African slave_ and his _American master_![92]
[Footnote 92: How terribly and justly has this guilty nation been scourged, since these words were spoken, on account of slavery and the slave trade! Secret Proceedings, p. 64.]
“It was urged that, by this system, we were giving the general government full and absolute power to regulate commerce, under which general power it would have a right to restrain, or totally prohibit, the slave trade: it must, therefore, appear to the world absurd and disgraceful to the last degree that we should except from the exercise of that power the only branch of commerce which is unjustifiable in its nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind. That, on the contrary, we ought to prohibit expressly, in our Constitution, the further importation of slaves, and to authorize the general government, from time to time, to make such regulations as should be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of slavery, and the emancipation of the slaves already in the States. That slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates to tyranny and oppression. It was further urged that, by this system of government, every State is to be protected both from foreign invasion and from domestic insurrections; and, from this consideration, it was of the utmost importance it should have the power to restrain the importation of slaves, since in proportion as the number of slaves increased in any State, in the same proportion is the State weakened and exposed to foreign invasion and domestic insurrection: and by so much less will it be able to protect itself against either, and therefore by so much, want aid from, and be a burden to, the Union.
“It was further said, that, in this system, as we were giving the general government power, under the idea of national character, or national interest, to regulate even our weights and measures, and have prohibited all possibility of emitting paper money, and passing insolvent laws, &c., it must appear still more extraordinary that we prohibited the government from interfering with the slave trade, than which nothing could more effect our national honor and interest.
“These reasons influenced me, both in the committee and in the convention, most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as it now makes part of the system.”[93]
[Footnote 93: Secret Proceedings, p. 64.]
Happy had it been for this nation, had these solemn considerations been heeded by the framers of the Constitution! But for the sake of securing some local advantages, they choose to do evil that good may come, and to make the end sanctify the means. They were willing to enslave others, that they might secure their own freedom. They did this deed deliberately, with their eyes open, with all the facts and consequences arising therefrom before them, in violation of all their heaven-attested declarations, and in atheistical distrust of the overruling power of God. “The Eastern States were very willing to _indulge_ the Southern States” in the unrestricted prosecution of their piratical traffic, provided in return they could be _gratified_ by no restriction being laid on navigation acts!!–Had there been no other provision of the Constitution justly liable to objection, this one alone rendered the support of that instrument incompatible with the duties which men owe to their Creator, and to each other. It was the poisonous infusion in the cup, which, though constituting but a very slight portion of its contents, perilled the life of every one who partook of it.
If it be asked to what purpose are these animadversions, since the clause alluded to has long since expired by its own limitation–we answer, that, if at any time the foreign slave trade could be _constitutionally_ prosecuted, it may yet be renewed, under the Constitution, at the pleasure of Congress, whose prohibitory statute is liable to be reversed at any moment, in the frenzy of Southern opposition to emancipation. It is ignorantly supposed that the bargain was, that the traffic _should cease_ in 1808; but the only thing secured by it was, the _right_ of Congress (not any obligation) to prohibit it at that period. If, therefore, Congress had not chosen to exercise that right, _the traffic might have been prolonged indefinitely, under the Constitution_. The right to destroy any particular branch of commerce, implies the right to re-establish it. True, there is no probability that the African slave trade will ever again be legalized by the national government; but no credit is due the framers of the Constitution on this ground; for, while they threw around it all the sanction and protection of the national character and power for twenty years, _they set no bounds to its continuance by any positive constitutional prohibition_.
Again, the adoption of such a clause, and the faithful execution of it, prove what was meant by the words of the preamble–“to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”–namely, that the parties to the Constitution regarded only their own rights and interests, and never intended that its language should be so interpreted as to interfere with slavery, or to make it unlawful for one portion of the people to enslave another, _without an express alteration in that instrument, in the manner therein set forth_. While, therefore, the Constitution remains as it was originally adopted, they who swear to support it are bound to comply with all its provisions, as a matter of allegiance. For it avails nothing to say, that some of those provisions are at war with the law of God and the rights of man, and therefore are not obligatory. Whatever may be their character, they are _constitutionally_ obligatory; and whoever feels that he cannot execute them, or swear to execute them, without committing sin, has no other choice left than to withdraw from the government, or to violate his conscience by taking on his lips an impious promise. The object of the Constitution is not to define _what is the law of God_, but WHAT IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE–which will is not to be frustrated by an ingenious moral interpretation, by those whom they have elected to serve them.
ARTICLE 1, Sect. 2, provides–“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, _three-fifths of all other persons_.”
Here, as in the clause we have already examined, veiled beneath a form of words as deceitful as it is unmeaning in a truly democratic government, is a provision for the safety, perpetuity and augmentation of the slaveholding power–a provision scarcely less atrocious than that which related to the African slave trade, and almost as afflictive in its operation–a provision still in force, with no possibility of its alteration, so long as a majority of the slave States choose to maintain their slave system–a provision which, at the present time, enables the South to have twenty-five additional representatives in Congress on the score of _property_, while the North is not allowed to have one–a provision which concedes to the oppressed three-fifths of the political power which is granted to all others, aid then puts this power into the hands of their oppressors, to be wielded by them for the more perfect security of their tyrannous authority, and the complete subjugation of the non-slaveholding States.
Referring to this atrocious bargain, ALEXANDER HAMILTON remarked in the New York Convention–
“The first thing objected to, is that clause which allows a representation for three-fifths of the negroes. Much has been said of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own: whether this is _reasoning_ or _declamation_, (!!) I will not presume to say. It is the _unfortunate_ situation of the Southern States to have a great part of their population, as well as _property_, in blacks. The regulation complained of was one result of _the spirit of accommodation_ which governed the Convention; and without this _indulgence_, NO UNION COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN FORMED. But, sir, considering some _peculiar advantages_ which we derive from them it is entirely JUST that they should be _gratified_–The Southern States possess certain staples,–tobacco, rice, indigo, &c.–which must be _capital_ objects in treaties of commerce with foreign nations; and the advantage which they necessarily procure in these treaties will be felt throughout the United States.”
If such was the patriotism, such the love of liberty, such the morality of ALEXANDER HAMILTON, what can be said of the character of those who were far less conspicuous than himself in securing American independence, and in framing the American Constitution?
Listen, now, to the opinions of JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, respecting the constitutional clause now under consideration:–
“‘In outward show, it is a representation of persons in bondage; in fact, it is a representation of their masters,–the oppressor representing the oppressed.’–‘Is it in the compass of human imagination to devise a more perfect exemplification of the art of committing the lamb to the tender custody of the wolf?’–‘The representative is thus constituted, not the friend, agent and trustee of the person whom he represents, but the most inveterate of his foes.’–‘It was _one_ of the curses from that Pandora’s box, adjusted at the time, as usual, by a _compromise_, the whole advantage of which inured to the benefit of the South, and to aggravate the burdens of the North.’–‘If there be a parallel to it in human history, it can only be that of the Roman Emperors, who, from the days when Julius Caesar substituted a military despotism in the place of a republic, among the offices which they always concentrated upon themselves, was that of tribune of the people. A Roman Emperor tribune of the people, is an exact parallel to that feature in the Constitution of the United States which makes the master the representative of his slave.’–‘The Constitution of the United States expressly prescribes that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States. The spirit of this interdict is not a rooted antipathy to the grant of mere powerless empty _titles_, but to titles of _nobility_; to the institution of privileged orders of men. But what order of men under the most absolute of monarchies, or the most aristocratic of republics, was ever invested with such an odious and unjust privilege as that of the separate and exclusive representation of less than half a million owners of slaves, in the Hall of this House, in the Chair of the Senate, and in the Presidential mansion?’–‘This investment of power in the owners of one species of property concentrated in the highest authorities of the nation, and disseminated through thirteen of the twenty-six States of the Union, constitutes a privileged order of men in the community, more adverse to the rights of all, and more pernicious to the interests of the whole, than any order of nobility ever known. To call government thus constituted a democracy, is to insult the understanding of mankind. To call it an aristocracy, is to do injustice to that form of government. Aristocracy is the government of _the best_. Its standard qualification for accession to power _is merit_, ascertained by popular election recurring at short intervals of time. If even that government is prone to degenerate into tyranny, what must be the character of that form of polity in which the standard qualification for access to power is wealth in the possession of slaves? It is doubly tainted with the infection of riches and of slavery. _There is no name in the language of national jurisprudence that can define it_–no model in the records of ancient history, or in the political theories of Aristotle, with which it can be likened. It was introduced into the Constitution of the United States by an equivocation–a representation of property under the name of persons. Little did the members of the Convention from the free States foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden under the mask of this concession.’–‘The House of Representatives of the United States consists of 223 members–all, by the _letter_ of the Constitution, representatives only of _persons_, as 135 of them really are; but the other 88, equally representing the _persons_ of their constituents, by whom they are elected, also represent, under the name of _other persons_, upwards of two and a half millions of _slaves_, held as the _property_ of less than half a million of the white constituents, and valued at twelve hundred millions of dollars. Each of these 88 members represents in fact the whole of that mass of associated wealth, and the persons and exclusive interests of its owners; all thus knit together, like the members of a moneyed corporation, with a capital not of thirty-five or forty or fifty, but of twelve hundred millions of dollars, exhibiting the most extraordinary exemplification of the anti-republican tendencies of associated wealth that the world ever saw,’–‘Here is one class of men, consisting of not more than one fortieth part of the whole people, not more than one-thirtieth part of the free population, exclusively devoted to their personal interests identified with their own as slaveholders of the same associated wealth, and wielding by their votes, upon every question of government or of public policy, two-fifths of the whole power of the House. In the Senate of the Union, the proportion of the slaveholding power is yet greater. By the influence of slavery, in the States where the institution is tolerated, over their elections, no other than a slaveholder can rise to the distinction of obtaining a seat in the Senate; and thus, of the 52 members of the federal Senate, 26 are owners of slaves, and as effectively representatives of that interest as the 88 members elected by them to the House.’–‘By this process it is that all political power in the States is absorbed and engrossed by the owners of _slaves_, and the overruling policy of the States is shaped to strengthen and consolidate their domination. The legislative, executive, and judicial authorities are all in their hands–the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of the black code of slavery–every law of the legislature becomes a link in the chain of the slave; every executive act a rivet to his hapless fate; every judicial decision a perversion of the human intellect to the justification of _wrong_.–Its reciprocal operation upon the government of the nation is, to establish an artificial majority in the slave representation over that of the free people, in the American Congress, and thereby to make the PRESERVATION, PROPAGATION, AND PERPETUATION OF SLAVERY THE VITAL AND ANIMATING SPIRIT OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.–The result is seen in the fact that, at this day, the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and five out of nine of the Judges of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the United States, are not only citizens of slaveholding States, but individual slaveholders themselves. So are, and constantly have been, with scarcely an exception, all the members of both Houses of Congress from the slaveholding States; and so are, in immensely disproportionate numbers, the commanding officers of the army and navy; the officers of the customs; the registers and receivers of the land offices, and the post-masters throughout the slaveholding States.–The Biennial Register indicates the birth-place of all the officers employed in the government of the Union. If it were required to designate the owners of this species of property among them, it would be little more than a catalogue of slaveholders.'”
It is confessed by Mr. Adams, alluding to the national convention that framed the Constitution, that “the delegation from the free States, in their extreme anxiety to conciliate the ascendency of the Southern slaveholder, did listen to a _compromise between right and wrong_–_between freedom and slavery_; of the ultimate fruits of which they had no conception, but which already even now is urging the Union to its inevitable ruin and dissolution, by a civil, servile, foreign, and Indian war, all combined in one; a war, the essential issue of which will be between freedom and slavery, and in which the unhallowed standard of slavery will be the desecrated banner of the North American Union–that banner, first unfurled to the breeze, inscribed with the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence.”
Hence, to swear to support the Constitution of the United States, _as it is_, is to make “a compromise between right and wrong,” and to wage war against human liberty. It is to recognize and honor as republican legislators, _incorrigible men-stealers_, MERCILESS TYRANTS, BLOOD THIRSTY ASSASSINS, who legislate with deadly weapons about their persons, such as pistols, daggers, and bowie-knives, with which they threaten to murder any Northern senator or representative who shall dare to stain their _honor_, or interfere with their _rights_! They constitute a banditti more fierce and cruel than any whose atrocities are recorded on the pages of history or romance. To mix with them on terms of social or religious fellowship, is to indicate a low state of virtue; but to think of administering a free government by their co-operation, is nothing short of insanity.
Article IV., Section 2, declares,–“No person held to service or labor in one State, _under the laws thereof_, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
Here is a third clause, which, like the other two, makes no mention of slavery or slaves, in express terms; and yet, like them, was intelligently framed and mutually understood by the parties to the ratification, and intended both to protect the slave system and to restore runaway slaves. It alone makes slavery a national institution, a national crime, and all the people who are not enslaved, the body-guard over those whose liberties have been cloven down. This agreement, too, has been fulfilled to the letter by the North.
Under the Mosaic dispensation it was imperatively commanded,–“Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: he shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.” The warning which the prophet Isaiah gave to oppressing Moab was of a similar kind: “Take counsel, execute judgment; make thy shadow as the night in the midst of the noon-day; hide the outcasts; bewray not him that wandereth. Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab; be thou a covert to them from the face of the spoiler.” The prophet Obadiah brings the following charge against treacherous Edom, which is precisely applicable to this guilty nation:–“For thy violence against thy brother Jacob, shame shall come over thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever. In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, _even thou wast as one of them_. But thou shouldst not have looked on the day of thy brother, in the day that he became a stranger; neither shouldst thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah, in the day of their destruction; neither shouldst thou have spoken proudly in the day of distress; neither shouldst thou have _stood in the cross-way, to cut off those of his that did escape_; neither shouldst thou have _delivered up those of his that did remain_, in the day of distress.”
How exactly descriptive of this boasted republic is the impeachment of Edom by the same prophet! “The pride of thy heart hath deceived thee, thou whose habitation is high; that sayeth in thy heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground? Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord.” The emblem of American pride and power is the _eagle_, and on her banner she has mingled _stars_ with its _stripes_. Her vanity, her treachery, her oppression, her self-exaltation, and her defiance of the Almighty, far surpass the madness and wickedness of Edom. What shall be her punishment? Truly, it may be affirmed of the American people, (who live not under the Levitical but Christian code, and whose guilt, therefore, is the more awful, and their condemnation the greater,) in the language of another prophet–“They all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net. That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: _so they wrap it up_.” Likewise of the colored inhabitants of this land it may be said, –“This is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in prison-houses; they are for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore.”
By this stipulation, the Northern States are made the hunting ground of slave-catchers, who may pursue their victims with blood-hounds, and capture them with impunity wherever they can lay their robber hands upon them. At least twelve or fifteen thousand runaway slaves are now in Canada, exiled from their native land, because they could not find, throughout its vast extent, a single road on which they could dwell in safety, _in consequence of this provision of the Constitution_? How is it possible, then, for the advocates of liberty to support a government which gives over to destruction one-sixth part of the whole population?
It is denied by some at the present day, that the clause which has been cited, was intended to apply to runaway slaves. This indicates either ignorance, or folly, or something worse. JAMES MADISON as one of the framers of the Constitution, is of some authority on this point. Alluding to that instrument, in the Virginia convention, he said:–
“Another clause _secures us that property which we now possess_. At present, if any slave elopes to those States where slaves are free, _he becomes emancipated by their laws_; for the laws of the States are _uncharitable_(!) to one another in this respect; but in this constitution, ‘No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered upon claim of the party to whom such service or labor away be due. THIS CLAUSE WAS EXPRESSLY INSERTED TO ENABLE THE OWNERS OF SLAVES TO RECLAIM THEM. _This is a better security than any that now exists_. No power is given to the general government to interfere with respect to the property in slaves now held by the States.”
In the same convention, alluding to the same clause, GOV. RANDOLPH said:–
“Every one knows that slaves are held to service or labor. And, when authority is given to owners of slaves to _vindicate their property_, can it be supposed they can be deprived of it? If a citizen of this State, in consequence of this clause, can take his runaway slave in Maryland, can it be seriously thought that, after taking him and bringing him home, he could be made free?”
It is objected, that slaves are held as property, and therefore, as the clause refers to persons, it cannot mean slaves. But this is criticism against fact. Slaves are recognized not merely as property, but also as persons–as having a mixed character–as combining the human with the brutal. This is paradoxical, we admit; but slavery is a paradox–the American Constitution is a paradox–the American Union is a paradox–the American Government is a paradox; and if any one of these is to be repudiated on that ground, they all are. That it is the duty of the friends of freedom to deny the binding authority of them all, and to secede from them all, we distinctly affirm. After the independence of this country had been achieved, the voice of God exhorted the people, saying, “Execute true judgment, and show mercy and compassion every man to his brother: and oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear; yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone.” “Shall I not visit for these things? saith the Lord. Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?”
Whatever doubt may have rested on any honest mind, respecting the meaning of the clause in relation to persons held to service or labor, must have been removed by the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Prigg versus The State of Pennsylvania. By that decision, any Southern slave-catcher is empowered to seize and convey to the South, without hindrance or molestation on the part of the State, and without any legal process duly obtained and served, any person or persons, irrespective of caste or complexion, whom he may choose to claim as runaway slaves; and if, when thus surprised and attacked, or on their arrival South, they cannot prove by legal witnesses, that they are freemen, their doom is sealed! Hence the free colored population of the North are specially liable to become the victims of this terrible power, and